| Complaint: | Complaint 21-127 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Haverley Coy |
| Premises: | Southern Arizona Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center |
| Related: | 21-128 |
The complainant says that Coy and another veterinarian at Southern Arizona Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center misdiagnosed his dog with a blockage that didn't exist. He took the dog to the hospital because the dog had diarrhea and been vomiting foam for a couple of days. He says he was told that his dog needed immediate emergency surgery or he would die; he agreed to the surgery and they found nothing. The next day his dog had to be put down as the dog's lungs were full of fluid and fluid was coming out of his nose. He says that when he brought the dog to the clinic he needed to come up with $1500 before they would even treat the dog and it took him four hours to do so; he asked them to just let him take the dog home instead but they insisted on keeping the dog and having him come up with the $1500. He says that aside from the x-rays they did no other tests and had no explanation for what happened to the dog; his other dog had the same symptoms a couple of weeks later and survived without even going to the veterinarian. He relates that the clinic apologized and refunded the surgery charges and $1500, but he says that he wishes they'd just let his dog come home as he might have survived.
Coy tells us the dog was weak when brought in; bloodwork and x-rays were approved by the complainant, but she tells us the complainant had "severe financial constraints" and declined a radiology consult. She claims there was a mineral opacity on the x-rays and the intestines were dilated suggesting a blockage. She says that because the complainant had no money the clinic offered an intern to do the surgery for a teaching discount of $1500 (!); she says that care was not compromised by this in any way and that the complainant was really happy about it. She says that she handed the case off and came back the next morning to find the surgery found no blockage; she said the dog was now doing even worse and suggests pancreatitis was the more likely diagnosis given the dog's symptoms. She says she never said she was sorry or took blame but instead said she would help move his money around to help care for the dog. She says that she told the complainant the dog had a poor prognosis and asked him to come see the dog; predictably given such a statement from a veterinarian, the dog was subsequently euthanized.
The Investigative Committee made a very weird defense of Coy in this case. They said that if Coy had waited after reviewing the x-rays and the dog had a blockage that killed the dog then the complainant could have filed a complaint about that too. (That initially sounds like a reasonable argument until you take it apart: If the dog had actually had a different problem, and they'd also misdiagnosed that problem and done the opposite thing they did here, and the dog had died from that sequence of events rather than the ones that actually happened, then the person would have complained too. That defense literally makes no sense.)
Where's Coy at now? She's actually at the University of Arizona Veterinary School helping shape the next generation of veterinarians (link); according to her bio she was also on the Nevada state veterinary board at some point and also assisted in evaluating the veterinary credentials of foreign veterinary school graduates. She'll be on the same faculty as fellow respondent Sarah Carotenuto, another Tucson-area referral-center veterinarian who allegedly almost knocked off a dog with a blockage in 18-93.
If you've read through enough of these complaints you'll be amazed at how poorly vets seem to be able to interpret x-rays; one wonders if having such problems determining if there's a clog betwixt tummy and sphincter might suggest deeper problems with the entire enterprise, but for now we'll leave you with some recommended reading (18-19, 18-90, 20-05, and 20-50).
| Source: | October 10, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Haverley Coy | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| 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.