| Complaint: | Complaint 21-75 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Thomas Miller |
| Premises: | Miller Pet Hospital |
The complainant begins by saying that she believes Miller made a mistake that resulted in the death of her dog; she's found it very difficult to deal with and had no success in taking up the matter with him. We learn that apparently her dog had a dental with Miller but started to have problems afterward; she suggested taking the dog to emergency but Miller allegedly told her not to and that the emergency service would just put the dog down. She believes that was odd and that Miller was just trying to cover up for a mistake; she also relates that she went to another veterinarian, Stofft, who suggested filing a complaint with the Board. Her dog had been having problems with weakness and falling over, so she took her dog to Miller. Miller suggested a dental and said it would be like getting a new dog; she mentioned that other veterinarians said the dog's heart disease was too severe and recommended pulse therapy instead. Miller allegedly said he never heard of pulse therapy before. She felt reassured and went ahead with the dental; she got a call during the dental saying 20 teeth needed pulled, and she agreed with concerns. The dog didn't do well when recovering and eventually had to go back, getting IV fluids. Miller did an x-ray that was sent to a cardiologist friend in Phoenix (Matt Miller, unsure if a relation?) who mentioned concerns about the right side of the heart; the dog had been previously diagnosed with mitral valve disease (the left side of the heart) and the complainant wonders why veterinarians pretend to be able to diagnose heart issues rather than sending someone to a specialist. She even says she mentioned that to Miller and he replied that she wouldn't have paid to go to a cardiologist; she appears angry at the suggestion as she mentions she spent $2000 just for Miller to pull out teeth, so of course she would have taken her dog to a cardiologist. She thinks that Miller makes a lot of money doing dentals and his conduct is fueled by greed. She also says that Miller accused her of taking poor care of the dog by not having a dental done sooner; she says that her prior veterinarian had never recommended a dental. (She doesn't mention the ultimate fate of the dog but the Findings of Fact claim that the dog went back several times, was put on sildenafil, got worse, wouldn't eat, and was eventually euthanized; apparently Miller claims he referred the dog out to a cardiologist but the complainant would never say yes.)
Miller's response tells us that the dog's breath was so nasty he could smell it from four feet away. Those teeth were seriously diseased and he looked in the dog's mouth to confirm it. He says that the complainant mentioned other veterinarians warned her about a dental in the dog given his high-risk nature, instead suggesting pulse therapy. He said he hadn't heard the term in 20 years because it's no longer used. He's done extensive dental training through Brent Beckman in Georgia and confirmed with Arizona Veterinary Dental Specialists, where Balke, Fink, And Kaufman all said pulse therapy was a no-no due to antibiotic resistance. He says he told the complainant the dog was going to continue to suffer and recommended a referral to a dental specialist but the complainant said she couldn't afford it. He also says that once he saw the dog's mouth it was one of the worst he had ever seen in his entire career! He notes that the dog eventually did badly and then was euthanized, but his office tried to do everything they could and provided many treatments at no cost to help out. He also says that she came back to the clinic with her other dogs for the next month and had another dental done; if she was so unhappy with what he did, why would she ever come back? He was just trying to help the dog lead a better life free from pain. He also says he never discussed a refund.
The Investigative Committee only had three members (Almaraz, Rai, and Kritsberg) but seems to have had differing opinions during the discussion; we don't know who said what, and in the end, they all voted unanimously to exonerate Miller. They didn't agree on whether or not additional testing was warranted prior to the dental, nor did they agree whether the dental should have been done in the first place given the dog's health. Some of them said that the dog needed the dental even though he was so sick (indeed, he did die, didn't he?), while others questioned whether or not the complainant understood the risks. In any event they said that the complainant kept bringing her other dogs to Miller even after this one died, so she must not have lost confidence in him; they also say we don't really know why the dog died in the end. (It might help if they read the complaint. The complainant says that she had been working through all this, both with herself and Miller, for months; he says that she only used his services for another month or so after the death.)
There's also some interesting stuff in the complaint that isn't directly related to the complaint but nonetheless bears mentioning. She says she'd never even heard of the Board before the other veterinarian mentioned it to her. She has some doubts because of its very poor Google reviews, yet hopes they will listen; she mentions the poor quality of veterinary care in the Tucson area and wonders if the Board is very busy from all the complaints.
It's also worth mentioning the Investigative Committee's biases on this one. We literally have a dead dog, but the usual consensus in such complaints is that good dental health is worth the risk.
| Source: | June 6, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Thomas Miller | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| 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.