| Complaint: | Complaint 21-99 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Kim Knowles |
| Premises: | Veterinary Neurological Center |
The complainants say they started out by taking their dog to Joc Rawls (also mentioned in 21-109 as Virginia Kern's Board-appointed practice monitor!) as the dog was having unsteadiness in his front legs. Rawls thought it was a cervical disc issue and sent the dog to Kim Knowles at Veterinary Neurological Center. Knowles said that aside from the disc problem the dog was in great health and put him on steroids. The dog did well but started to have pain again at the end of the 10-day follow-up period; they did not get a response from VetNeuro for several days and became concerned as the weekend approached. After a second follow-up call, they finally received a response from a receptionist who told them Knowles saw no reason to see the dog; instead, she said that the dog should be kept on steroids longer.
The dog got sicker, started vomiting, and began checking out from daily surroundings. The complainants (a Google search suggests a medical doctor and his wife) began frantically calling around for a Banfield to deal with the problem; they couldn't get the dog in to a Banfield anywhere (perhaps they should have tried something other than Banfield). They called VetNeuro back and later received a response telling them to bring the dog in to their veterinarian, but by that point they had hospitalized the dog at Phoenix Veterinary Referral and Emergency Center. The dog remained there in critical care all week with "diabetic ketoacidosis which progressed to pancreatitis, hemorrhagic esophagitis, and multi-system organ failure." The dog wouldn't eat and was referred to VetMed for a feeding tube, but VetMed said that the dog would be a poor candidate and recommended pulling the plug. The dog was euthanized on Valentine's Day. The complainants say that Knowles should have known the risk of pancreatitis caused by steroids as they didn't know; they also have concerns about the dosing of the drugs in question given other information they've found. In addition to killing their dog, they say they have a debt of $12,954.22 that they want reimbursed for.
The Investigative Committee said that they had serious concerns about the communication between the complainants and Knowles, particularly with the handling of the communication by receptionists. They also said that it's hard to know if Knowles actually knew what was going on with the dog as the receptionists might have been botching things up for her, but at the very least, she didn't want to see the dog at the 10-day checkup window despite knowing the dog wasn't doing well. (You would think if they're trying to pin this on the front desk they could investigate the responsible veterinarian for the premises, but that's not going to happen.) The Committee found Knowles guilty of gross negligence; the Board disagreed and sent her a Letter of Concern about getting back to people.
(I generally don't like to add personal anecdotes to these accounts, but in this case I think it's worth mentioning. My dog saw Knowles after he had his back problem; in the end, after an MRI, she tumbled on to what had happened regarding a burst disc in his back. He did improve and she did like steroids. Once he started having seizures both Knowles and VetNeuro tended to make themselves scarce; our family vet said his blood was as thick as a strawberry milkshake and another MRI found that he had a stroke. Eventually Cody had cluster seizures and got stuck at VCA ARECA where Fox was trying to transfer Cody back to VetNeuro but VetNeuro kept refusing; Knowles seemed more concerned that we had our family veterinarian contact UC Davis for neurology advice and handed all communication off to the receptionist. This complaint matches my personal experience with Knowles, but by the standards of her profession, nobody else is much better. It also reinforces my personal belief that behind every corpse in a complaint there are probably several we don't know about as it never got reported anywhere.)
| Source: | August 8, 2021 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Kim Knowles | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Nay |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; failure to communicate with the pet owners to discuss their concerns regarding the condition of the dog after Respondent's recommended treatment. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Kim Knowles | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Jane Soloman |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Recused |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Kim Knowles | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Nay |
| Darren Wright | Nay |
| J Greg Byrne | Nay |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Nay |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (12) Respect to courteous verbal communications | |
| Result: | Failed |
| Source: | November 11, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Kim Knowles | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Nay |
| Jane Soloman | Nay |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| Robyn Jaynes | Nay |
| 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.