The complainant says that she saw her dog get bitten by a snake in her sister's backyard. They
rushed the dog to Airpark Animal Hospital where Byrnes saw the dog. She signed a consent form
permitting the hospital to administer antivenom. She heard nothing from the clinic so she
called for an update; she was told the dog was "very sad" (she has no idea what that meant) and
that they would reevaluate the dog later. She was called to come get the dog before the clinic
closed and was told that antivenom wasn't necessary. Byrnes discharged the dog saying there
would be swelling and if the dog had irregular breathing, diarrhea, or vomiting the dog needed
to be taken to an emergency clinic. She says that the dog never displayed any of the symptoms
she was warned about, but the dog swelled up to twice her normal size and died overnight. She
says that she wished they had kept the dog overnight but was subsequently told the Board would
not let them keep pets overnight; she also believes Byrnes and the clinic didn't want to give
antivenom because they would have had to monitor the dog past closing time on a Friday. She
says that if they didn't want to deal with the dog they should have told her that morning so
she could have taken the dog to an emergency clinic then; she also relates that after the dog
died she spoke with other veterinarians in the area who said that antivenom should have been
given.
Byrnes said that this was the first time the dog had been to the hospital. She notes that a
snakebite wound was present on the head; the dog was drooling and in pain and had significant
dental disease. She also says the dog was swelling but not too bad compared to other dogs
she had seen for snakebite; she thought the snake actually injected a fairly minimal amount
of venom to the dog. Watching the dog for the day she says that the dog's blood work showed
some slight deterioriation but nothing major; she was also concerned as the dog didn't seem
like she was really bouncing back. However, she felt that antivenom was not necessary and her
colleague, Flannery, agreed (see 21-159). She sent the dog home with gabapentin and advice to
take the dog to an emergency clinic if she got worse; she wanted to have the dog brought back
the next morning for a checkup but the dog died overnight. She states that she didn't give
antivenom because she didn't think it was necessary and points to the VIN Snakebite Severity
Score to back her up; she also says that the complainant is mistaken about emergency care in
the area because there actually isn't any (wouldn't that mean the complainant's actually right
that she needed to be moved out of there?). (As an aside, Byrnes discusses all the "could haves"
which is an interesting turn of phrase as Flannery allegedly said "woulda, coulda, shoulda"
multiple times the next day after the dog died).
The Investigative Committee said that Byrnes did fine; it was up to her whether or not the dog
needed antivenom and she said it didn't need any. They said the complainant was told to take
the dog to an emergency clinic in Prescott if things got worse; they also note Byrnes helpfully
left the catheter in the dog just in case. (This is rather weird in that Byrnes herself admits
there are no emergency facilities nearby but we're being told that it was okay the complainant
was sent home with instructions to take the dog to some emergency facility.) The investigators
found no concerns. The Board disagreed and found Byrnes guilty of a violation regarding the
antivenom and not sending the dog directly to an emergency facility; Byrnes had to take four
hours of continuing education in snakebite envenomation and refund $574.21 to the complainant.
A.R.S. ยง32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) for failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures by not communicating the pros and cons of administering the anti- venom and not referring the dog directly to an emergency facility for continued monitoring.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (4 hours in emergency medicine in relation to snakebite envenomation.)
Reimburse fees ($547.21)
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.