| Complaint: | Complaint 21-155 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Beau Bedell |
| Premises: | VetMed |
The complainant says that a veterinarian noticed a heart problem with his dog during an ear cleaning, so he took the dog to VetMed; Matthews, a cardiologist, examined the dog and put the dog on medication. He followed up with all rechecks but the dog seemed to do okay; the dog subsequently had a small rectal nodule that was scheduled to be removed at a family vet. The dog started having a honking cough that got worse; the complainant researched it and started videoing the dog's breathing issues. The dog then had a sudden problem while playing, dropping his ball and having what he believes was a stroke. He couldn't even move his legs. The complainant rushed the dog to VetMed where he said he had video of the dog's breathing problems; the receptionist told him they would ask for it if they needed it. He says that Bedell eventually examined the dog and seemed to not realize why he even brought the dog in. He allegedly said that the prognosis was "bleak at best" but then subsequently got angry with the complainant for bringing the dog to emergency to remove a rectal mass; he notes that Bedell is probably the worst professional he's ever encountered in his life. He reminded Bedell he brought the dog in for breathing issues and a possible stroke, but Bedell said the dog was breathing fine and he didn't need to see the video. He paid $201 to VetMed and took the dog home.
The dog continued to do badly and the complainant called around begging for someone to see him. Hein at Surprise Animal Hospital examined the dog and said the heart was enlarged, the lungs were filled with fluid, and the dog needed to be at an emergency cener with 24 hour care; the complainant pointed out that he had just tried to do that. The vets at Surprise tried Lasix but it appears to have not helped (it's heavily hinted that it somehow made the situation worse); Hein called the complainant and said he needed to take the dog to emergency right now and that the dog may not even survive the drive. He tried to get the dog back to VetMed (because his cardiologist was there?) but they couldn't see him; he then took the dog to BluePearl where he was advised to euthanize the dog. (The Findings of Fact say that BluePearl came up with an estimate for treatment but that the complainant wanted the dog euthanized, which seems like a rather substantial difference to what the complainant is saying.) The complainant doesn't understand why Bedell was so cruel and wouldn't help his dog, but he would like the $201 back out of spite; he says that he doesn't need the money but his dog's suffering will be burned into his mind forever.
Bedell's response tells us that the dog wasn't doing bad at all when he examined the dog. We're told the known heart murmur was present but a thoracic point of care ultrasound (POCUS) found no fluids; the abdomen also looked tip-top. The dog breathed a little harder when walking around, but it wasn't any real biggie. He says he spoke with the complainant and learned the dog had some breathing problems; he pointed out that the dog was very stable, no arrhytmia had been noted, and so on. He also discussed musculoskeletal changes in the pelvic limbs and was told the dog had hip issues. He told the complainant that he should take the dog to his regular veterinarian and consider putting the dog on pain pills for the hip; apparently he also suggested a biopsy of the rectal mass be done somewhere else. (How any of this lines up with the complainant's description of the conversation is anyone's guess.)
The Investigative Committee discussion is odd. They say that there were no concerns with Bedell's examination of the dog. They also said at least some people on the Committee were concerned that the dog's symptoms, backed up by the history of cardiac problems, weren't correctly addressed; they pointed out that even issues like hypotension can resolve for a time when in a high-stress environment such as a vet clinic. They also said that Bedell could have done additional workup or referred the dog to cardiology again, but on the other hand, others thought that it wasn't a big deal since the dog was being treated. They also said that dogs can quickly end up in heart failure so looking at the video may not have made a difference, but maybe Bedell should have looked at the video anyway. The Committee said that they had reservations and maybe the Board should look into it. Despite these differences of opinion, the entire Committee (Tran absent, as she often is) voted to dismiss with no violations. The Board dismissed as well and VetMed got to keep the $201.
| Source: | December 12, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Beau Bedell | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| 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: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| 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: | February 2, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Beau Bedell | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| 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.