| Complaint: | Complaint 21-97 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Ryan Svoboda |
| Premises: | Hayden Road Animal Hospital |
The complainant says he took his dog to Svoboda (and his father) for atopic dermatitis in the dog's foot. We're told the dog was mismanaged on antibiotics and steroids for two and a half years before they finally performed surgery. The dog went through a painful surgery that subsequently failed when the opening popped open and needed to be reconnected; the complainant believes they did a bad job on the first surgery but claims he was told it happened because his dog was heavy. The infection came back and he was referred to a dermatologist. The conversation with the dermatologist gave him concerns about Svoboda's handling of the case. He was told that the medications given were usually not used as a first-line treatment for years and were not matched to the underlying problem the dog had; we're also told that the surgery was overkill for the problem the dog had and could have been treated less aggressively if Svoboda had bothered to check. The complainant says that he believes mistakes are okay but that dishonesty is not. When he went to get his dog's records from Svoboda's office he says that the receptionist almost handed them to him before taking them back to check with Svoboda; she says that she then told him she had to remove all the doctor's notes from the records first. He also claims that Svoboda lied to the insurance company about offering bacterial cultures and that he's never seen copies of the third party cytology reports that were allegedly done.
Svoboda says that he had not been treating the dog for foot allergies for the past two years. He states that cytology was performed diagnosing a bacterial infection; Svoboda also says that he referred the dog to a dermatologist for allergy testing but the complainant turned it down. He says the complainant lived quite some distance from his clinic and was very cost-conscious; there's a mention of additional cytology and the complainant being concerned about the side-effects of medications. Instead we're told the complainant started therapy using serum allergy drops through IDEXX laboratory (?) and refused to meet with a dermatologist. He claims the complainant took the dog elsewhere for a second opinion but he has no records of that visit. He says the complainant eventually took him up on an offer of surgery but refused a biopsy. We're told that the second surgery was required because the complainant didn't keep the dog from licking his foot. We're also told the complainant got so angry they did the second surgery for free. The complainant eventually sent a "hostile" email showing a possible spread of the infection; Svoboda recommended a dermatologist and felt that the complainant should seek care elsewhere because he was too hostile to the staff. He says that the complainant continued to ask for care for his dog. He also says the complainant is to blame for the dog's problems and undermined his quality care.
The Investigative Committee said that a culture could have been offered earlier in the process but these things are hard. They also said that Svoboda offered additional testing and a referral to a dermatologist, both of which were turned down; they state Svoboda has a "special interest in dermatology." (No discussion of why the timelines between the complainant and Svoboda are off by years.)
| Source: | August 8, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Ryan Svoboda | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | 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 | 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.