| Complaint: | Complaint 21-49 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Kyle Norman |
| Premises: | Blue Ridge Veterinary Hospital |
The complainant begins by telling us she believes Norman violated the AVMA's principles of veterinary ethics by failing to truthfully tell her the expected results and risks of a cancer surgery for her dog. She says that Norman told her the dog would "be out of the woods" if the dog survived the first ten days after the surgery, but this was not to be. She says her dog meant more to her than anything to her and gave her more than anything; she also says that she's on a severely limited income and accrued $6000 in debt to pay for a surgery that didn't save her dog. The dog actually went in to have a cancer surgery in November 2019 and was "out of the woods" by the end of that month; the dog was dead the next month as he was riddled with other cancers that Norman had not found. She says that if she had known there were more cancers she would not have put the dog through the surgery; she also says that even if he had found more, she could not have paid for additional surgeries and not done the first one. Instead the dog vomited and had a grand mal seizure, so she took the dog back to Norman; she says Norman failed to do any tests and seemed unhappy to see the dog. Later the dog also pooped out a significant quantity of blood. She had to bring the dog back the following day so Norman could run an ultrasound and discovered the spleen was overrun with cancer, the dog's stomach was bleeding, and the dog should just be euthanized. She laments that Norman couldn't be bothered to examine her dog even when the dog subsequently defecated blood. She would like a refund of $5000 of the $6000 as she says she was given false hope her dog could survive, stating he should have checked for the spread of cancer before he performed the surgery in the first place.
Norman's response is largely a timeline. He says the dog first presented with vomiting and he suspected the dog was eating too fast. The dog then came back with lethargy and he ran a barium study which showed no obstruction but was slower than expected. He suggested an exploratory surgery if the dog didn't get better. The dog didn't get better so he says he suggested an exploratory surgery; he did an exploratory surgery and found that the region between the stomach and intestine had thickened. He recommended referral or euthanasia and the complainant said she would look into a referral. He says she later reported that quotes came in at close to $10000 and she couldn't afford it; he offered to do the surgery himself but said he'd never done a "pyloric resection and anastomosis" (he's going to cut the thick part out and then stitch what's left back together) before. He reports the surgery was done successfully and reported to the complainant that the first 10 days after surgery were most critical. The dog came back a week later with vomiting; Norman suspects it's because the complainant was feeding the dog too much food too fast. The dog vomited again but nothing showed up on physical exam or x-rays; Norman reports the dog was doing great at the clinic. He also relates the exam after the seizure where he finds the dog was "looked so good," then states he was no longer at the clinic when the dog subsequently defecated blood; he says another veterinarian, Howey, gave some drugs. The dog came back the next day. He did x-rays which showed a "soft tissue fluid opacity" and a subsequent ultrasound discovered free fluid in the abdomen. He says he didn't know what it was but suspected a possible hemorrhage, also suggesting that the dog would need further surgery if there was a mass in the spleen or an infection in the abdomen. They "talked about [the dog]'s" quality of life and the complainant elected euthanasia. He apologizes for a subsequent billing mix-up where they billed the complainant's CareCredit $15000 instead of $5,811.41 but says that was corrected.
The Investigative Committee said it was "unfortunate" they were unable to speak with the complainant; they also said that the complainant didn't do a good job of taking care of the dog after the dog was discharged from the surgery. They said that Norman did a good job considering the financial constraints on him. There's no discussion about whether he should have done more of a workup for metastasis before conducting not one but two surgeries, nor any comment as to whether the surgery had failed leading to what he was seeing in the dog. The Board sent a Letter of Concern about Norman's recordkeeping.
A June 26, 2019 article in the Cresco Times Plain Dealer tells us that Norman left a clinic there to move to Arizona and practice veterinary medicine with his long-distance girlfriend, also a veterinarian. As of 2022 Norman and his girl were working together at Prescott Animal Hospital, frequently featured in veterinary board complaints and a premises associated with veterinary board personalities (and father and son) Steven and Cameron Dow.
For an unrelated case when a cat dies after his innards are literally covered in his own feces during an anastomosis gone wrong at a former investigator's own hospital, take a gander at 21-11.
| Source: | May 5, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Kyle Norman | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| 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.