| Complaint: | Complaint 22-144 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Helena Wayt |
| Premises: | Pima Animal Care Center |
The complainant adopted a cat from PACC that didn't seem well and wouldn't eat. She tried calling for several days for guidance and finally made an appointment with a family vet. The cat started vomiting while she was waiting for the appointment so she took the cat back to PACC for examination and advice. The cat was found to have parvo. She was given the choice of taking the cat home or leaving the cat there for aggressive treatment that would have a higher chance of success. She elected to leave the cat there for several days and after being told the cat was ready to come home subsequently learned that the cat died from illness overnight. She wanted to learn more about the kitten and bring it home for burial or have a cremation, at which point PACC said the cat had actually been euthanized rather than dying of natural causes. The kitten wasn't coming home because he had a group cremation.
Wayt's response states that the complainant signed all the necessary disclaimers assuming full responsibility for the cat's medical care. When a health issue arose they made an exception, as they sometimes do, for more recent adoptees to go back to the shelter for medical care as a county-owned animal. At one point they offered to let the complainant take care of the cat at home but she opted for hospitalization (reading the complaint it seems like she probably thought PACC gave the cat the best chance). The cat was doing well and even playing in his isolation room; that night the cat was found in bad shape and a staff member euthanized it. Wayt says that it may seem premature to send a cat home that ended up dying that night, but it's consistent with shelter best practices and freeing up slots for new intakes. The remainder of the response largely has to do with the quality of care provided to the kitten and gaps in communications; we're also told that the complainant initially ended communications with PACC "on an understanding note."
There's no committee discussion as this was an Investigative Division report.
| Source: | September 9, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Jim Loughead |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| 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.