| Complaint: | Complaint 21-17 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Christine Garza |
| Premises: | Crossroads Veterinary Hospital |
The complainant says that her dog was examined by Garza and recommended extraction of a couple of teeth. The complainant and her husband had concerns given the age of the dog but were reassured it would be a quick in-and-out procedure. When the complainant picked up the dog after the dental she was told there had been "a few complications" involving the removal of nine teeth and a now-broken lower jaw. She relates the dog was presented back to her in a makeshift, ill-fitting muzzle and that the dog was wailing, crying, and shaking for days. When the complainant called and said it was impossible to give oral medications to the dog in this condition, she was told she could bring the dog back twice a day for them to give the pills. She says that eventually Crossroads stopped taking their calls altogether. She took the dog to emergency at AVECCC where they apparently discovered the sutures had already fallen out, bone fragments were visible, and a severe fracture was noted on the x-ray. The dog was eventually taken to Balke, a dental specialist, who had to do a total of two surgeries to fix up the dog, including wiring the jaw, removing bone fragments, and resuturing the dog; the complainant notes that "he is not the same dog as he was prior to Dr. Garza's assault on his face."
Garza tells us she originally examined the dog and performed an anal gland expression. She noticed the dog had at least two teeth that needed to be pulled, potentially more, and recommended a dental. She says that she reassured the complainants regarding the risks of anesthesia in an older dog and declined an offer of a staged procedure on the dental. She tells us the dog's dental health was significantly bad and many teeth had to go. Finishing up she noticed the dog's jaw was rather mobile and an x-ray confirmed a fracture. She contacted Arizona Veterinary Dental Specialists (where Balke works) and was told that the jaw was already weakened by dental disease and there was no more bone present to hold it together. She says the dental specialist she spoke with said to leave the dog muzzled for eight weeks and recheck x-rays afterward. She says that the dog was comfortable on discharge and gave them information for Arizona Veterinary Dental Specialists. She states that the complainant called several times regarding the dog and even discussed possible euthanasia given the dog's condition. She offered to help but was turned down; she also states that the complainant didn't pick up some of the prescribed medications. She states that contrary to the complainant, the dog's drug doses were calculated correctly. It also appears that after an investigation the hospital's insurance company reached some kind of settlement with the complainant.
The Investigative Committee leads off by saying the complainant probably didn't do what she was supposed to regarding the dog. They're skeptical she gave the medications she was supposed to (she did say the dog wouldn't take oral medications because of his mouth and jaw but didn't trust Garza or the clinic to not hurt her dog worse). They also say she didn't do a good job with the muzzle and didn't follow the written discharge instructions. They then wonder if perhaps the complainant shouldn't have been left to try and figure out what size of muzzle to use for her dog and his broken jaw. They also said that Garza discussed staging the procedure but the complainant said that never happened. They're happy that Garza called the dentist.
For another case where a dog went in for a dental and came out with a broken jaw, feast your eyes upon 18-103.
We were able to reach out to the complainant in this case and obtain further details. The complainant, a self-described lifelong member of the medical field with 35 years in pediatic critical care, says that caring for injured or sick animals isn't all that different from caring for injured or sick children. She was surprised that despite her background the board and its investigators blamed her regarding the care of her broken dog. The dog's broken jaw prevented administering the medication prescribed for him; she also had further concerns about entrusting the job to the same vet and clinic who returned her dog with a broken jaw held in place by an ill-fitting muzzle.
She also thanks the veterinary dental specialist who was finally able to repair the damage after multiple surgeries. In fact, she credits the individual with not only saving her sanity but saving what was left of her dog's life; with a loose jaw, eating and drinking was almost impossible much less administering any pain medication. Sadly, the repeated surgeries done under anesthetic led to a decline in the dog's health and finally his death. She relates that he was never the same dog after the incident and another veterinarian suggested that the repeated procedures were too much for him to bear. His canine brother also passed away, a death she attributes in large part to a sense of heartbreak from losing his closest companion.
The incidents with the veterinarian and the veterinary board left this particular complainant with great concern regarding the standard of care in veterinary medicine. She's come to the conclusion that professional standards are far too low and the standard of care virtually nonexistent, particularly as compared to human medicine.
| Source: | January 1, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Christine Garza | 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 | Aye |
| 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.