| Complaint: | Complaint 21-39 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Tatiana Elizondo Segura |
| Premises: | Laveen Veterinary Center |
The complainant begins by telling us her dog had a swollen right hind leg, a lemon-sized lump, along with lethargy, fever, drooling, and limping. Seguro saw the dog late in the day and diagnosed an infection after sucking some pink fluid out of the lump; she gave out antibiotics and said to come back in three weeks. The next day the lemon-sized lump was said to be the size of a football; the dog was also said to be "burning up hot and in pain." She called the clinic several times and was finally told Seguro wasn't coming in that day and none of the other veterinarians could see the dog. She was given names for other veterinarians who were also busy and could not see the dog. Seguro called her and allegedly said that she didn't drain the leg because it would have been too expensive; Seguro then referred her to another vet. The complainant says she was unhappy and finally got the dog in at Alta Vista where they performed emergency surgery and kept the dog overnight; they allegedly told her the cyst had split the muscle and over 500ccs of blood had been drained. The complainant says she paid $468 to Alta Vista and over $130 at Laveen for the dog and did not even receive the full amount of antibiotics; she's asked for them and been ignored. She says she'd like a refund.
Seguro's response leads off with "Dear Tracy and members of the Investigative Division," rather informal for what is in theory an official investigation by the state government. She says that she actually told the complainant a drain would likely need to be placed to help with healing but that she was turned down for financial reasons; she also said that if the leg stayed the same or worsened over the next 24 to 48 hours the dog should be re-examined. Seguro also says that she called the next day and apologized because she had neglected to give any pain medication; during that call she alleges the complainant got upset that the dog wasn't given an injectable antibiotic. She also says that the next day (two days later rather than what reads like one day in the complainant's account) the complainant called the clinic concerned about the condition of the dog; however, she wasn't in that day or involved in the discussion, and the technician suggested taking the dog to an emergency hospital. The complainant is said to have been called several days later telling her the remainder of the antibiotics were ready for pickup. (The complainant's timeline doesn't seem to match up with Seguro's. The Findings of Fact seem to match up better with the complainant's timeline; they state the dog was seen at Alta Vista on March 11, so there would be no reason for the complainant to call wanting the dog seen on March 12 as Seguro's timeline claims. On the other hand, they also say the dog wasn't kept overnight at Alta Vista. So basically nothing matches anything else.)
The Investigative Committee said the initial care provided was acceptable and their only concern was that the clinic didn't get the dog in when his condition worsened; on the other hand, they don't appear to have been concerned enough to find any violations. They also said that the source of the abscess wasn't identified, which was "unusual," and that they thought there could have been better communication about the possibility of it worsening. Still nothing to find a violation about though. (One might think the marked difference in timelines and discrepancy about the antibiotic prescription might be of concern as well, but it doesn't appear to be.)
| Source: | April 4, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Tatiana Elizondo Segura | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | May 5, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| 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.