| Complaint: | Complaint 21-147 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Alison Ryan |
| Premises: | Desert Veterinary Clinic |
The complainant tells us that Ryan was responsible for incorrectly treating her dog. Her dog started squinting in his right eye after playing outside so she took the dog to the clinic; Ryan didn't notice any ulcers but commented on swelling and sent the dog home with Neopolydex (a combination of antibiotics and steroids). The eye didn't get any better so she called the clinic back and was told that eye problems may look bad but get better. The problem instead spread to the other eye so they got the dog in for an emergency appointment. Ryan wanted to test to see if the dog's eyes were producing tears; the complainant had concerns as the dog's eyes were dripping mucus already. She also did a stain that revealed ulcers in both eyes and sent the dog home with an Eye Repair Gel and and Eye Lube Plus. This didn't seem to help and the complainant noticed that the label on the Eye Repair Gel said not to use it as a sole therapy for corneal ulcers because it had no antibiotics. She called back and the receptionist said that Ryan wouldn't prescribe something that wasn't right for the dog. Ryan eventually prescribed an NSAID instead. The complainant came home to find her dog's eyeball horribly swollen; she relates that she thought her dog must already be blind and she could barely see the pupil. She took the dog to Brandon Prince at Foothills Animal Hospital (also the subject of veterinary board complaints) who allegedly told her that the eye could pop at any time. He also allegedly had serious concerns about Ryan's treatment plan and suggested that Ryan should be held responsible for the mess. Prince gave the dog steroids and antibiotics and the eye began to improve significantly; he also provided follow-up care. Prince and another veterinarian, Bleakley (also the subject of a vet board complaint) said that the dog should have eyelid surgery to prevent a recurrence; the complainant agreed. The complainant also took up the matter with Desert Veterinary Clinic; it appears they initially suggested that they would pay for part of the dog's care, then said she would need to speak with their insurance company (AVMA PLIT). She never heard from the insurance company and when she called back the clinic allegedly told her she'd have to file a complaint with the veterinary board; she says they also refused to tell her who their insurance company even was. She says that she would like justice for her dog as there are still some concerns that the dog's vision may never fully recover.
Ryan's response tells us that the complainant reported the initial treatment plan was showing progress; she says the complainant was told to call back if any other problems developed. When the complainant called back saying the other eye also had a problem, she relayed that the same treatment could be applied to both. We're told that another message was left stating that she had discontinued the original ointment and wanted to use something else; we're told the veterinarian at the clinic that day recommended against it. As updates came in the dog was brought in for another visit where Ryan found the ulcers; she prescribed additional treatment and tells us that she warned the complainant that the ulcers would make healing more difficult. She also states that the complainant took her dog to Foothills Animal Hospital on an emergency visit and that the records were sent over from Foothills; she followed up with this and said the complainant told her that Prince said she didn't do a good job. Once the complainant started asking for refunds or other money she handed it off to the office manager as she has no authority. The office manager then allegedly told Ryan it would be best for it to be handled by Ryan's AVMA PLIT insurance liability coverage.
The Investigative Committee had concerns that Ryan prescribed the same treatment for the dog's other eye over the phone without seeing the dog a second time for the same issue. They also had some concerns about antibiotics not being prescribed when they should have and steroids being prescribed when they probably shouldn't have. They found a violation of gross incompetence on several grounds ranging from not being able to examine the eyeball to not handing out an antibiotic for the ulcers. The Board disagreed and only sent a letter of concern.
| Source: | November 11, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Alison Ryan | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Absent |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 32-2232 (11) Gross incompetence: Professional misconduct or unreasonable lack of professional skill in the performance of professional practice for approving the use of a steroid in the left eye without an examination, not dispensing an antibiotic once the' ulcer was identified, and dispensing a steroid preparation without visualizing the entire cornea of the right eye. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Craig Nausley |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Alison Ryan | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| 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.