| Complaint: | Complaint 21-59 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Jacob Degraffenried |
| Premises: | Warner Vista Animal Hospital |
The complainant says he took his young and healthy dog to Degraffenried for a dental; he says the vet went ahead and took out five teeth without even talking to him first. He admits that he signed a release form but thought something as major as taking out five teeth would merit a call first. He says he was told by an assistant that the teeth were loose and needed to come out. He says that the dog had been under Degraffenried's care for years and had never had prior concerns with dental health before; he said his dog was doing well on oral chews and never displayed any pain or discomfort suggesting five teeth needed to come out.
Degraffenried's response says that the dog's front teeth were found to be loose once the dog had been examined the day of the dental. He also says that the teeth were so exposed that removal was the only option; one extracted tooth even had broken roots. He reminds the Board that dog's teeth can definitely deteriorate significantly in three years; he also says the complainant once told him the dog liked to chew on nuts in the backyard which may have weakened the teeth. He also points out that the complainant consented to it when he signed the paperwork.
The Investigative Committee discussion turns into a two-paragraph rant about how vets would never remove healthy teeth; they also say that when a pet is hungry he'll eat through the pain no matter how bad it is, and that in any event, these teeth aren't really used for chewing. They did say it might have been nice to call first, but not everybody does it.
It's interesting to read through how many times there's some variation of "veterinarians do not pull healthy teeth" in the records so far. A search for "healthy teeth" in similar contexts in the PDFs produces hits on 18-27, 18-53, 19-70, 20-60, and 21-59. One wonders if this was a particular pet peeve of one of our esteemed investigators; Rai was around for four of the five discussions but wasn't on the committee that handled 20-60.
| Source: | May 5, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Jacob Degraffenried | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Recused |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Jessica Creager |
| 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.