| Complaint: | Complaint 21-54 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Olivia Pan |
| Premises: | Desert View Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 21-60, 21-61 |
The complainant, a board-certified family physician, relates what happened to his dog. He says that his dog was given a cooked pork shank bone to chew; he later discovered the dog had chewed into the bone and gotten some of the marrow and fat. The dog started having diarrhea and vomiting; he's a doctor and his wife a nurse and they had concerns the dog might have a blockage.
He took the dog to see Pan at Desert View Animal Hospital for an "emergency level visit/exam consultation. We're told that Pan spoke with the complainant and examined the dog for a total of five to eight minutes and diagnosed pancreatitis subsequent to eating fatty pork bone. She said that the appearance of pancreatitis can be very similar to that of a blockage, gave the dog some shots, and recommended a bland diet. The dog vomited while in the clinic but this is said to have not been treated as a major concern. He noted he had concerns about Pan's quick diagnosis and started to wonder why further testing wasn't done to confirm the diagnosis, but that he didn't want to assume he knew more as a doctor than the veterinarian did. He took the dog home and the dog continued to deterioriate; he sent videos to the clinic and Pan told him to come back and pick up some pain medication. He came back and gave the medication but it didn't do any good; he says that he could tell his dog was staring off into space and shutting down, so he took the dog to BluePearl (that didn't go well either, see complaints 21-60 and 21-61). He says that Pan is guilty of incompetence and negligence for not performing a workup on the dog. He did a significant amount of research in the veterinary literature and found that acute pancreatitis is largely similar to that in humans; he builds a case that Pan's treatment of the dog was not only questionable from the standpoint of his profession but even by the standards of her own. He cites 15 different veterinary papers and veterinary textbooks to support the argument.
Pan says that her staff member got the initial history on the dog. She relates she discussed the dog's history with the complainant and his wife, noting that very little of the bone was missing so she thought the dog probably didn't have a blockage. She notes the dog groaned when his tummy was poked and had liquid diarrhea when she poked his butthole with a finger; aside from that the doggie was normal. She comments that the dog did vomit but the tech reported that there was no blood in it. We're told the clinic was having Internet problems but when they did get to see the videos that were sent the dog didn't seem to be doing that bad; she thought it was pain from the pancreatitis. She concludes by including a communication from the complainant's wife telling her about how the dog died. According to Pan, the dog was taken to BluePearl and released as stable, got worse, and died at the door of Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic; as veterinarians like to hit below the belt, she says that the complainant's wife told her that the complainant was too soft-spoken and didn't stand up well for the dog at BluePearl.
The Investigative Committee said that pancreatitis shouldn't be treated conservatively. They also questioned much of Pan's treatment plan, arguing that giving the dog fluids made no sense as he wasn't hydrated. They also point out that additional diagnostics should have been done to confirm the diagnosis; in addition, the dog should have been referred to an emergency facility given the state of the dog. The Committee voted to find gross negligence but the Board threw it out; they didn't even bother to send a Letter of Concern in its place.
The same Committee that felt Pan was guilty of gross negligence gives BluePearl a pass on sending the dog home in even worse straits; read on in 21-60 and 21-61.
| Source: | May 5, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Olivia Pan | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 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 for lack of performing/recommending diagnostics or referring the pet elsewhere for further treatment. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Olivia Pan | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | J Greg Byrne |
| 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.