| Complaint: | Complaint 22-129 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Caitlyn Wilson |
| Premises: | VCA Animal Referral and Emergency Center of Arizona |
The complainant says that she took her service animal to VCA ARECA because his back legs weren't functioning correctly. She had scheduled the dog for an exam at his regular vet, but because his appointment was the next day, she brought the dog to VCA ARECA for some help in managing his pain. Wilson allegedly told the complainant the dog's only option was a $10000 to $12000 surgery and refused any other tests to rule out other causes first; Wilson also allegedly said that the dog needed a neurologist, but as there were none available, they needed to get the dog into surgery right away.
The complainant says that she told Wilson that she wanted a second opinion at her regular vet the next day. Wilson told her that the dog would have to meet certain criteria in order to discharge; she subsequently told the complainant that the dog could not be released to her in that condition. The complainant reiterated that the dog had an appointment for the next day but Wilson told her that it wasn't good enough. She was left with the options of coming up with $10,000 or euthanizing her dog, which she says she had to agreed to; she also says that Wilson has portrayed herself as caring about the complainant and the dog when in reality it's the exact opposite (there's a somewhat weird claim of Wilson rubbing the complainant's arm at some point during all this).
The complainant concludes by pleading with the veterinary board to pull the phone recordings as all of the relevant conversations happened by phone. She says that she's taken it up with VCA management but they dismiss her claims, apparnetly acting that it was just her interpretation of events. In her own words, "PLEASE REVIEW THE PHONE CALLS FROM THAT FACILITY FROM THAT DAY!!! I am telling you I was forced to put my baby down, and was never given any option to leave with him."
Wilson's response appears to describe a chain of events that bears only a slight similarity to what the complainant reports. There are the obligatory notes from the exam and medical record, but we're also treated to a variety of differential diagnoses (not limited to IVDD), stating that the "gold standard recommendation" was just to go to a neurologist, have a spinal tap, MRI, and possible surgery for the $10000 to $12000; a suboptimal course involving a CT would still be several thousand dollars. She also says that she told the complainant that medical management was an option that wasn't recommended for this dog's particular case, also telling the complainant (after she asked) that a wheelchair was an option but it would be a lot of work. We're told that the complainant asked family and called around but even her family members couldn't get approved for CareCredit. She says that the complainant gathered her family for the euthanasia, and that she told the complainant that discharge would be against medical advice but that under no circumstances would she ever have held the pet there as claimed. She concludes by saying that one of the dog's medications was accidentally charged on the bill as another substance.
The Investigative Committee said that Wilson had only been out of school for a few months (admittedly, it was UC Davis, the best in the country, so if this is what they're producing, we've got big problems). The committee said that not only did Wilson relay the information in a hopeless manner, but that they had concerns about how the dog was being treated at VCA ARECA. They note that the complainant's version of events was also corroborated by a statement from an acquaintance, also going on to say that they felt the complainant was rushed into euthanasia. They fault that no diagnostics were run before euthanizing the dog. The investigators appear to believe that if the dog had been older, his life would have had less value, but as a younger dog perhaps bringing him home and giving him a chance (again, veterinary ethics are not the ethics shared by you and me), and that they could at least have given the dog until the family vet visit. They also helpfully note that Wilson could have effectively dognapped the animal and kept him there until a neurologist could examine him first (also scary). They find two violations, one on grounds of not providing other options to the complainant, and another that the euthanasia approval wasn't even correctly witnessed and document.
The full veterinary board, on the other hand, found no problems at all. Consider that.
(These things are becoming more common, consider 22-56 as a very recent example.)
| Source: | October 10, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Caitlyn Wilson | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Absent |
| Violations: | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide considerate treatment to the pet owner for not offering other options available for the treatment of the dog | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (18) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (F) failure to document that the verbal approval of the dog's euthanasia was witnessed by one other individual. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Nay |
| Darren Wright | Nay |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Nay |
| Jim Loughead | Nay |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Nay |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Failed |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Nay |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Nay |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Nay |
| 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.