This complaint appears to be an investigation by the board based in part on some inspections
issues. Lanman's no stranger to the veterinary board. The actual complaint is the best source
for the bullet points, but there are a few highlights to share.
Lanman contests that her herb supply isn't expired and apparently attached a letter from her
herb supplier indicating that they're in good condition and fit for service; she also states
that they're going to do a better job of inspecting their herbs in the future. She also says
that there are not any prescription items that are expired, nor are any prescription-only
items accessible to the public. She's unsure where an allegation of "at least 240" missing
phenobarbital tablets came from.
The inspection report has a few items. Aside from missing pills and concerns that someone
might occasionally drink wine at the clinic, the biggest concern surrounds a possible
unlicensed practitioner. It appears that an Armando Felix was performing surgeries and
other veterinary-only duties under supervision at the facility while working as an intern
from a Mexican veterinary university. He denies the charges and was currently working on
getting certified in the United States; he states that the only pets that he did any
operations on were rescue pets and not privately owned, thereby avoiding any requirement
for licensure by the state of Arizona.
There are a couple of takeaways on this one. One is that Lanman, a frequent respondent
with a variety of complaints ranging from diagnostic meat chunks to a possibly-mishandled
broken leg, is mostly in trouble because of an unlicensed practitioner concern, some
missing pills, and some expired New Age herbs. The other takeaway is how we generally treat
foreign veterinary graduates, particularly those from Mexico and parts south; there's an
entire story there, including Banfield propping up UNAM as a prelude for AVMA accreditation,
the cartel-like behavior the AVMA, and occupational licensing as nothing more than a job
protection system.
Motions
Board Motion: Find violation and offer consent agreement
A.R.S. § 32-2232(18) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502(J)(2) failure to ensure prescription-only drugs are returned to the manufacturer or distributor no later than 30 days after its expiration date.
A.R.S. § 32-2232(18) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502(D) failure to ensure that no expired supplies are used.
A.R.S. § 32-2232(18) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-805(B) failure to ensure prescription-only drugs are not stored in an area that are accessible to the public.
A.R.S. § 32-2232(18) as it relates to A.R.S. § 32-2274(A)(5) failure to store the controlled substance, phenobarbital, in a safe manner.
A.R.S. § 32-2232(6) for having professional connection with, or lending one’s name to, any legal practitioner of veterinary medicine and the various branches thereof.
Penalties:
Civil penalty ($5000)
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.