| Complaint: | Complaint 22-103 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Stephanie Howton |
| Premises: | Palo Verde Animal Hospital |
The complainant says that she had originally scheduled an appointment with another vet, Krumens, but ended up seeing Howton because Krumens wasn't there; she relates that the clinic appears to be almost entirely staffed by relief veterinarians which is impacting the quality of care. She had brought her dog in for a swelling that was likely to be a cyst based on previous testing, but to her dismay, Howton said that it was likely a mast cell tumor; a similar mass on the neck was also found that would require general surgery. Howton also recommended a dental despite the dog having one only a few months prior. The complainant says that a biopsy was done and the site ended up being infected, something she took up with Krumens. She says that her dog had unnecessary pain and suffering that took weeks to resolve, also stating that she spent $787.84 for unnecessary care since the mass went away on its own. A letter she sent to Krumens, the medical director, is also included.
Howton's response begins with the same basic introduction as the complainant, then continues on to the results of her physical exam. She notes that she found several skin abnormalities and performed a fine needle aspirate to obtain some fluid from the dog; she also tested the sample in-house to determine its composition and warned the complainant of the possibility of infection. As she was only a relief vet, she left instructions about following up with the complainant when the full report came in. She concludes with a point-by-point rebuttal of the complainant's letter to the medical director (included in the complaint); some relevant highlights regard the dental (she states that she was trained to grade dental health based on the worst tooth), beside manner (she referred to the dog as "kiddo" because she sees pets as being like children), diagnosis (she notes that just because other masses weren't a problem doesn't mean future ones won't be), and cost (she states that the complainant didn't understand the pet insurance didn't pay out because she hadn't met her deductible yet).
The Investigative Committee found that the complainant met the standard of care; they note that it wasn't a misdiagnosis, and if the mass had turned out to be a mast cell tumor, it would have been good to know. They state that the complainant has the benefit of hindsight knowing that it didn't turn out to be a tumor.
| Source: | August 8, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Stephanie Howton | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | 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.