The complainant and his wife noticed their dog was not wanting to eat and had been
lethargic over the last couple of days. They took the dog to Baseline Animal Clinic
where Finch ran tests and subsequently diagnosed the dog with pancreatitis. The
complainant says the only portion of the lab work that was mentioned related to the
pancreas, nothing else was noted; Finch prescribed several medications and a food
change, saying if the dog didn't improve an ultrasound should be done to check for
pancreatic cancer. The complainant's dog got an ultrasound at Baseline performed
by Lawmaster, a mobile ultrasonographer. The complainant and his wife waited for
days for the results as their dog continued to get worse; they were told the
results were not available, then told that Finch would be calling them, but he
apparently never did. They took the dog to Dobson Ranch Animal Hospital and Grooming
for a second opinion, where Hirth examined the dog; at this point the dog couldn't
even walk and had to be carried to use the bathroom. Hirth was eventually able to
review the records from Baseline (though it appears there were issues getting them)
and found that the original bloodwork also showed kidney problems, a weak positive
for Valley Fever, and potential internal bleeding. Hirth allegedly expressed surprise
that Finch didn't discuss any of this; she concluded the dog was going to be dead of
kidney failure within the next day so the dog was euthanized. Finch subsequently
called the complainants and allegedly told them he didn't mention the other problems
because he "can't treat kidneys." Finch was also allegedly evasive as to why none
of the other information was discussed; the complainants never got the ultrasound
results until after the dog had already died. The complainant says the entire event
has shaken his faith and trust in veterinary care.
Finch's response broadly follows the events the complainant mentions. He says that
the blood work did come back positive for Valley Fever but at a very low level more
likely having to do with just living in Arizona. He also says that he mentioned
elevated pancreas and liver values (but does not appear to have mentioned anything
about kidneys). He also says that the ultrasound came back showing that the
pancreatitis was clearing up; he didn't call with the results as he was out of the
office and then had to deal with a walk-in emergency. Finch also says that he thinks
the kidney issues were likely secondary; he appears skeptical of Hirth's diagnosis
of chronic renal failure as he believes it would have presented differently.
The Investigative Committee had concerns that the dog was on the way out but that
this wasn't mentioned to the complainant. They also found concerns with omissions
from the medical record on Finch's part. They also point out that the dog never had
a urinalysis performed to determine if the elevated kidney values were actually
the result of a kidney problem or something else; indeed, they felt that it was
wrong of Hirth (the second opinion vet) to have diagnosed the dog with chronic
kidney disease. The Committee wonders if a urinalysis might have changed the dog's
outcome. The investigators found Finch in violation for gross negligence, failure
to relay the ultrasound results, and failure to document portions of his exams.
The Board rounded down the gross negligence to a failure to provide professionally
acceptable procedures; Finch had to take four hours of continuing education in
internal medicine and two hours in communication.
(If the investigators really do think Hirth may have jumped the gun on this one,
why was no investigation opened into her? Maybe they just think the dog was too
sick at that point to have been worth saving regardless; we'll never know now.)
ARS § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; failure to recommend a urinalysis, including a specific gravity, SQ or IV fluids, hospitalization, and recheck blood work.
ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide courteous verbal interchange by not relaying the ultrasound results to the pet owner in a timely manner.
ARS § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (L) (4) failure to documentin the medical record an examination of the dog on August 19, 2020 and September 4, 2020 (only the temperature, pulse and respiration were noted).
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as if relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide courteous verbal interchange by not effectively communicating with the pet owners regarding the ultrasound results and answering questions regarding the care and treatment of the dog.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to use current professional and scientific knowledge with respect to not recommending a urinalysis and potentially fluids if needed at that time.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (L) (4) failure to perform an exam on the dog on August 19, 2020.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (4 hours in internal medicine)
Continuing education (2 hours in communication)
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.