| Complaint: | Complaint 22-02 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Anna Flocken |
| Premises: | Pantano Animal Clinic |
| Related: | 22-03 |
The complainant states that he had a 15-year-old cat who needed frequent anal gland expressions. Once or twice a year the cat would appear to show distress and would need an anal gland expression to resolve the problem over a couple of weeks. Along with the usual symptoms, he noticed that his cat had been drinking a lot more water lately, so he was worried something else might be going on. He explained to the staff at Pantano Animal Clinic that the cat had an anal gland problem, but that he wanted a workup to determine if something else was wrong.
He took the cat to Pantano Animal Clinic where he states that a veterinary technician told him the cat's anal glands were very full. The glands were expressed but according to the complainant, the vet tech struggled to find a word to describe the substance that came out of them; they mutually settled on the word "clay," which the complainant stated had never come out of his cat's anal glands before. He states that veterinarian Anna Flocken then came in but didn't appear to take his concerns about the cat seriously (at this point he states that he was concerned of a more serious problem but thought an anal gland had ruptured). She allegedly asked him some general questions about diet, exercise, outside activity, and then examined the cat's mouth.
At that point he states she began advocating for dental surgery to remove some bad teeth, which he agreed to do later. He was also presented with a rabies vaccine (without which the cat would not be permitted to come back to the clinic), which he also said he would have done later. However, he reiterated that his main concern was about what was wrong with the cat right now. Flocken stated that the cat's odd behavior and discomfort was likely a stress response from having such bad dental disease; she also said that an anal gland rupture would have presented differently. He was also given a recommendation for a GI biome diet for the cat.
The cat, however, did not do well, and continued to have problems. He assumed that the anal gland expression had been done incorrectly and wanted a second one for free, which the clinic refused to do. The manager also allegedly shouted at him over the phone, stating that the cat had the worst dental disease Flocken had ever seen in her life. He threatened to take them to court, at which point Flocken was put on the phone. She allegedly asked whether the cat was on the GI biome diet, reiterated that anal expressions don't come for free, and again asked about when the cat would be coming in for a dental procedure. Apparently Flocken finally agreed to reexamine the cat for free and the anal glands were re-expressed to yield a small amount of fluid.
This still didn't help so the complainant started calling around to other clinics. A receptionist at another clinic stated that the cat could be dying and needed to be seen by an animal hospital (the emergency and referral kind) immediately. He took the cat to VCA Valley where he claims a veterinarian was able to feel one of the cat's kidneys was woefully undersized during the initial exam; the cat was in kidney failure, did not respond to treatment, and subsequently died. The complainant states that he called up Pantano Animal Clinic several times to try and resolve his concerns over the issue, but that the manager in particular was in turn condescending, hostile, obnoxious, and may have called around to get records from VCA Valley after a particularly difficult call. He subsequently sued Anna Flocken in small claims court for a refund.
Flocken begins her response by thanking the Board for allowing her to extend her response period; she has moved out of state to begin a veterinary medicine residency program. She then states to not allow any personal information regarding anyone at Pantano Animal Clinic to become public, as the complainant is scary and she has serious concerns for everyone's safety and well-being. We're told that the veterinary records she submitted are rather scant because the complainant refused all diagnostics, and also points out that the complainant's small claims court filings were dismissed. Much of her summary overall matches with the complainant's, including her suggestion of dental surgery, and attempts to treat dental disease including a brief course of antibiotics, but the emphasis is somewhat different than the complainant's. She states that she mentioned her concerns for underlying medical conditions but that the complainant was only focused on anal glands. She also hoped that he would be willing to have a conversation about the cat's condition and "quality of life" (typically veterinary code for the subject of euthanasia).
She also states that she eventually terminated the client as a customer "out of respect to my profession" and that her actions were backed up by the medical director at Pantano, veterinarian Michael Lent. (Michael Lent is a former AzVMA President, former SAVMA President, former vet board member, and later AzVMA delegate to the national AVMA organization.) She reiterates the allegedly antagonistic nature of the complainant, stating that her request for an Order of Protection was denied by the Pima County Justice Court because the incidents only happened at her workplace. She also mentions her regrets that the complainant's "abuse" of the small claims court system has cost her "countless" hours of her own time dealing with them. She hopes he can find peace.
The Investigative Committee stated that there were no violations of the Veterinary Practice Act. They said that there were some communication issues but "everyone" made an effort to overcome them. It was also determined that it was "unknown" whether the cat might have survived had the kidney disease been discovered earlier; they note that "the pet parent may not see the pet declining until the condition is severe." (One gets the impression that the complainant could tell there was something wrong with the cat, but assumed it had to do with the anal gland given the prior history; interactions with the staff at Pantano appear from his perspective to have involved upselling on dental surgery rather than any attempt to investigate an underlying issue. Given the veterinary profession's reputation, it's not a surprise he thought he was being upsold or ripped off.)
| Source: | December 12, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Anna Flocken | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Aye |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| 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.