| Complaint: | Complaint 22-12 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Barbara Guminski |
| Premises: | East Mesa Animal Hospital |
The complainant states that Guminski is responsible for deliberate misconduct and negligence for purposely delaying an emergency euthanasia of her dog. She states that it's with extreme sadness that she's filing the complaint, particularly as she's worked there as part of the front desk staff for three and a half years and is currently employed there at the time of the complaint. She relates that her dog was treated with disregard, bounced around to various locations in the hospital, and that Guminski is the only actual veterinarian practicing there. She believes that her witnesses/coworkers would support her side of the story but face the potential for workplace retaliation if they do so.
She relates that she notified the office regarding an emergency euthanasia and came in an hour early. When Guminski got there, she simply told the complainant she had to play by the rules like everyone else; Guminski went on to see a variety of non-emergency patients while the dog waited and was bounced around the facility, including back and forth between the kennels and a surgical room on a gurney. The facility's owner, Virginia Kern (a frequent respondent in other complaints), allegedly stated that a vet tech could just go ahead and euthanize the dog. In the end, it appears Guminski gave the dog the final shot while he was dumped on a gurney in the hallway; the dog's body was left in a bag on the gurney for several hours which the complainant had to walk by throughout the remainder of her workday. She states that other techs told her the body had not been moved because Guminski had not given them the key to open the computer and enter the relevant information on the body; she was also billed an emergency fee for this "emergency" euthanasia.
Guminski's response discusses her actions and other patients the day in question; she also states that a man she didn't recognize was there with the dog, and that she was going to euthanize but he told her not to because the complainant wanted to be present. Guminski also states that Kern later told her that she had placed the catheter for euthanasia (is Kern supposed to be practicing, and if not, does this count?). Guminski goes on to blame some of her staff, stating that they didn't notify her about the emergency euthanasia, and that the complainant should have known how protocols at the hospital worked since she is an employee. She states that the employee/complainant didn't consider her dog to be in an emergency situation, did not pay an emergency fee, and showed no respect for her or the clinic. If she had known, she states she would have come in an hour early to meet her and euthanize the dog.
The Investigative Committee said that the two sides of the story are markedly different. However, they believe Guminski's account because the witnesses (the complainant's colleagues and the respondent's employees) provided statements backing Guminski instead. They also said that "euthanasia situations are emotional," that "the matter was handled as well as possible," and that "some" members felt the dog should have been euthanized first. Mentions are also made of a "personality conflict" betwen the two, but "[r]egardless, the pet's suffering should have been addressed timely." No violations were found.
This kind of ruling isn't really a surprise, particularly given the composition of the Investigative Committee that heard it. It also provides a bit of a window into what at least one veterinary practice with a long complaint history does to its own employees; in many respects, it's just another anecdote on the pile showing what veterinarians really think of pets.
| Source: | January 1, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Barbara Guminski | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Absent |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| 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: | March 3, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Barbara Guminski | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | March 3, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Barbara Guminski | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Nay |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Nay |
| 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.