The complainant tells us that Collins euthanized his 16-year-old dog at home. He says
as the body was taken away he was reassured that the body was in good hands and would
be taken to PALS. He had second thoughts about an unwitnessed cremation and emailed
PALS to change it to a witnessed cremation. He kept emailing back and forth for almost
a month to set up a date for the cremation, always mentioning his dog. He was reassured
by Collins and by PALS that the dog's remains were in good hands. He went to see the
cremation and discovered his dog was now a cat; more accurately, his dog had been part
of a group cremation several days before and the cat before him was not his dog. He
states that upon researching the matter he finally learned that Collins accidentally
tagged the dog as a cat she euthanized the same day, with the cat being tagged as his
dog. He says Collins admitted to him that she didn't even enter the information into
the system until she got home that day, also wondering why the crematorium never
mentioned he was asking about a dog when the crematory had a cat for him instead.
He asks how this can be done to any animal, how the law may say his dog was property
but she was actually family, and even relates the close ties and life-altering
experiences they had together while alive; he even says that the dog basically held on
to say goodbye to him when he was away on a military deployment, yet now he can never
bring her home.
Collins' response begins by discussing the complainant's change from an unwitnessed to
a witnessed cremation. (That doesn't really appear to be relevant to the complaint save
for the fact that if he hadn't, he'd never have known that he actually got back a cat's
ashes instead of his dog's.) She says that she had no idea how this could have happened
but took ownership of the problem when it did happen. She was allegedly told by PALS
that all group cremations are held until all individual cremations are performed "just
in case there is a mix-up." She says that maybe she just switched the tags for the dog
and the cat; from now on she will "visualize" the animal when she puts the tag on.
The Investigative Committee said that they had no concerns with Collins. They said the
situation was complicated by the complainant changing his mind from an unwitnessed
cremation to a witnessed single cremation. (This keeps getting mentioned but it appears
the complainant always wanted an individual cremation; the only change was whether he
would be present.) The Investigative Committee cleared the veterinarian but suggested
the PALS crematory be investigated instead. The Board disagreed and found Collins guilty
of a violation, giving her a Decree of Censure. They also voted to open an investigation
into PALS (see 21-131).
A.R.S. § 32-2232(12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501(1) for failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures by mislabeling the pet’s remains/mixing up the tags.
Penalties:
Decree of censure
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.