| Complaint: | Complaint 21-32 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Sarah Schroeder |
| Premises: | AZPetVet Arrowhead Ranch Animal Hospital |
The complainant tells us that her dog was assigned to a wellness visit with Schroeder after she adopted the dog from Maricopa County Animal Care and Control. At adoption she was given paperwork describing the dog's medical history as well as the vaccinations administered while in the pound. Schroeder and her technician apparently claimed they couldn't understand the MCACC records, so they went ahead and repeated a sequence of vaccines that had already been given just the day before. The complainant was curious why she didn't just call MCACC for clarification; Schroeder is said to have told her she "doesn't need to call every vet the patient visited." She was particularly shocked about all this because her family member had been told this was all normal when taking the dog in. She followed up with Schroeder and was told that this was a common occurrence; Schroeder allegedly said that they often give repeated vaccines because medical history and vaccination history aren't correct, also claiming that some vaccines aren't "good." The complainant says she followed up with MCACC and Schroeder, who allegedly admitted she shouldn't have repeated the vaccinations and gave her a discount. The complainant muses that in a human you'd be careful about just injecting people with stuff all willy-nilly for fear of causing a bad reaction. She says the dog ended up with symptoms of lethargy, vomiting, breathing problems, and itching, though it appears the conditions were taken care of at home.
Schroeder's response relates all the things she did for the dog when the dog came in for the visit. She says that there were no major concerns other than a need for a grooming appointment; she told the complainant's relative that the dog was up to date on rabies but she had no idea about the Bordetella and DHPP as they were listed at the bottom of the file without a date. She said that she explained that she didn't know but there was no harm in just giving the shots again; the relative approved the vaccination. She also said there was no indicating MCACC had done a heartworm test or given anti-heartworm medication, so she said she went ahead and did those as well. The complainant subsequently called and asked why she repeated the vaccines when the dog had received them the day before; Schroeder says she then called up MCACC and learned that the shots had been given after all, but that the dog had not been given a heartworm test or medication.
The Investigative Committee's discussion was peculiar. They stated that Schroeder didn't have all the records the complainant had. There's no discussion of why Schroeder or a staff member couldn't have called up as they ended up doing; they just said there's no harm in repeating the vaccines, even if it's literally the next day. They said that the records are hard to read, noting that the rabies vaccine was just listed as "Zoetis SQ"; that doesn't really explain much as Schroeder actually knew that the dog had been given a rabies vaccine from reading the records. The Committee also noted that the complainant's relative approved the treatment plan; on the other hand, he was probably assuming the veterinarian understood the dog's records.
For a similar tale with fatal results, check out 19-47. In that case, a family friend tries to help out by taking a dog to the regular clinic for a nail trim. While the dog was there the veterinarian apparently said the dog was overdue on vaccines and gave some shots with the friend's permission. It turns out the dog had a previous allergic reaction to one of the vaccines and that it had been noted in the dog's record at the clinic but ignored. They blamed the friend for trusting the veterinarians.
No word as to whether or not Robyn Jaynes, vet board member, Arizona Humane Society vet, and PetSmart Charities top dog, got all these problems ironed out during her brief tenure at MCACC.
| Source: | March 3, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Sarah Schroeder | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | April 4, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Recused |
| 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.