| Complaint: | Complaint 21-88 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Makenzie Kurth |
| Premises: | Queen Creek Veterinary Clinic |
The complainant claims that Kurth, medical director and veterinarian, failed to provide medical care to his suffering dog; he states that this constitutes animal cruelty under ARS § 13-2910 (A)(2). Most of his complaint is actually taken from what was handed off to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, along with the police records he obtained and submitted as part of his complaint; it's quite the read. It appears that the dog was being boarded at his regular veterinary boarding facility but generally went to other veterinarians for medical care.
He and his spouse were not notified of any problems with the dog but when they went to pick up the dog, they were told he had a "little problem"; he relates the dog was presented shaking in a blanket and could not use his hind legs. He asked why nothing was being done for his dog and was told that they were still waiting for the records from the regular veterinarian to come over. He also asked why nobody had contacted them (as there was a note in the records to contact them in medical situations) and was told they were waiting for the records. He says that he asked to speak with Kurth who told him that nobody had hurt his dog and "he's like a thousand years old and this kind of thing happens sometimes." Kurth then offered to do an x-ray and give the dog a shot; he says Kurth came back cheerful and said the dog was in good shape but there were no signs of cancer. (Kurth's opinion of the dog's health contrasts markedly with the family's regular veterinarian, Sunderman, who said the dog was in good shape for his age.) Kurth allegedly told them that they could try steroids but that there were no guarantees as he was "a very old man." The complainants elected to euthanize as his condition appeared irreversible.
The complainant then relates that his instincts as a former decorated LAPD detective told him something was off regarding both Kurth and the backstory at Queen Creek. His wife called the family veterinarian's office at San Tan and was told that Queen Creek had been trying to send the dog there and said he was in "bad shape"; the receptionist she spoke with allegedly said she could tell something was off with the conversation. The complainant's wife informed the receptionist that they were planning to report Kurth and Queen Creek for animal cruelty; the receptionist at San Tan allegedly said that her "office doesn't usually speak against other veterinary clinics, but if they're negligent, they should be held accountable." A subsequent encounter with staff at Queen Creek while picking up the dog's remains allowed the complainant to identify the staff member who likely placed the call; he concludes that her story also doesn't add up and suspects the dog was injured while squirming during a nail trim. He also includes some emails from Stephanie Salinas, the practice manager at Queen Creek, along with a request that he direct all future questions directly to her rather than the employees.
The complainant went to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and they apparently cared enough to assign a detective to the matter. The detective, Gioia, spoke with San Tan and confirmed that Queen Creek had asked to bring the dog in as the dog couldn't use his back legs; he also learned that no records request had been from Queen Creek based on the flags in the records system. Gioia interviewed Kurth, who told him that they waited to do anything for the dog as they were waiting on records; she also told Gioia that usually they would start doing something right away but that in this case they wanted to collect the records and have a "game plan" in place. Kurth also said that they "think" pain is involved for a dog in such a condition but we "do not know the extent of the pain" and that potentially "the suffering was extended longer than it should be." Gioia even spoke with Bernard Mangone (himself a respondent in several complaints) as he's the contracted vet for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Mangone told Gioia that this definitely fit the Arizona statute relating to cruelty to animals; he also said the matter needed to be forward to the Vet Board. Kurth was cited with a misdemeanor.
The case was subsequently assigned to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and attorney Jacob Lee. Lee apparently spoke with the complainant and told him that Kurth had "hired a high-priced attorney," that Lee knew the attorney in question, and that he was a "reasonable man." Next week the complainant got a call from Karen Sciarrota, Lee's supervisor, who said that they had decided not to prosecute the case after all. The complainant says that based on his professional work in law enforcement, he concludes that the case was dropped because of Kurth's position as a licensed veterinarian, the standing of Kurht's attorney, and the fact that MCAO has little experience in prosecuting an animal cruelty case against a veterinarian. The complainant took the matter to the veterinary board.
Kurth's response states that according to the owners the dog was 17 years old, but her records said the dog was 14 years old. She said that on the morning the dog was due to go home it was reported the dog had hind weakness; she notes she performed an exam despite the owners' direction not to treat the dog without prior authorization and concluded the dog was stable. She says she requested records and didn't receive them. Four hours later the owners showed up to get the dog and she found the dog was now paraplegic. She did another exam and found that the dog had no signs of severe pain, but neither had he lost deep pain sensation, indicating the dog was more likely to regain his previous health. She told the owners she thought that disc disease or embolism were most likely but the owners thought someone there must have hurt their dog. She claims she performed exams at her own expense and thought disc disease was the most likely cause; she says she offered a neurology referral or to send the dog to the regular vet but the owners just wanted euthanasia. (The complainant didn't really seem like he was being given very good odds on the dog from Kurth.) She also relates the owner/complainant threatened to report her to the cops and had connections in the cop community. She states that Officer Redman came by to get information and apologized for having to be there, and he later came back with Gioia who presented her with a subpoena. She says that all charges were later dropped and she will be filing a complaint against the cops; allegedly an Internal Affairs investigation is now underway. She says she has "no reason to believe an outside veterinarian was contacted before issuing the citation." (Gioia notes in one of the police records that Mangone, the MCSO's contracted veterinarian, specifically said that it fell under the statute for animal cruelty.)
Almaraz, Rai, Dow, and Sidaway, our Investigative Committee, state that there was no evidence whatsoever suggesting any kind of animal cruelty that caused the injury. They then go on to say that Kurth's approach to the dog was appropriate as she was just boarding the dog, not treating the dog for anything. They applaud her for examining the dog twice despite being told not to on the paperwork (though, again, there's a big difference between providing emergent treatment vs. whatever else). They also note that this isn't cruelty because even though the dog was down, it didn't mean the dog was necessarily in pain. They also said that despite waiting four hours or more, since the dog still had deep pain sensation, it indicates that Kurth hadn't neglected the dog; the dog could still be helped but the complainants elected euthanasia.
Kurth gets off without a scratch and shows back up in 21-130. In that case she's the respondent when her clinic allegedly found a lethargic dog with pale gums to be stable and not in need of emergent care; Kurth says the complainant was pretending to be a nurse. We don't know who her high-priced attorney was, but she appeared before the board alongside Kurt Altman and Ashley Fitzwilliams. Altman wouldn't be a bad guess as it appears his firm does it all from homicide cases to occupational licensing; he'll even help you draft legislation and lean on your local legislators according to his website. Ashley Fitzwilliams, meanwhile, is said to have been a deputy county attorney with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.
| Source: | July 7, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Ashley Fitzwilliams | Respondent Attorney |
| Kurt Altman | Respondent Attorney |
| Makenzie Kurth | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Ashley Fitzwilliams | Respondent Attorney |
| Mackenize Kurth | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| 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.