| Complaint: | Complaint 21-77 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Robert Evans |
| Premises: | Pet Allies |
The complainant says that he took his two dogs to a low-cost spay-and-neuter clinic with Pet Allies. Apparently both dogs were given tattoos as part of the neutering without his consent. He's particularly annoyed as he says one of the tattoo sites subseuqently got infected; when he contacted them about it he was asked if the dog had been licking the site, but he said it wasn't possible as the dogs had cones. He says he was given a topical medication and when the dog didn't improve Evans refused to give the dog more antibiotics even if he brought the dog in. He says that he and his wife had to take the dog to another veterinary clinic for help, where the dog was put on antibiotics and had to go through a second surgery. He notes both the suffering the dog went through as well as the emotional and financial stress this caused his family. He also says that he later received a call from someone with Pet Allies who asked him what happened and said to expect a call from their lawyer. He says that if he had known they were going to tattoo his dogs like this he would have just taken them elsewhere.
Evans says that the castration was routine; on discharge he states the complainant didn't get e-collars and ensure the dogs didn't lick the wounds. He says the next time he knew anything about this was when the complainant called and asked for a refill on antibiotics. Allegedly the complainant told him the dog had diarrhea for a week, so he was told that the dog couldn't have any more because the antibiotics were the problem. Evans instead says he directed to feed the dog cottage cheese.
The Investigative Committee said that the tattoo problem was not anything to do with the tattoo but rather a result of the complainant's non-complaince with taking better care of the dog. The Committee said that the tattoo reaction, even if it was a tattoo reaction, was no different than a suture reaction and therefore not a big deal; they did suggest the practice be clearer that the dogs are getting tattooed.
The Findings of Fact contain information from the other hospital, Alta Sierra, where it appears the dog was given antibiotics and a potential reaction to the tattoo ink was also discussed. The dog eventually had a second surgery to remove the tattoo and the skin around it.
| Source: | June 6, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Robert Evans | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| 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.