| Complaint: | Complaint 21-16 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Megan Schaible |
| Premises: | Southwest Veterinary Surgical Service |
The complainant brought her dog to Schaible for a right TPLO surgery for about $6000. After the surgery she asked to see the x-ray films but was told she could always see them at the next visit. The complainant and her husband limited their dog's activities during the recovery period but the dog once jumped out of an SUV; she called and was told that as long as the dog was still weight-bearing it was okay. The complainant took the dog in for the eight-week checkup and was told the surgery had failed and needed a second surgery. She says that the dog was still weight-bearing and had shown no problems at home, and the dog had been monitored while walking in the back yard. Schaible, on the other hand, allegedly blamed the dog jumping out of the SUV and said the complainant could have avoided this by bringing the dog in sooner. The complainant reminded Schaible of what she had been told by the front desk. She also asked to take pictures of the x-rays done that day; she forwarded them to her husband, a medical doctor with knowledge of fixation, who relayed to her that the original work looked inadequate for the task at hand in his opinion. She relayed her concerns to staff as Schaible never returned to talk to her; it turns out that Schaible had actually called the husband to talk to him while the complainant was still in the waiting room. She subsequently received a revised quote for the second surgery but as neither of them trusted Schaible to do the job correctly at this point, they sought out a second opinion with Lirtzman. Lirtzman allegedly said that he would have done the original fixation in a more robust manner. The complainant says that Schaible's surgery set their dog up for failure and asks for a refund of the surgical cost; they're currently in the process of pursuing a second surgery with Lirtzman.
Schaible gives a rather detailed account of the dog's history. She emphatically states that the complainant was warned the dog had a significantly higher than normal tibial plateau angle of over 35 degrees. In layman's terms, this means that a standard TPLO surgery is inadequate; instead, this would require "additional planning, mathematical calculations and surgical procedures." In addition to a more involved surgery she says that she warned the dog would need to be on strict exercise restrictions for three months; she also warned of other potential complications and said the left side may eventually go as well. She states that the complainant did phone about the dog jumping out of the SUV but indicated no problems at that time. On the day of the checkup Schaible indicates she reviewed the dog with Amanda Schaff, a BluePearl intern, and told the complainant that the dog had complications and would need a second surgery. She says that the medical history taken indicated the dog was being allowed to run around off-leash and that the complainants had not been doing the rehabiliation exercises as required; limping was also noted. Schaible also says the complainant told her that her husband wouldn't want to spend any more money on the dog and wanted her to speak with the husband. Schaible says that she justified her procedures to the complainant's husband on the phone, and that he expected her to "cut the fluff" on any non-equipment-related charges for the surgery. Schaible says that they came up with several different discounts and write-offs that would have applied to any surgeon at Southwest Veterinary Surgical Service, not just her; however, they took the dog elsewhere.
The Investigative Committee said that "with orthopedic surgery things can easily go awry" and that according to the veterinary literature the procedure performed was appropriate. They said that the complainants didn't follow directions, there was another dog in the house, the dog jumped out of an SUV, and the dog was even allowed to be outside without a leash. In their opinion, literally anything could have happened, but it wasn't the fault of the surgery or the surgeon.
For an unrelated case where human medical professionals had a fun time while dealing with Southwest Veterinary Surgical Service, check out 18-49 and its companion case.
| Source: | January 1, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Megan Schaible | 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 |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Recused |
| 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.