The complainant brought his dog to Desert Cross because they told him that the dog needed
stitches on her lip. The dog was evaluated and the need for stitches confirmed; the surgery
was said to have gone well but Chapman's staff wanted to keep the dog until the afternoon
for observation. The complainant then received a call stating the dog had been found dead
while making their "rounds"; he says Chapman told him they only check on recovering patients
every hour and they noticed the dog had died. He says the dog wasn't just their dog but also
their child and best friend. He asked his parents to come with him to pick up the ashes as
he knew he couldn't do it alone. He also spoke with Chapman who allegedly told him that the
procedure was cosmetic and she wasn't sure why she was even doing it; he mentions that they
never bothered to tell him that or they wouldn't have done it. He also claims Chapman knew
the dog would need constant monitoring after surgery because she was a bulldog with an
elongated palate. His parents then asked Chapman she didn't have someone monitor the dog;
she allegedly replied it would be too expensive to pay someone to do that and her clients
wouldn't stand for the increased price. The complainant relates that he then went out to
his car in the parking lot and cried for 30 minutes before he could go home. He also says
he has spoken with other people who have had problems with the clinic; he also states that
Chapman has apparently been in trouble with the veterinary board before.
Chapman begins with the emergency call from the complainant's family; she says it was only
bleeding a little and told them to bring the dog in the next morning to suture the wound.
She says the complainants signed the consent form (no mention that this was just a cosmetic
thing) and she went about doing the surgery. Apparently the dog did well and was checked on;
she says that they try to ensure the pets are checked on "at least hourly." She also states
that the main surgery technician checks on all patients before going out to lunch; the dog
was alive at that time but dead when everyone got back from lunch. She actively tries to
blame the owners for failing to "take responsibility for choosing to own a high risk breed
that is a genetic nightmare and wrought with health issues." She points out that's exactly
why veterinarinans make people sign consent forms; she also states that veterinarians aren't
God and can't take the kind of mental health issues involved in trying to prevent death. She
says that's one of the reasons veterinarians are losing "our love and enjoyment for our
profession."
The Investigative Committee came down hard on Chapman. They found concerns regarding everything
from recordkeeping issues to monitoring problems and a failure to work up the dog appropriately.
They also point out that it was Chapman's responsibility to provide monitoring as the dog was
a high-risk breed. The Committee found a violation of gross negligence as well as a violation
regarding the dog's medical records. The Board rounded it down to a failure to provide
professionally acceptable procedures; Chapman was required to take six hours of continuing
education relating to communication and pay a $500 fine.
ARS § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence - treatment of a patient or practice of veterinary medicine resulting in injury, unnecessary suffering or death that was caused by carelessness, negligence or the disregard of established principles or practices; and Malpractice - treatment in a manner contrary to acceptedpractices and with injurious results for failure to perform a pre -anesthetic exam, failure to provide a diagnosis prior to surgery, and failure to provide adequate post -surgical monitoring.
ARS § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (H) (2) within six hours before anesthesia was administered or surgery was performed, the dog's diagnosis and general condition was not recorded in the medical record.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure fo provide professionally acceptable procedures with respect to the communication around what was being performed on the dog; costs of sedation versus general anesthesia; risks of anesthesia in a bulldog; other treatments options available; as well as concerns about post-surgical monitoring, whether it was done, or documented, that should have happened after anesthesia.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (6 hours in client communication)
Civil penalty ($500)
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.