| Complaint: | Complaint 22-21 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Lisa Hatfield |
| Premises: | Moon Valley Animal Hospital |
The complainants provide very legal-like affidavits stating their concerns about Lisa Hatfield and Moon Valley. They state that for the past ten years their dogs had been taken care of by Les Hatfield at ARK Animal Hospital; they have nothing but kind words for his care of their dogs, stating that it was beyond reproach. Upon scheduling a routine blood draw to check on the dog's thyroid condition, they learned that ARK had been closed and Les Hatfield had moved over to Moon Valley, operated by Lisa Hatfield. They were told that Les would be available for the visit.
All of their dogs, including the dog in question, were said to be in good health prior to the visit. The only notable abnormality was severe anxiety related to fireworks, and the dog was not known to have any heart-related problems. The dogs seemed to do well on the ride to the veterinarian with the exception of some excessive drooling from the dog who would later die; at the office the dog became increasingly agitated, shaking, panting, and drooling excessively. Upon entering the office they were informed that Les wasn't available but Lisa was there to answer any questions; one of the complainants noted the dog was doing very badly, stating that the dog's heart was pounding so badly it was as if the dog was having a nervous breakdown. They mentioned this to Lisa Hatfield who told them to take it up with Les when he was back. They also state that they reiterated to Lisa Hatfield the symptoms were very out of character for their dog and they had concerns the dog was going to have a heart attack.
By the time they arrived at home half an hour later, the dog was overheating and refused to move out of the vehicle; the other dog was fine. They state that they called back to Moon Valley where Lisa Hatfield told them that the dog had registered a temperature of 104, but that they figured the dog had just been in a hot car. She told them to take the dog to an emergency facility, so they lifted the dog back in the car and drove to 1st Pet. Frequent respondent Ryan Lunt (link) told them that the dog's temperature had spiked to 108 degrees and recommended hospitalization; the dog continued to decline in their care, and Les Hatfield later told them that 1st Pet refused to release any information to him about the case. Les Hatfield also noted his concerns about the dog's elevated heart rate as reported to the complainants by 1st Pet. A meeting with their dog and April Kung, a 1st Pet veterinarian, showed that the dog was suffering and could no longer stand; Kung was allegedly aware that the complainants would not want to euthanize unless there was no hope, but it appears Kung "described [the condition] as a heart attack." The complainants authorized Kung to euthanize the dog.
Lisa Hatfield's response states that the complainants have always been aware of the association between ARK and Moon Valley. She also states that Les Hatfield was unavailable due to an impending death in the family and that the original appointment was only for a technician to draw blood; it wasn't intended to be a full veterinary visit. She states that the dog was doing well, if anxious, per a routine technician's examination performed on each pet that comes into the clinic. She also notes that she spoke with the complainant's about the dog's anxiety issues and would relay the information to Les; the complainants did not request an exam. When they called and reported on the dog's condition, she recommended 1st Pet or VetMed. She also corroborates that Les Hatfield attempted to call 1st Pet and could obtain no information from them, leading him to call the family at home. She had no further handling of the case.
The Investigative Committee concludes that the complainants are embellishing or otherwise less than accurate in their complaint. They state that the original appointment was only for a technician visit for a blood draw, and there are notes in the medical record to that effect; they also say that if the dog was as sick during the visit as they claim, there would have been more "interchange" between the pet owners and the veterinarian. They also state that if the complainants were truly so concerned about their dog they should have insisted on an exam for the dog, and after all, the dog was able to get into the car without problems (even if he couldn't get out of it back home). (The complainants state in their complaint that they repeatedly raised concerns about the dog and even mentioned their fear it was going to have a heart attack, yet the official Findings of Fact only state they "did not request an exam." Interesting take.)
Les Hatfield is a former veterinary board member (link). Lisa is his wife, based on what we can tell. 1st Pet, meanwhile, is also no stranger to strangeness, and you can find information on their various premises elsewhere on our site.
| Source: | February 2, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Lisa Hatfield | 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: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Craig Nausley |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Nay |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Nay |
| 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.