The complainant states that her horse died from veterinary negligence; she says that a poor
standard of care was used when performing a dental, leading to a severe deterioration in
health and subsequent euthanasia. We're told that she requested a veterinary visit as the
horse's mouth had a horrible smell coming from it; both Prentice and her assistant are said
to have found the odor none too pleasing as well. The horse's teeth were floated (sanded down)
and extracted a tooth; Prentice allegedly commented that the tooth appeared damaged at the root
area and potentially infected. The socket was filled and capped off to prevent packing with
food. The horse didn't eat well after the procedure and neither did another horse whose teeth
were floated at the same time. He eventually came around but began demonstrating issues with
his neck and head movement, not wanting to move them or lower his head. The next day he began
walking like a drunk and having a scary neck-jerking motion; Prentice come out but the horse
was walking normally. Prentice allegedly said that the horse's new symptoms had nothing to do
with the earlier vet appointment, then found a tooth root in the hole where the tooth used to
be; she also started the horse on antibiotics. The horse started falling over and eventually
could no longer move; Prentice said the issue was neurological and suspected botulism. The
complainant notes that the explanation for botulism simply makes no sense; there was no sign
of how the horse could have been infected and no other horses had a similar problem. Rather,
she believes that the horse succumbed to an infection as antibiotics weren't prescribed
until later; she wonders if the infection started growing inside the capped tooth socket.
She tells us that the horse was very special to her, mentioning how his mother was marked
for slaughter after discharge from a Premarin production facility in Canada but rescued.
She blames herself for not thinking of this before and saving his life.
Prentice tells us that both the horse in question and another were examined and treated
that day; she notes that the complainant is concerned about the one that later died. She
says that she evaluated the horse, found he was healthy enough for sedation and dental
care, and then went to work. She notes that the tooth socket was handled in accordance
with her normal procedures; she also notes that on the recheck there was no evidence of
infection but prescribed antibiotics. (The complainant, on the other hand, seems to
suggest that the notes from the original tooth pull suggested that there could be a risk
of infection.) She also notes that she went back a third time to examine the horse when
he was paralyzed and could no longer walk; she gave the horse a grave prognosis and
euthanized the horse. She regrets that a necropsy wasn't performed but believes botulism
is the most likely diagnosis, but also discussed other possible infections via email.
The Investigative Committee said that the use of antibiotics is up to the treating
veterinarian; they also say that the effectiveness of an antibiotic depends on where the
infection is (inside a tooth or outside a tooth). They also said that they couldn't grasp
why Prentice thought botulism was the most likely diagnosis; much like the complainant,
they note that the horse shared its living area and its food with another horse, but only
one came down with botulism. In the end, they voted to find Prentice in violation, but
not for anything to do with the care of the horse; rather, they found some minor records
violations about how she logged the treatment of the horse. (It's weird as their report
says that "failure to examine the horse prior to surgery" is a "minor records violation."
The Board also found a violation and made Prentice pay them $150.
ARS § 32-2233 (B) (3) Minor records violations that are routine entries into a medical record that do not affect the diagnosis or care of the animal; these included failure to examine the horse prior to surgery (extraction of a tooth); and not documenting in the medical record - the betadine flush, the nerve block, the flagyl placement, and penicillin concentration.
A.R.S. § 32-2233 (B)(3) An administrative violation: Minor records violations that are routine entries into a medical record that do not affect the diagnosis or care of the animal: these included not documenting in the medical record — the betadine flush, the nerve block, the flagyl placement, and penicillin concentration.
Penalties:
Civil penalty ($150)
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.