| Complaint: | Complaint 22-115 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | L H Nelson |
| Premises: | Pet Doctor Chandler |
The complainant (part of a Tucson-area animal rescue) reports that her rescue saved a diabetic dog from Pima Animal Care and Control. The dog was taken to Pet Doctor for a glucose curve prior to a dental. The dog was doing very well at her foster home and came in for a spay at Pet Doctor. At that time she was diagnosed with a fatty mass, but this was allegedly a misdiagnosis of an inguinal hernia. The dog died several days after the spay; VSCOT veterinarians allegedly related that the hernia wall had been weakened as the result of the surgery, permitting the dog's intestines and organs to enter the hole.
Nelson describes the dog as geriatric, also noting that as a diabetic dog, she was "lumpy and bumpy" from fat deposits. The spay surgery was uneventful so they also proceeded with a dental that was similarly uneventful. Nelson states that there was no hernia found with the spay procedure, also noting that neither PACC or Danielle Simons, another Pet Doctor veterinarian, had noted a hernia either. (Nelson writes as though the complainant is claiming he caused the hernia, but the actual complaint suggests that the surgery weakened an existing one that went undiagnosed.) He says that it's a difficult case and rescues often "don't seem to understand the many risks and challenges of such cases."
The Investigative Committee stated that the surgery for the spay and dental went fine, stating that the hernia was not associated with the spay (again, the claim was that the surgery caused the hernia to worsen, not that it caused the hernia itself). The committee suggests that it was actually a consequence of the dog's diabetes and Cushing's disease "and likely had a weakened abdomen." They did, however, find violations with medical records omissions and the dog being sent home without painkillers or antibiotics; the Board found a minor records violation and assessed a $500 fine.
The Findings of Fact point out a few specific things here. One is that the dog wasn't suspected of having Cushing's until the VSCOT visit; it's unclear if the dog ever actually came back with a diagnosis as the dog didn't live that long. Another is that the hernia was originally thought to be associated with the spay incision, yet when operating they discovered that it was actually chronic; note that the complainant doesn't seem to be saying the surgery caused the hernia, but rather that the surgery weakened the existing hernia to the point that the dog had a bad time in a hurry.
| Source: | September 9, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| L H Nelson | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (L): (7) failure to document in the animal's medical record the type of gas anesthetic used; (7) (a) failure to document in the animal's medical record the concentration of Pen G administered; and (7) (d) failure to document in the animal's medical record the route of administration of Atropine. | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (18) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (E) failure to provide discharge instructions. | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to -AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to use current professional and scientific knowledge by not dispensing antibiotics or pain medication in a diabetic dog that underwent a spay and dental procedure with extractions. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| L H Nelson | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Melissa Thompson |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Recused |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2233 (B) (3) minor medical record violations that are routine entries into a medical record that did not affect the diagnosis or care of the dog. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| L H Nelson | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Melissa Thompson |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Recused |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | Order 22115 (November 11, 2022) |
|---|---|
| Violations: | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2233 (B) (3) minor records violations that are routine entries into a medical record and that do not affect the diagnosis or care of the animal. | |
| Penalties: | |
| Civil penalty ($500) | |
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.