| Complaint: | Complaint 22-121 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Dorothy Nelson |
| Premises: | Scottsdale Cat Clinic |
The complainants state that their adult daughter took two two cats to Scottsdale Cat Clinic. They had been adopted as kittens but were now seniors, and one had uncontrolled diabetes while the other had signs of a urinary tract infection. At the clinic, Midwestern student Sara Weber wrote that the daughter was not taking good care of the cats, also stating that the daughter tried to remove one of the cat's teeth in the office; we're also told that Weber misinterpreted the daughter's statements about vet school in the Canary Islands as procedures she was actually doing to the cats now. This information was allegedly backed up by veterinarian Nelson despite not being present in the exam room, and dental treatment plans for thousands of dollars were generated for both cats.
While the daughter was told she was waiting for antibiotic injections, Nelson and friends called 911; Scottsdale cops came at the behest of the Arizona Humane Society and took both cats away. The complainants question why the cops couldn't have just done a home visit or temporarily held on to the cats; Nelson apparently said that the daughter might break into the vet clinic and steal the cats. In any event, these claims literally didn't hold up in Scottsdale City Court as an Animal Possessory Probable Cause hearing released them to the complainants the same day. We're told that they had to pay the Arizona Humane Society $1020 just to get the cats back; we're also told that no insulin was administered to the diabetic cat during those days and it returned with a blood glucose level of 345. We're also treated to a summary of the care the cats received once back at home.
The remainder of the complaint goes into other allegations Nelson and friends made against their daughter. They say that Nelson was concerned the daughter had provided a fake address, which makes no sense, and they also question why a woman allegedly performing her own vet procedures would be taking the cats to a vet. We're also told that while the daughter was in fact scruffing the cats (holding them on the back of the neck), it doesn't constitute abuse; she was trying to keep them from running all over the clinic. The daughter had volunteered for 6700 hours at the same Arizona Humane Society "with glowing recommendations" and also attended two years of veterinary school at AVMA-accredited universities. We're also told that many of the other charges are misunderstandings; they did have a raccoon in the garage, but it was a pest, not a pet, and their daughter did have pet hamsters, not rats and mice in the garage. The complainants say that Weber wrote down a variety of allegations that weren't true, those were accepted by Nelson, and even the cop ended up repeating them more or less verbatim.
Notes made by the daughter soon after the incident are included. We don't get her full side of the story because she died about a year after this incident. A variety of awards and commendations from the same Arizona Humane Society that took the cats is also included.
Nelson's response is one page. It states that the daughter appeared to be mentally challenged, said many concerning things about providing veterinary treatment at home to the cats, and also doing at-home dental extractions and administering insulin with an incorrect syringe and at dosages of her own creation (in fairness, I'm diabetic and "administer dosages of my own creation" every day, so I'm not sure if that even matters?). She also says that they all witnessed the daughter aggressively handling the cat and trying to pull out cat teeth with her bare hands. They called the Arizona Humane Society Cruelty hotline and were advised to call the cops becuase it was too late for the Humane Society to bother with it that day. She says that the cops came and got the cats, and while it was a difficult decision, she had no choice but to do so; it's her responsibility. She also points out that under Arizona law, since the accusation was made in "good faith" she has immunity for her actions.
The Investigative Committee discussion says that there were no violations. They also caution that lay persons or human doctors shouldn't ever interpret veterinary medicine cases because they're very different; one of the allegations in the Findings of Fact suggest that one of the complainants, a doctor, might have been giving the cats antibiotics.
The Findings of Fact essentially adopt the entirety of Nelson's account wholesale as what really happened; it also appears that the daughter was getting charged at one point. Whether they actually have other evidence to back up most of this beyond hearsay or they're just relying on the medical record being true is an open question. It also appears that the cats were in the care of a "Dr. Thompson" at the Arizona Humane Society; this could well be AHS top vet and board member Melissa Thompson.
| Source: | September 9, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Dorothy Nelson | 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: | Jim Loughead |
| 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 |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Dorothy Nelson | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Nay |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Nay |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Nay |
| Robyn Jaynes | Nay |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to show respect to the animal owner for not communicating the events that were transpiring. | |
| Result: | Failed |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Dorothy Nelson | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Jane Soloman |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Nay |
| J Greg Byrne | Nay |
| Jane Soloman | Nay |
| Jessica Creager | Nay |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Failed |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Dorothy Nelson | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Nay |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Nay |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| 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.