| Complaint: | Complaint 21-81 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Dorothy Nelson |
| Premises: | BluePearl Phoenix |
The complainant took one of six puppies from a litter of dogs to BluePearl Phoenx because the puppy was lethargic. He says that a vet tech, Dewey, came out to the car to collect information; Dewey allegedly asked if there were opiates or meth in the home before the complainant could even finish filling out the paperwork. Dewey took the dog to in take vitals and then came back out to collect the paperwork; at that time, she allegedly said the veterinarian recommended drug tests. The complainant was concerned as he had not even been able to mention that there were potentially dangerous plants in his backyard and that his young puppy had not yet even received any vaccines. The vet tech allegedly became somewhat hostile and said that a drug test would be necessary; the complainant wanted them to run tests to determine if the dog had parvo or ingested a toxic plant. The complainant received no updates for hours and had to call; the vet tech apparently said the drug test came back negative and the puppy was improving. The complainant is concerned that he may have been racially profiled. He's also concerned that they jumped into an investigation regarding drugs without due consideration given to other possible problems.
Nelson's response differs somewhat. She says the puppy came in and she read the initial patient history; the complainant suggested there were toxic plants but said he didn't think the dog got into any. The dog was said to be quiet, alert, responsive, had a dramatic menace reflex, couldn't stand up well, and was dribbling urine. An ECG showed no problems and Nelson suspected marijuana. A marijuana test was performed and came back negative, but she says as it was a human marijuana test, you can't really rely on those in dogs. She was apparently rather sure it was marijuana, so she recommended a repeat marijuana test in four hours. She was observed to improve, and vitals were taken again in four hours, the standard period for rechecking vitals at BluePearl Phoenix. The complainant called and asked for an update; she claims the complainant got angry and that she could hear it over the phone. She also notes that the complainant demanded his dog back without ever getting to speak with her. We're told the complainant began making a nuisance of himself in the hospital and security was notified; the dog was eventually given back to the complainant with Nelson never speaking to him much less learning his race. There doesn't appear to be any obvious mention of the other tests the complainant said they'd run, though perhaps they're in the medical record; we're also told that supporting statements from Nelson's coworkers are in the mail.
The Investigative Committee said that based on the symptoms the dog had the staff had the right to ask about marijuana. They also said marijuana is legal in Arizona. (Note that there appear to be some rather marked differences between the complainant's account and Nelson's account that don't even get mentioned.)
| Source: | July 7, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Dorothy Nelson | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| 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.