| Complaint: | Complaint 21-89 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Kelsie Leavitt |
| Premises: | Banfield Scottsdale 1864 |
The complainants say they brought their dog to Banfield (owned by Mars Petcare which is owned by the candy bar people) to see Leavitt as the dog was not feeling well and having issues with his rear patella. Leavitt said there was a significant heart murmur she hadn't seen earlier that month along with fluid building up in the lungs; however, she didn't feel any of this was critical and recommended follow-up later. The complainants allege that Leavitt didn't seem to really care all that much about the dog but liked to make jokes. They were shocked at their dog's poor condition and even more shocked to learn the dog had been like this for hours at Banfield. The complainant took the dog to 1st Pet (itself a giant complaint-generator with at least 25 summarized complaints on file in our Tails of Woe) which treated the dog as a critical case for over 24 hours to save his life; they say the staff at 1st Pet were flabbergasted that Banfield left the dog in this condition. The complainant also notes that the reviews for Banfield were quite poor and that Leavitt in particular gets poor reviews. She hopes the Board will look into it.
Leavitt's response is wild. She begins telling us about all the scheduled procedures for the day, not just those related to the dog in question; we're told that she had an ovariohysterectomy and two dentals planned that day along with seven drop-offs. We're told that when she got out of the ovariohysterectomy she had to make time for a "fit-in euthanasia" before getting back to the dental procedures. Eventually she found time to examine the dog and noted a loud heart murmur that she had confirmed by another veterinarian at the Banfield. She notes that the dog was on the Active Care Plus Wellness Plan and recommended further testing; she wanted radiographs and says she recommended the complainant upgrade from the Active Care Plus Wellness Plan to the Special Care Wellness Plan as the latter helps with x-ray costs. She was in the middle of a procedure and then got pulled into a required Doctors Meeting but after all that was done she had a 30-minute "Triage time" to review the dog again. She said that she suspected congestive heart failure but can't imagine how the heart murmur came on so suddenly. She recommended the dog go to a cardiologist and said that while they didn't have any Furosemide for the heart problem on hand but that she could hand out some Pimobendan to tide the dog over until he could get to a cardiologist for some Furosemide. She also thought some Entyce might help make him eat. She also says that the complainant was wrong about her laughing at the situation or not taking it seriously; she says it was a misunderstanding.
The Investigative Committee said they had problems with Leavitt's handling of the case; indeed, they said the dog would probably have been dead if not for the complainants taking the dog somewhere else. They didn't know whether it was the result of Leavitt's inexperience or poor mentoring but that she could have asked someone for help; she's described by them as a "newly licensed professional." They found Leavitt guilty of gross incompetence; Sidaway voted against stating that she was guilty of not providing professionally acceptable procedures instead. The Board went on to throw it all out and sent a letter of concern.
Where did this allegedly grossly incompetent new grad get her veterinary degree? Midwestern University, the vet program that none other than Sidaway helped get off the ground.
For a similar case of an overwhelmed and inexperienced veterinarian at a Banfield, read 18-40.
| Source: | July 7, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Jay Jacobson | Respondent Attorney |
| Kelsie Leavitt | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Nay |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 32-2232(11) Gross incompetence; any professional misconduct or unreasonable lack of professional skill in the performance of professional practice. Respondent failed to intervene with (administer or prescribe) a diuretic for the dog's cardiogenic pulmonary edema. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Kelsie Leavitt | Respondent |
| T Scott King | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| 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 |
| Source: | September 9, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Kelsie Leavitt | Respondent |
| T Scott King | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Violations: | |
| Violation of Veterinary Practice Act (not specified) | |
| Result: | Failed (no second) |
| Source: | September 9, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Kelsie Leavitt | Respondent |
| T Scott King | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Nay |
| 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.