| Complaint: | Complaint 22-19 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Alejandro Aguirre |
| Premises: | Salt River Veterinary Specialists |
The complainants say their dog was operated on at Salt River by Soderstrom. According to their account the dog, suffering from brachycephalic problems, was walking around only one and a half hours after a corrective operation per Soderstrom. They called to ask when they could pick the dog up and were told to leave the dog overnight for monitoring. They state that Aguirre called them the next morning stating that their dog had become agitated so the overnight technician called Aguirre to come in; the dog had vomited and aspirated so they were inserting a tube. A call several minutes later stated that the dog's heart had stopped and they had been performing CPR "for about six minutes." The complainant states that his wife told Aguiree to let the dog die in peace. They have concerns about the dog's aftercare, including leaving monitoring to a veterinary technician; they also note that both Soderstrom and the dog's primary veterinarian called them to speak with them, but Aguirre never did.
Aguirre states that the dog had a known history of regurgitation and suspected brachycephalic airway syndrome. Radlinsky, a surgeon at the facility, performed a surgical consultation for soft palate surgery and prepared the dog and complainants for the procedure. Education included a possible five percent death rate and a mention of lack of overnight veterinarians on site. The dog's pneumonia began to improve on the medications so surgery was scheduled, but the dog worsened. Radlinsky was away because of a medical emergency, so they were directed to go to an emergency veterinarian if they could not go to their primary veterinarian. It appears that Aguirre's clinic managed to hunt down mobile non-board-certified surgeon Mark Soderstrom (the star of 20-68) as Radlinsky's replacement. Soderstrom met with the complainants and began the surgery but ended up not actually doing the soft palate surgery because of other factors he encountered; instead, he only performed the neuter that was to go along with it.
The dog recovered and began panting around 5 AM, with the overnight vet tech sending Aguirre a video of the dog panting. Aguirre recommended putting the dog on some medication and went in to see the dog. He told his wife to take their kids to school and then learned that the dog had suddenly collapsed and stopped breathing. He hopped in his car and went on the 12-minute drive from home to the Salt River clinic; he emphasizes that he was on the phone with his vet tech the whole time, including her intubation of the dog, manual ventilation, and that he could even hear the ECG over the phone as the vet tech called out vitals. The dog's heart rate slowed right before he arrived and the IV catheter blew out during the resuscitation efforts. "Bilious fluid was seen emanating from the endotracheal tube" after his arrival, so they turned the dog upside down, got the gunk out, and put in a new tube that actually worked; no swelling was noted. The dog failed to make efforts to breathe on his own, cardiac arrest ensued, and following the second phone call the owners decided to stop any efforts at resuscitation.Aguirre states that they only kept the dog overnight to monitor out of an abundance of caution. They also state that they did give medications to prevent aspiration, but the complainants discontinued them because they made the dog sick. He claims it was actually better that the dog was in the hospital where they could try (and, notably, fail) to resuscitate the dog, which also saved the complainants from the trauma of seeing their dog have that happen at home. He dings the complainants for confusing the "clear fluid" that Soderstrom mopped up with the definitely-not-clear fluid that was coming out of the dog's tube, also noting that the dog had been without oxygen for so long that recovery was likely hopeless by the time he showed up on the scene at his clinic. He also takes issue with the complainant's timeline, stating that the "six minutes" they referenced were actually eight minutes from the time of his first call. He also says that it's not true that he never contacted them; he notes he contacted them when the dog was dying, and his lead receptionist, Danni, contacted them about the cremation.
In a factual if somewhat Naziesque beginning, the Investigative Committee "discussed that this breed is being bred with genetic defects due to the breed becoming more fashionable." They stated that the dog's care was appropriate and the dog was in the right place in case something went wrong; sadly, "there was still a poor outcome."
| Source: | February 2, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Alejandro Aguirre | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Jane Soloman |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| 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.