| Complaint: | Complaint 22-135 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Karter Neal |
| Premises: | Santa Cruz Veterinary Clinic |
The complainant brought her dog in for a cherry eye procedure, filling out a form that the dog was coming in for the procedure and had been spayed. She got a call that the dog was groggy and coming out of anesthesia, at which point she learned that her spayed dog just got re-spayed as part of the deal. She was told that the paperwork had gotten marked incorrectly and that when cutting the veterinarian thought the spay scar was a C-section scar (despite the submitted form saying that she never had puppies). She was told she'd get a discount, but when the incision got infected she got to pay for the necessary antibiotics; the dog also has a new spay tattoo.
Neal's response as the owner of the clinic says that there wasn't really anything odd about all this. It was a clerical error at the front desk that led to the problem, as they incorrectly marked the dog as down for a cherry eye procedure and a spay; they routinely do both procedures so she thought nothing of it. They also see a large number of English Bulldogs and other brachycephalic pets because other clinics are refusing to work with them, and many of them already have litters, so it was reasonable to assume the existing scar was from a Caesarian. After she mentioned that the family needed to know the pet was already spayed, they discovered the transposition error in their paperwork. The clinic paid for all necessary post-op care but were frustrated in paying for the dog's antibiotics because the pharmacy they called wouldn't take their credit card for $12.56. They're really sorry.
The Investigative Committee (save Almaraz) said that this was all completely fine. They understood how the mistake happened, but it was an honest mistake that could just happen when you're under a lot of pressure at these kinds of clinics and performing procedures "at a rapid pace." No harm was intended, and in the Committee's view, that makes it okay. Almaraz proposed a finding of gross negligence but had no takers to second the motion; the whole complaint got dismissed.
| Source: | October 10, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Karter Neal | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Nay |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Aye |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Nay |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Nay |
| Melissa Thompson | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Karter Neal | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| 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.