| Complaint: | Complaint 21-50 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Bryan Nolte |
| Premises: | Prescott Animal Hospital and Equine Center |
The complainant says she was out of state and boarding her horse at Anchor Cross Ranch. She said that one of the owners, Becky, reported the horse was sore in his hocks and was going to take him to Prescott Animal Hospital for hock shots. She tells us that she wasn't too worried as the horse was young and in good condition. She says she called Prescott Animal Hospital to put down credit card information but explained that she didn't want anything done to the horse without her permission; she says that she reiterated the same to Becky. Nolte showed up to examine the horse and give the hock shots but he wanted to do more. The handler called the complainant and left a message she returned ten minutes later. In that period, she says Nolte had pressured the handler to agree to sedating the horse and doing some x-rays and an ultrasound. She says that she was shocked to learn that happened and cost her $800 without her consent; she waited until the next day to formally bring it up because she didn't want to start an argument. She was told Nolte would call her but he never did. Instead she was offered a partial refund of $124; when she contested that on the grounds she didn't authorize any of the other procedures they rescinded the offer and told her to take it up with the bank. (The remainder of her complaint appears to have been truncated.)
Nolte tells us that Bob and Becky Grant bring not only their personal horses but many absentee horse owners' horses into his clinic; they've been in the biz for years and apparently have longstanding ties to Prescott Animal Hospital and Equine Center. He notes that the receptionist allegedly relayed the complainant told him to get permission before giving any hock injections. He says that he examined the horse for lameness and pain, speaking with Becky and then sedating the horse to perform x-rays. He says he found signs of osteoarthritis but couldn't find a cause for the tendon pain. At this time (again, after x-raying and sedating the horse), someone apparently called the complainant and left a message. While they waited for a reply he talked to Becky some more and then "moved forward with ultrasound to aid in the lameness diagnosis," confirming "bilateral suspensory desmitis with periosteal bone reaction at the origin of both suspensory ligaments." The complainant called back and Nolte updated her, talking about joint injections, shockwave therapy, regenerative therapy, Adequan injections, and more. The complainant turned down any treatments aside from resting the horse and had no desire to pursue the lameness diagnosis. He also says that Bob and Becky have continued to bring their clients' horses to him; he claims confusion as to why his receptionist told him the complainant wanted called before hock shots but says in her complaint the horse was supposed to come in for hock shots.
The Investigative Committee said that horses are livestock so no estimate was required; they also said that they thought it in poor taste to begin diagnostics without approval but could find nothing to nail Nolte with "based on the on the way the law was written."
The relevant portion appears to be Arizona Administrative Code 3-11-502 (C). It's not a law in the same way that a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is a law; it's one of the many portions of "law" that are generated through the blank-check rulemaking authority delegated to our modern regulatory state. In this case the veterinary board would have come up with the rule that their current members were now using to avoid doing their jobs.
Prescott Animal Hospital has had a variety of big connections in the veterinary community through the Skinner and Dow families; Cameron Dow was an Investigative Committee member on the other Committee when this case was heard. Regarding Nolte himself, you can read another tale where he allegedly did stuff to a horse without permission and the less-than-satisfied client put out a stop payment order in 19-54.
| Source: | May 5, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Bryan Nolte | 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 | Recused |
| 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.