This investigation was board-initiated as a follow-up to the events detailed in 22-46. In
that case concerns were raised about the handling of the case by veterinarians Munhall and
Duthie. This particular investigation relates to Duthie.
Duthie's response is quite similar to Munhall's in structure and information presented.
That's not altogether surprising considering they work for the same corporate chain and
have the same lawyer; it helps to go into these things with your story straight. She
says that the dog presented with gastrointestinal symptoms that could be associated
with the anesthesia but showed no signs of jaundice; the dog got some fluids, meds,
a prescription diet, and a once-a-day probiotic. Much like Munhall's response, she points
out that the dog received the same combo of drugs at prior dentals so there was no
reason to be concerned. She says that they always advise that their health plan contains
bloodwork and there's no note in the medical record the complainant wanted bloodwork done;
if she'd asked for it, they'd happily have done it.
The Investigative Committee had concerns with both Munhall and Duthie as well as the
Banfield organization. They note that it was six days between the dog having a dental
and the dog showing jaundice, so somebody "dropped the ball." The exact text is copied
from 22-131, but they have particular concerns about Duthie even more so than Munhall.
They discuss that Duthie only treated the dog for his symptoms but failed to impress
upon the owners the possible seriousness of the situation, including the need for more
diagnostics. They also said that they "had no confidence that Duthie's exam findings
were accurate." They went on to find her guilty of medical incompetence but the Board
rounded down a failure to follow professionally acceptable procedures related to diagnostics.
Duthie had to take two hours of continuing education in gastrointestinal and liver disease
with an additional two hours in medical record keeping.
ARS § 32-2232 (22) Medical incompetence: failure to recommend diagnostics to the pet owner on August 18, 2021, which possibly endangered the health of the dog.
Result:
Passed
Board Motion: Find violation and offer consent agreement
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates fo A.A.C. R311-501 (1) for failure to follow professionally acceptable procedures by not recommending, and documenting in the medical record, diagnostics on August 18, 2021, which caused the delay of the diagnosis of acute hepatitis.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) for failure to follow professionally acceptable procedures by not recommending, and documenting in the medical record, diagnostics on August 18, 2021, which caused the delay of the diagnosis of acute hepatitis.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (2 hours in GI/liver disease)
Continuing education (2 hours in medical record keeping)
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.