The complainant states that her mother took her dog to see McWhirter for a variety of issues
including increased thirst, loss of appetite, lethargy, vomiting, an eye problem, and hip weakness.
He apparently thought allergies were the likely cause and prescribed Depo-Medrol, a steroid, and
ordered some lab results. The results came back and Maher, another veterinarian, called with
news of an elevated white blood cell count; she thought it was either a serious infection or
cancer, but likely cancer, and started the dog on a course of antibiotics.
The family set about finding a veterinary oncologist but learned that Case Grande would have to
make an official diagnosis of cancer before they would see the dog. McWhirter called them and
said that Maher had recommended an ultrasound, something the complainants say they weren't aware
of. They were told that it would be several days before an ultrasound could be done, but after
protesting, an ultrasound was scheduled the following day. A third veterinarian, Fallini, called
them to tell them the dog had pyometra and would need emergency surgery. They agreed on surgery
but Fallini was unavailable to give updates; Fallini informed them that the surgery went well
but the dog wasn't doing so well in recovery, also having high blood sugars and suffering from
likely sepsis. The dog would need to be transfered to AVECCC in Gilbert for overnight monitoring,
so the family picked up the dog and drove her there (that's a transfer in veterinary medicine).
The complainant also blames the dog's diabetes on the incident.
McWhirter's response heavily leverages the medical record as he walks through the sequence of
events. He did state that he believed something "metabolic or physical" was going on, also noting
that a possible stifle injury with the dog was not the cause of the problem. He stated that he
told her some disease process was beginning that couldn't be found on physical exam and recommended
testing; he states the complainant turned down testing so he offered the Depo-Medrol as a trial.
He also relates that this was the only time he had an interaction with the dog, with the remainder
handled by Fallini and Maher. He also stated that he called the complainant regarding a request
for subcutaneous fluids and learned the dog was being admitted for an ultrasound. (This is odd as
the complainant's account seems to suggest McWhirter left a message stating Maher had recommended
an ultrasound.)
The Investigative Committee stated that the dog should have been brought back for additional
testing as soon as the preliminary blood work was received. They also suggested the Depo-Medrol
could have exacerbated the dog's subsequent diabetes, as well as wondering whether McWhirter
jumped the gun on the injection. Concerns were also noted about handling of the eye issue.
However, most concerns focused around the lack of a veterinarian in charge of the patient's
care, passing of the case, lack of follow-up and clarity on the part of Maher in particular
regarding possible diagnoses other than pyometra, and more. They also claim to have concerns
with the premises itself and note that neither complaint was filed against the responsible
veterinarian for the premises. The Investigative Committee voted to find a violation for
failure to communicate with the pet owner, McCormick opposed; the Board sentenced McWhirter
to 12 hours of continuing education and a $1500 fine, a rather steep penalty for them.
The concerns regarding the entire premises may not be a new thing, but it doesn't appear that
anyone ever bothered to really look into it. Casa Grande Animal Hospital had multiple complaints
(18-03, 19-65, and 20-50)
prior to this one but it appears nobody thought much of them; all were dismissed.
ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) for failure to communicate to the pet owner on September 7, 2021 the seriousness of the dog's blood results and not recommending the dog be brought back in for re-evaluation.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) for failure to communicate to the pet owner on September 7, 2021 the seriousness of the dog’s blood results and not recommending the dog be brought back in for re-evaluation
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; for administering a long-acting steroid to a dog exhibiting symptoms of illness without a diagnosis or presumptive diagnosis causing unnecessary suffering
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; for administering a long-acting steroid to a Patient exhibiting symptoms of illness without a diagnosis or tentative diagnosis which caused unnecessary suffering.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (6 hours in reproductive diseases)
Continuing education (3 hours in pharmacology)
Continuing education (3 hours in client communication)
Civil penalty ($1500)
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.