| Complaint: | Complaint 21-128 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | James Tuttle |
| Premises: | Southern Arizona Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center |
| Related: | 21-127 |
This complaint follows 21-127 and pertains to Tuttle's involvement. It appears that Tuttle was the intern who performed the ill-advised surgery for only $1500 under a teaching discount.
Tuttle said that he took over the case from Coy and was told the complainant was only good for $1500. He says he went through all the risks with the complainant before he cut; once he cut he found nothing but noted gastric distention and ileus (the intestines weren't moving food but there wasn't anything blocking them). He says he offered a biopsy and the complainant accepted but later decided not to send the biopsy out due to cost. (One should also remember the dog had a day or less to live at this point.) He says that he helped plan sending the dog home the next day because of the complainant's financial status and then handed the case over to another veterinarian, Joshi.
The Investigative Committee started with the same discussion at 21-127, adding some additional commentary. They said that there was no reason to think that the exploratory surgery had anything to do with the dog's death.
That claim might be worth a further investigation if we had more information. In 21-127 Coy said the most likely diagnosis was pancreatitis, but the Findings of Fact state that she was concerned for sepsis. It says that the presentation didn't really fit pancreatitis and low blood glucose made her quite concerned; it doesn't appear, at least from the information we have, there were any serious mentions of sepsis or low blood sugar until Tuttle did his intern surgery at an educational discount. The Findings of Fact also state the surgical wound was "leaking a bit" but no fluid was found on ultrasound. (Was Tuttle supervised when he did this surgery under an educational discount? Could the dog have gone septic because something was botched?)
| Source: | October 10, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| James Tuttle | 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 | Absent |
| 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.