| Complaint: | Complaint 21-112 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Sherry Wynn |
| Premises: | Veterinary Specialty Center of Tucson |
| Related: | 21-113, 21-114 |
The complaint is rather involved but pertains to serious alleged unethical conduct at the Veterinary Specialty Center of Tucson; the complainant herself refers to it as "one long subterfuge." She says her dog to VSCOT as he had been throwing up and refusing food; she was presented with an estimate for $900 and declined on grounds that she wanted to take the dog to Banfield where she had a plan that would pay for the expenses. The nearest Banfield was full and advised her to take the dog to VSCOT; he was kept there until he died. She relays that only after he died did she get to review the medical records for her dog and has serious concerns about disorganization, obfuscation, poor communication, and lack of empathy shown both toward her and her pet. She believes her dog would have been better off euthanized than kept in the care of VSCOT staff. She begins by stating that the medical records themselves seem to have suffered from a variety of copy-and-paste issues, then goes on to state that much of the information in the records was never relayed to her. She says that information regarding the dog's death is questionable. The records say that the dog was found in his kennel in cardiac and respiratory arrest shortly after a treatment. She relates that her last phone call with Wynn was very evasive and said that the dog was described as though he was still hanging on; she believes this was done to get her to agree to CPR on the dog and spend more money, blaming Wynn for giving her false hope as well as torturing her dog. She also believes VSCOT's entire process is designed to lead owners to spend more money and agree to more testing without any possible idea of what to expect; she believes that VSCOT particularly preys on those who are older, lonely, or particularly attached to their pets, and it is very easy for them to take advantage of such people and their pets. She also includes an addendum pointing out specific concerns in the medical records (reading her addendum alone is strong evidence that nobody was really taking the time to explain much of any of this to her or obtain informed consent). In one part she states the record said the dog was eating and could come home, yet she was never told of this; it was allegedly contradicted in a subsequent entry. She also states that the timeline regarding various events in the dog's medical history is significantly off. We're also told that the clinic called several times but gave up trying to reach her again afer a shift change. There's also a mention that when the dog was admitted the estimate was three times higher than it had been the day before; she was given no explanation as to the change and said she would think about it. She was not told that no treatment would be provided to the dog until she called back, so the dog (unknown to her) was sitting at VSCOT without any care for several hours until VSCOT called her back. She also includes a list of roughly 30 diagnoses (differential diagnoses, I would assume) regarding her dog, and it's truly a sight to behold. In addition to Wynn's conversations with the complainant (in which it is alleged she was portraying a dead dog as alive), she also mentions Krystina Lee as downplaying the severity of the dog's condition and Mary Johnson as concealing a significant decline in her dog's health status. We're also told that many of the medical risks the dog was facing were not relayed to her prior to the dog's death. She also mentions follow-up conversations with Gabe Hernandez with VSCOT's public relations team; she was not impressed.
Wynn says that she arrived at the clinic and took over the dog's care from Johnson. She says that the dog's blood pressure was low and she gave the dog fluids despite already being on dobutamine; she states that she was fine with doing so as there were no signs of fluid overload based on Johnson's notes. The dog was also displaying neurological signs which she felt might be attributable to high sodium, but as VSCOT's in-house lab often reads high (!) she wanted to recheck it. She also started the dog on antibiotics as she felt the dog might be going septic. One of the veterinary technicians was performing a treatment on the dog when the dog apparently stopped breathing and having a heartbeat; as the complainant had approved CPR days ago on initial admission she went ahead with CPR. When she got a chance she called the complainant on the phone; she says the complainant had many questions but that she couldn't answer them all because she was busy taking care of the dog. They continued CPR without response until the complainant arrived (the complainant says the vets portrayed the dog as somewhat alive when she spoke on the phone) and then discontinued it. Wynn tells us that she relayed her possible diagnoses including the recent onset of diabetes, potential Cushing's disease, increased likelihood of clot formation (the complainant noted this and wondered why they seemed so unconcerned prior), a potential blood clot in the lungs, fever, and possible sepsis, as well as the dog having repetitive vocalizations and acting weird suggesting something was wrong in the brain. She notes the complainant wasn't happy at that description. She also says that she told the complainant that they had been treating the dog for diabetic ketosis and many of those dogs recover, hence euthanasia was not considered until the dog got worse. She also says that her comments during the phone call were far from incomprehensible; she was just busy. She also says that the medical records entry saying the dog was eating and ready to go home was added as an accident; that was actually part of the never-used discharge instructions included in the record, and when a pet dies, these are usually deleted from the record (!) but in this case they accidentally snuck through. Wynn also blames the complainant for not calling sooner for an update as she says they had previously tried to get in touch with her four times without success (the complainant says that there appears to have been plenty of time, and that given her rural location, calls often show up later but don't actually go through).
The Investigative Committee found "Wynn's care and treatment of the dog was exceptional" and voted unanimously to dismiss with no violations. Committee veterinarians Robert Kritsberg and Jarrod Butler no doubt wish they could provide this exceptional care to your dog (except that Kritsberg seems to be retired and Butler seems to be working as a toxicologist). Committee veterinarian Christina Tran, going by Tina Tran, is an Associate Professor of Practice and Clinical Relations Lead Veterinarian at the University of Arizona's veterinary school, along with being a Director of the Arizona Veterinary Medical Association; she/her will no doubt be helping mold the next generation of Arizona veterinarians to provide equally exceptional care.
| Source: | September 9, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Sherry Wynn | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| 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.