| Complaint: | Complaint 21-14 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Jesse Saul |
| Premises: | Aspen Veterinary Clinic |
The complainant brought her dog to Aspen Veterinary Clinic. A veterinarian there, Ryan, stated the dog was due for some shots. The dog wasn't due for the DHPP-L4 shot but Ryan allegedly told the complainant it would be cheaper to throw that one in that day. She says she trusted Ryan and agreed to include this with the bordetella and lepto shots. The next day the dog seemed lethargic and got worse; she became "stiff as a board" and was shivering and drooling, at which point the staff at Aspen told the complainant to bring the dog back. Linnea Warlick, another veterinarian at Aspen, examined the dog and told the complainant the dog was having seizures and needed a neurologist. The complainant replied that the dog had never had seizures or epilepsy before, that the dog's breeder had no record of seizures in that dog, and that Embark testing had showed no problems. After another seizure at home Warlick told the complainant to take the dog to an emergency animal hospital. She took the dog to Canyon where they ran a variety of tests that appear to have diagnosed next to nothing; the dog was discharged with nausea medication, gabapentin, and a suggestion for a half a pill of Benadryl. The complainant says she called up Aspen pleading for serial numbers and information on the vaccines; she also says she told them that it wasn't just seizures as the dog was vomiting, not eating, not even drinking or sleeping now. She said that if she wasn't given the info she'd report them to the board. She finally got some of the information but the clinic owner, Saul, allegedly later called her up and told her that she would no longer be welcome at the clinic because she had threatened them. The complainant states that the staff at Canyon relayed that they contacted the vaccine manufacturer; allegedly she was later told that it was in fact a vaccine reaction. She also claims the administration of the vaccine in conjunction with the other vaccines was against protocol in a young dog.
Saul's response confirms that the dog was seen on the occasions in question but that he provided no care to the dog. He states that Ryan saw the dog the first time. He relays that as the owner and medical director he was made aware on the second visit of a possible vaccine reaction; he states that he told Warlick to refer the dog to a 24-hour emergency facility if any further seizures developed. He says that the complainant subsequently called his office several times demanding refunds, reimbursment, and free follow-up care for her sick dog. He also says that the complainant threatened to take him to the veterinary board and told him to "do the right thing or I'm going to get an attorney." He states that because the complainant was so threatening on the phone he didn't call her back. She continued to call and "harass" the staff at the clinic so he discussed the matter with his staff, then called the complainant briefly to tell her to not come back. He also states that ordinarily he would send a signed letter but the situation here was too severe to delay; he also blocked the complainant's phone number from the clinic's after-hours emergency phone system.
The Investigative Committee said that the veterinarians could have helped convince the complainant the vaccine didn't cause the problem by investigating other possible causes. They also say that vaccine companies will sometimes provide money for diagnostics and treatment (as they did in this case) to find out if the vaccine caused the problem, but that doesn't mean the vaccine caused it. They stated that it's not uncommon to give multiple vaccines at one time; it's all up to the individual veterinarian. They also state that Saul never provided any care for the dog (they do seem to ignore he was the responsible veterinarian for the premises and played a major role in how the situation was handled).
The findings of fact, if true, are also quite a tale. It reads as though a healthy dog went in for shots and came out with a variety of health problems including seizures. It appears that none of the local veterinarians wanted to help because she didn't have the money to work up the case further; the vaccine manufacturer apparently paid for $500 in testing and $500 in treatments for the dog.
| Source: | January 1, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Jesse Saul | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| 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 | 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.