| Complaint: | Complaint 21-103 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Gurjit Sandhu |
| Premises: | Christown Animal Hospital |
The complainant says she showed up a couple of minutes late for an exam and x-ray for her pregnant dog. She walked through the door and says that Sandhu yelled at her for being late and that he was getting ready to leave; she says that her dog was an established patient and wasn't informed there was a need to check in early. She says the dog was taken by the veterinary assistant and handled somewhat aggressively; she also said that when she went to the exam room, "there was blood on a surgical rack, blood and other bodily fluid on the floor, blood and bodily fluids on the bed, and there were various towels and paper soiled with blood." She also claims Sandhu took notes on the back of a wrapper for surgical gloves. According to her, Sandhu said the dog didn't have puppies; rather, she most likely was suffering from pyometra. He then left the office.
Sandhu says that the complainant suspected her dog was pregnant and they were placed in an exam room. He says that he performed x-rays but could not determine if the dog was pregnant; he allegedly informed the complainant that either the dog was less than 45 days pregnant or could have pyometra. He offered an ultrasound but was told no; he said the complainant was more interested in follow-up x-rays but only if they were free, but they weren't free so she didn't do that either. The original x-rays were submitted to PetRays (you can read about another dog's quality results with PetRays' outsourced remote knowledge worker radiology in 20-05) and Sandhu says they agreed with him. He says that the complainant was 15 minutes late but that he still stayed to honor the appointment; he also says that the claims regarding sanitation and blood are untrue and made up by the complainant. He believes that she filed the complaint because she's angry he couldn't determine if her dog was pregnant.
The Investigative Committee said they couldn't understand why the complainant filed a complaint; they surmise that perhaps her expectations weren't met and was upset that her dog wasn't really pregnant. (The complaint seemed to do more with her claim the exam room was a bloody icky mess. The Committee is also saying the dog wasn't pregnant, but there's nothing in the Findings of Fact that suggest any evidence in that regard one way or the other; even Sandhu said it was inconclusive. Are we missing information?)
A different complainant claims that Sandhu kept her dying dog in unsanitary conditions in 19-83.
| Source: | August 8, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Gurjit Sandhu | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Jane Soloman |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
The primary source for the above summary was obtained as a public record from the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. You are welcome to review the original records and board meeting minutes by clicking the relevant links. While we endeavor to provide an accurate summary of the complaint, response, investigative reports and board actions, we encourage you to review the primary sources and come to your own conclusions. In some cases we have also been able to reach out to individuals with knowledge of specific complaints, and where possible that information will be included here.