| Complaint: | Complaint 22-18 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Wendy Hancock |
| Premises: | Paws and Claws Animal Care |
The complainants say they took their dog in on August 24th and paid a $350 emergency exam fee despite only two patients being in line ahead of them. They relate that the dog was kept there all day, x-rays and tests were performed, and at the end of the day cleared the dog to come home after dispensing some medications. They also state that they were told the dog had something blocking in the x-rays and went back for more x-rays and blood work; they claim the vet told them the dog was fine and that "if it was my dog I would take him home." On August 26th he relates they were told by the vet that the dog is really sick and needs to go to Las Vegas for emergency care. They state that they almost lost their baby and that they've spoken to others who have had the same issues but found out only after going to the clinic. They also note that the emergency trip cost them $6000 on top of everything they spent at the clinic.
Hancock's response details the dog's medical history and initial treatment for vomiting and not eating. She states that the abdominal x-rays did not reveal an obvious blockage but that there was an opacity noted; a barium swallow also did not reveal an obvious blockage either, but there were abnormalities noted that might be best interpreted by a radiologist. The complainants allegedly declined; she states that the opacity was pointed out to both of the complainants and they decided to take the dog home for some conservative management instead. Hancock states that both she and her staff continued to lobby for a full barium study the next day. She states that the dog was said to be improving at home until he didn't, at which point the dog came back to the clinic; at that point she says the dog needed to go to the emergency facility, which the complainants refused to do without further advocacy on her part. She's happy to hear that the dog is alive and doing well. She also says that she was "appalled" to have received a complaint, particularly as the entire matter could have been prevented if they didn't let their dog around bones. She'a also alarmed that they allowed their pet to suffer for seven days and refused to seek out further veterinary services.
The Findings of Fact specifically state that a chicken bone was found along with fluid in the chest from a perforated esophagus. An endoscopy was performed that removed the bone.
The Investigative Committee concluded that Hancock handled the matter appropriately. They stated that the radiology report didn't note an obstruction, which was inaccurate. (One wonders what radiology report is being referred to as the complainants allegedly turned down a radiology consult. Was this a radiology report from the clinic itself?) They also stated that when Hancock saw the dog a second time it was beyond the capability of the clinic, so referring the dog was the correct course of action. There are no notes about the marked difference in accounts between the complainants and the respondent.
| Source: | February 2, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Wendy Hancock | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | March 3, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| 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.