| Complaint: | Complaint 22-125 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Judith Kashman |
| Premises: | Banfield Scottsdale 0147 |
The complainant took her dog to Banfield because he was behaving differently and had lameness in a leg. Kashman diagnosed the dog with a ligament injury and referred them to an orthopedic specialist. The dog got worse before a specialist could see him, losing mobility in both legs, so Kashman prescribed stronger painkillers but didn't re-examine the dog. They took the dog to a different vet (Sherrell) who suspected Valley Fever and began treatment for it while waiting for test results. The dog also went to VetNeuro (Knowles) who diagnosed an advanced case of Valley Fever; by this point the dog was lame in both hind legs and had lost sensation in the lower half of his body, leading to Knowles' concern about the dog regaining mobility. In addition to Kashman's prescriptions making it more difficult to treat the Valley Fever aggressively, the complainant notes the long delay and additional cost of care because of the missed diagnosis at Banfield.
Kashman's response describes the dog's medical history and presentation with a particular focus on why she didn't suspect Valley Fever. She states that x-rays read in-house found no sign of Valley Fever, and even the IDEXX radiologist who read them out suggested that a cruciate injury was the most likely diagnosis. She also notes that the dog had been doing very well only one day before the injury showed up, also noting that the dog had no other symptoms consistent with Valley Fever at the time she saw him. She also says that the complainant didn't follow her directions to take the dog to a board-certified orthopedic surgeon as she recommended (the complaint reads as though they tried but they were booked out for weeks), the complainant merely took the dog to an AZPetVet location with no specialists 20 days after the initial exam at Banfield. She says that the complainant inaccurately reported the decline in the pet's health, nor did any of the other vets ever bother to contact her office for records. After the complainant filed a complaint with Banfield they did give her a refund.
The Investigative Committee handling of this one stands out a bit. They state that it's easy with hindsight to see that the diagnosis was missed, but on the other hand, things can change in a hurry. On the other hand, they also say that "the initial exam and treatment thereafter was diasappoint and less than adequate" but that they "did not feel it was a violation but more of a concern" that often happens at corporate premises (it may be that they mean Banfield in particular). They also had concerns about how Kashman was able to obtain drawer movement (they move part of the dog's leg, and if the leg can move forward like a drawer, it means that the ligament's no longer holding it together correctly) without sedating the dog, felt communication was poor, and even specifically said that she should have rechecked the dog. But still, no violations; apparently "less than adequate" care still meets whatever standard these people are using.
| Source: | October 10, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Judith Kashman | Respondent |
| T Scott King | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Aye |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Judith Kashman | Respondent |
| Leanne Hay | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Craig Nausley |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Recusal |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| 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.