| Complaint: | Complaint 21-152 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Patrick Burns |
| Premises: | VetMed |
| Related: | 21-151, 21-153, 21-154 |
This complaint is related to 21-151, in which a cat isn't doing well and gets referred to an emergency and referral facility. The complainant tells us that her daughter, her daughter's fiancee, someone named Judy, and herself rushed the cat there after being seen at the family vet. Apparently the family veterinarian, Steve Crofoot, recommended VetMed. We're told the cat had been losing weight and not eating on his own, as well as suffering from dehydration. It appears they were told that the cat needed fluids but the complainant mentions the cat had an enlarged heart and high blood pressure; she's worried the cat was given too many fluids and also has concerns as to whether the cat received his medications while hospitalized. We're told that VetMed called sixteen hours later and said the cat was ready to come home. She also has concerns about a variety of other factors that were apparently not relayed or explained, including the cat having subjectively large kidneys, elevated amylase results suggestive of pancreatitis, elevated basophils, and some claim that the cat's white blood count was actually zero. (It would be interesting to see where this came from.) She seems to desperately be looking for answers and wonders why people didn't do more to test the cat; she also says money was never an issue as they spent over $2500 two years ago and spent $1300 for VetMed. The cat was dead the next day.
Burns, on the other hand, says that the complainants had no money and needed to be convinced to even allow him to help rehydrate the cat. According to him, the owners were unconcerned about the cat's condition in any way, including a finding of low blood pressure that was even more ominous in a cat that had high blood pressure. He says that they eventually agreed to 12 to 24 hours of hospitalization with fluids and that he began an "aggressive fluid rate for rehydration." We're also told a feeding tube for the cat was never an option because they wouldn't pay for it. He says that the other concerns regarding blood work aren't a problem and has explanations for the low basophils and other blood work anomalies; he also says that the cat likely didn't have pancreatitis as amylase is an unreliable test and the cat showed no other symptoms. Likewise, he says the cat had no kidney problems based on the blood work. He doesn't touch on where the complainant is getting some value of "zero" for blood work either. In the end, he says that the standards of care were upheld given the little amount of money the complaiant was willing to spend. (This all seems quite different from the complaint, does it not?)
The Investigative Committee discussion isn't much of a discussion. They said that Burns did the initial exam and made recommendations but that the complainant only wanted hosptalization and not additional diagnostics. There's no discussion of the wide gap between what the complainant says happened and what Burns alleges, nor is there any discussion of whether the "aggressive fluid rate" was a bad idea in a cat with heart problems. It's also odd that the complainant takes pains to say that money was never an issue but Burns says that they couldn't do anything because they couldn't cough up cash.
The Findings of Fact go so far as to suggest the complainant never even spoke with Burns as the name on the medical records and discharge instructions is that of Judy (likely a relative) and not the complainant. The complainant appeared before the Committee and both Judy and another person present provided witness statements according to the report; you'd think that between all that information you'd at least have an idea, wouldn't you?
(This case has some weird echoes of an upcoming unrelated complaint in 21-155. In that one, a dog with heart disease comes in to VetMed, gets seen by a veterinarian, Bedell, that also saw this cat, and then goes home to die. It literally follows this group in sequential order. It's a strange coincidence.)
| Source: | December 12, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Patrick Burns | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Recused |
| 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.