| Complaint: | Complaint 22-126 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Raissa De La Cruz |
| Premises: | Vetco 1132 |
The complainant says that she took the dog to Vetco (in Petco) for a dental. De La Cruz called for permission to pull a tooth, which she agreed to. She was told that the dog would be ready in a few hours but subsequently learned that the dog wasn't coming out of anesthesia well. The family visited and the dog was laying on a mat on the floor and couldn't move. De La Cruz said she could find no cause of the problems and was told the dog rolled to the edge of the table but definitely didn't fall off.
The dog was transferred to AVECCC and placed in oxygen. The dog was then transfered to VetNeuro for an MRI where the dog was found to have a spine injury, paralysis in all four legs, pneumonia, and hypoventilation. The dog was transferred back to AVECCC in oxygen for extensive treatment and spent most of the next 20 days on a ventilator. The complainant also learned that the dog had actually fallen off the table; De La Cruz had denied it to her but didn't deny it to the other veterinarians now treating the dog.
Despite so many health problems, the complainant is still helping the dog. The dog is learning how to get around using a cart after months of physical therapy, as the dog can move the cart with her hind legs (the front legs still don't work). We're also told of the variety of problems the dog faced in surviving at all (considering vets' penchant for humanely dispatching sick pets it's surprising they found veterinarians willing to help this dog). She says that Petco and De La Cruz continuously lied to her, and it also apepars that Petco stiffed the complainant on the bill for the dog's care; they're only willing to pay half of the $70K, say that she'll have to sue for the remainder, and won't pay until the dog's treatment is completed. (Part of this may be to get more insurance to kick in, but I suspect the latter part may be because they're trying to financially pressure the complainant into killing her own dog to make the problem go away.) It took the dog six months after her disastrous dental to even be able to sit up again.
The response by De La Cruz is more than a little peculiar. She does describe the dental, states that the dog fell off the table while she was out of the room calling the complainant, and didn't learn about it until she came back in; because the dog was okay, she went ahead and proceeded with the dental after he fell off the table. (The Findings of Fact state that Petco/Vetco wouldn't provide the video to the complainant, nor did they provide it to the Investigative Committee). Once she was finished with the procedure, she notes the dog wasn't coming out of anesthesia very well, so she let the complainant know. (If she knew the dog fell off the table this early on, either the complainant is lying about De La Cruz or De La Cruz and her staff are covering it all up.) She depicts the transfer of the dog as a team effort, also noting that Petco/Vetco paid for an MRI. De La Cruz also evaluated the video recording of the dog falling off the table and said that there could definitely have been spinal trauma (but nobody else gets to see the video, it seems). She says that the complainant did repeat shopping at Petco to buy items for the paralyzed dog's recovery and at that time was very friendly. It was a a big accident.
The Investigative Committee said that the complainant didn't show up for the hearing, likely because the financial aspect had been taken care of (they'd come to a settlement, so whether that means they're not otherwise concerned or if there's a gag order is open). They also say that the board would have to subpoena the video themselves because they can't get it from Petco.
The IC found a variety of problems with the handling of the dog, the anesthesia, actions taken after the dog fell off, and how a properly-intubated patient shouldn't even be falling off a table in the first place. Curiously, they state that once De La Cruz knew what happened, she told the complainant right away, but they also say she wasn't forthcoming; it seems quite a contradiction, and when you read their statements side-by-side, it's hard to reconcile. The found gross negligence and the board threw it all out; there wasn't even a Letter of Concern.
| Source: | October 10, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Raissa De La Cruz | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Absent |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; for allowing the pet to jump/fall off the dental table which led to the dog's injury. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Nay |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2023 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Raissa De La Cruz | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Absent |
| 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.