| Complaint: | Complaint 22-105 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | William Langhofer |
| Premises: | Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic |
The complainant dropped his dog off at Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic for a spay and got a call about half an hour later from veterinarian Samuel Kerby; while the dog was being taken between buildings for the procedure, the dog escaped its collar and ran off. After a chase around the cross-streets of Thomas Road and Scottsdale Road they were able to coax the dog into a car. The dog was taken back and treated for paw pad ulcerations and nail bed wear, dressing the wounds and handing out some medications. Kerby took responsibility for the incident but also said that the City of Scottsdale had been delaying their permit to build permanent fencing. The complainant also recommends an "internal brainstorming of ideas" and helpfully suggests drugging the dogs or putting them in a crate and pushing them over along a ramp so they can't escape. A practice administrator told him the responsible employee would be dealt with. (The Findings of Fact actually state that the responsible employee ended up getting a dog bite trying to recapture the dog and herself had to go to an emergency facility.)
Langhofer writes the response as the responsible veterinarian for the facility. He notes that the patient was captured and safely returned to the clinic. After the incident the clinic "reiterated our clinic slip lead protocol" in an email and put up additional signage; they've also made arrangements to put up temporary fencing while waiting for city approval. (In that way it's similar to 22-36 and 22-37 where Langhofer's establishment starts upgrading anesthesia machines after they finally killed a patient with one.)
The Investigative Committee didn't particularly care. They said that the veterinarian took responsibility for what happened, noting that nothing can be certain to stop a dog from running off; they claim "even when fencing is present, dogs can still escape" and appear to chalk it up to a staff failure. They did consider whether someone should have thought about putting in a temporary fence before a dog actually escaped, but in the end found no violations.
This complaint has echoes of 19-88, in which a dog walks out of a BluePearl into the night.
| Source: | August 8, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| William Langhofer | 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: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| 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.