| Complaint: | Complaint 22-130 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | John Carr |
| Premises: | Doctor Carr's Dog and Cat Repair |
The complainant relates two different complaints about Carr. We're told that one cat had a chronic lesion removed from the neck. Carr told her that the stitches were ready to come out, had a tech remove them, and the complainant noticed that it appeared that the wound was slightly opening; it finally split open and the cat had to have it resewn at an emergency clinic. Another cat had a possible ear infection and Carr allegedly diagnosed ringworm with a black light (this is actually a real thing, look up Wood's lamp). It didn't improve and after checking for bacteria an antibiotic was prescribed. After performing x-rays Carr recommended a referral and CT scan but after further prodding diagnosed staph infection from a culture. She would like an investigation of his treatment and reimbursment for part or all of the payments.
Carr's response gives the history of his examinations and treatments for the cat with the ear problem. He details the testing done and the diagnoses made at various points in the process. We're also told that the CT scan came into the picture after his x-ray yielded no information why the ear still had fluid; he sent the x-rays to Mark Soderstrom who also found nothing, then recommended going to Soderstrom for CT and possible middle ear surgery. He says that on follow-up a culture diagnosed a staph infection that was broadly susceptible to antibiotics, so antibiotics were prescribed. He says that he denied the complainant's request for a refund as he believes the cat was treated appropriately; she believes the culture should have been done on the first visit.
The Investigative Committee did have some concerns about the suture removal, saying that it was a judgment call; some of them thought the sutures should have been left in longer, but in the end, there's no way to show the incision came apart because of the suture removal (the complainant did note that it appeared to be somewhat coming apart as soon as they were removed). They save their concerns for the cat with the ear problem, stating that while the cat may have actually had multiple problems with the ear, there was not a proper exam until late in the process. They found a violation regarding a failure to use an otoscope that the board threw out and replaced with a Letter of Concern.
| Source: | October 10, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| John Carr | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Aye |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures by not conducting a complete aural examination of Olivia's ears, using an otoscope, on January 25, 2022 and February 14, 2022. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Nay |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| 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.