| Complaint: | Complaint 22-119 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Selina Velasquez |
| Premises: | BluePearl Phoenix |
The complainant brought his dog to BluePearl Phoenix with possible parvo. He was told that his dog might need a feeding tube as the dog wasn't eating, a 24 hour stay at the hospital, antibiotics, and pain meds. The next morning he was told by Velasquez that since the dog was only going to be there for 24 hours she didn't feel comfortable doing a feeding tube (and in fairness, another BluePearl operation killed a cat with one in 21-104).
He then asked about a liquid IV being put on the dog or being sent home with water bags; she said that she also didn't feel comfortable with that. He said that he had successfully done so in the past with another dog that had parvo, and he was able to learn how to do so with that veterinarian. She said that she wasn't comfortable doing that because "we don't have that kind of relationship." He was dumbfounded and had his mother pick up the dog; the dog was sent home with some antinausea medication and was said to look awful. The dog was taken to another vet (Cruz Castenedo) who said the dog was really dehydrated and sent him home with bags of water, appetite stimulants, pain medications, and more. They rechecked him again after the weekend and the dog was doing much better (according to the Findings of Fact they also diagnosed and treated the dog for coccidia).
Velasquez's response is rather long. She states that the complainant's dog was lethargic and developed vomiting and diarrhea. The dog was obtained from the Arizona Humane Society in February 2022 after receiving vaccines, but hadn't received follow-up vaccinations. The family approved an estimate of $2384.06 that included a feeding tube. Intravenous fluids and some medications were stated. She spoke with the complainant and realized that he only could only afford to keep the dog there for 24 hours, so the feeding tube wouldn't be a good option.
She also told him that it would cost $1500 a day just to keep the dog there at all, but that unless the dog had stable vitals, no diarrhea, and started eating, the dog wouldn't meet their criteria for discharge. She offered to continue hospitalization but forego the tube to save money or discharge the dog for outpatient care. She also informed him that it's her policy to not send dogs home with fluids because she wants people to take dogs back to their primary veterinarian; she told him that her primary job as an emergency veterinarian is to promote follow-up care with family veterinarians.
She subsequently learned that the complainant was planning to come get his dog, at which point she attempted to leave him a voicemail as he seemed disgruntled. He never called back and his mother discharged the dog after signing an against-medical-advice form. The complainant also gets accused of calling back with anger, as well as stalking Velasquez on Facebook and learning she has dogs.
The Investigative Committee somehow concluded "that this case appears to be a misunderstanding of communication." Velasquez had a valid rationale for all recommendations, and the feeding tube would likely have been a bad idea if it had to be removed within 24 hours. They also discuss that sending a patient home with fluids is a personal choice of the attending veterinarian. (The Findings of Fact state that the complainant agreed to all treatment recommendations provided by Cruz Castenedo at the other clinic and the dog pulled through just fine; one suspects that the complainant wanted to use his limited funds in the best way possible to save the dog, and it appears that he made the right decision by bailing.)
| Source: | September 9, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Selina Velasquez | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Absent |
| Justin McCormick | Aye |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Nikki Frost |
| 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 | 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.