| Complaint: | Complaint 22-14 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Ayman Wassef |
| Premises: | Veterinary Emergency and Specialty Center of Northern Arizona |
The complainant states that her dog was throwing up and not eating. Wassef ran some tests and performed an exploratory surgery. He found what he believed was a large mass that would require specialty surgery. The dog had been diagnosed with splenic cancer several months prior so the complainant thought the diagnosis was reasonable. Wassef suggested euthanasia while in surgery but the complainant refused and researched other options; Wassef is also said to have repeatedly suggested euthanasia over the following two days, but the complainant eventually flew the critically-ill dog to UC Davis instead. UC Davis later determined the issue was pancreatitis and the dog survived. The complainant questions why pancreatitis was even mentioned on Wassef's own discharge instructions, yet he never mentioned it to her, never did any biopsies to confirm cancer, and almost convinced her over three days to give up on her dog. She also states she's now faced with the tough choice of yet another surgery to get biopsies.
Wassef's response covers the workup and medical history of the dog, including a possible diagnosis of pancreas-related problems. He states that he discussed possible courses of action ranging from ultrasound to humane euthanasia (given the history of cancer) and that the complainant wanted aggressive treatment before continuing on their trip together. He notes the details surrounding the exploratory surgery including a 3-inch mass that he couldn't budge; he called the complainant and told her that he wasn't comfortable removing the mass, and that many surgeons refrain from performing the "Bill Roth" procedure (I assume it's supposed to be Billroth, but this could have been typed by someone else at the office or one of Stoll's legal assistants).
He says that no hospitals he called would take the dog, and that the complainant contacted UC Davis herself to set up the procedure; he also says that when he called UC Davis they concurred with his suggestion of euthanasia and stated the cost could be as much as $15000. The dog was transferred to another veterinary clinic as this one closed on weekdays while the complainant arranged private transportation. UC Davis later contacted him with an update stating that they suspected pancreatitis, and that the complainant had refused a biopsy of the mass while there. He says that the complainant filed a lawsuit against them and believes that the entire matter is financially motivated; he notified his insurance company of the claim (AVMA PLIT?) and they found no issues with his care.
The Investigative Committee states that this was a "difficult case." They believe that Wassef handled the case appropriately and that flushing the abdomen may have saved the dog's life; the three days of alleged euthanasia enthusiasm don't get a mention. They also stated that they discussed the spleen sarcoma, also noting that "[p]ancreatitis is not a disease therefore supportive care helped the dog's condition at UC Davis."
| Source: | January 1, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Ayman Wassef | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Absent |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| 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.