| Complaint: | Complaint 22-33 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Monika Durgin |
| Premises: | Spay Neuter Clinic Chandler |
The complainant states that his French Bulldog was given to Durgin for castration and treatment for stenotic nares (nostrils so tight it can make it difficult to breathe). He relates that the dog died and the insurance company representing the clinic found that Durgin made no mistakes with the care provided. The complainant disagrees and cites a variety of problems with Durgin's care, including missing and inaccurate information in the medical records, out-of-sync timelines regarding the procedure and the dog's death, and staffing and standard of care issues. He also states that he believes Durgin didn't take appropriate steps to prevent an incident since his dog suffered from brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome.
He includes an email from Durgin. She states that she's sorry the dog didn't recover from the CPR attempt. She also notes that the complainant's phone call came too late and that the dog had already been sent out for cremation; the ashes were now available, but she says she wishes he had agreed to a necropsy so they could get to the bottom of this. She also states in the email that there's nothing she would have done differently with the case, though she wishes the outcome had been different.
Durgin's response consists of a timeline of events beginning with the dropoff of the dog and ending with the termination of communications after a negligence claim was filed. She confirms the procedures to be done that day and details the preparation. She states that the dog was given the initial drugs while in the kennel and was brought to the surgery table for intubation; apparently as soon as the dog was placed on his back he turned blue and the staff member ran to get help. They attempted to reverse the anesthesia and CPR was initiated; the owners were called, the dog went into cardiac arrest, and then died. She notes that the timelines somewhat differ in the records because some notes were entered later in the day as opposed to when they happened. She also notes that there were communication issues as emails were getting bounced back, and eventually all communication was terminated when the complainants filed a claim against them.
The Investigative Committee found a variety of problems with this one. They begin by noting that the dog had not been reexamined within the required six-hour timeframe for the procedure. Most interestingly, they state that the amount of TTDex (used to begin the anesthesia process) was an incorrectly high dose for the dog; they note that respiratory depression would be expected in any event, with the problem being more concerning for a brachycephalic dog. They also noted that there was some confusion about whether a necropsy was recommended, stating that it would be helpful to learn if there were any other underlying issues. They voted to find gross negligence in this case and the Board agreed; Durgin was required to take eight hours of continuing education and pay a $500 fine.
Durgin is mentioned in a 2015 Arizona Republic article, "Veterinarians operating with impunity at county shelter," by Robert Anglen. In that article, Durgin was quoted in her professional capacity as Maricopa County Animal Care and Control chief veterinarian, stating that the standards at MCACC would not meet the board's standards for veterinary care. The article is based around the death of Harmony, an MCACC releasee whose insides fell out and went "whoomp" after a spay-and-neuter operation there; also quoted is Beth Lockhart, a pet-rescuer instrumental in the crazy train that is complaint 18-05.
It's also worth considering the investigative standards of the insurance company that looked into the case and claimed there were no issues with the standards of care. You'd think a drug overdose obvious to Arizona's investigators would be obvious to them. Was it AVMA PLIT?
| Source: | March 3, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Monika Durgin | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Absent |
| Violations: | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; for failure to be aware of the proper dose of TTDex to be administered to the dog which led to respiratory depression and eventually death; and not properly monitoring the dog prior to surgery. | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (18) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (H) (3) failure to perform an exam on the dog within 6 hours before anesthesia was administered or surgery was performed. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | April 4, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Monika Durgin | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | May 5, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Monika Durgin | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; for failure to be aware of the proper dose of TIDex for a compromised animal that was administered to the dog which led to respiratory depression and eventually death; and not properly monitoring the dog prior to surgery | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (L) (4) failure to ensure the dog was examined, or the exam was documented in the medical record, and ensuring timed entries documented into the medical record were accurate. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Absent |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | Order 22033 (June 6, 2022) |
|---|---|
| Violations: | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence: for failure to be aware of the proper dose of TIDex for a compromised animal that was administered to the Patient, which led to respiratory depression and eventually death: and not properly monitoring the Patient prior to surgery. | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C, R3-11-502 (L) (4) failure to ensure the Patient was examined, or the exam was documenied in the medical record, and ensuring timed entries documented into the medical record were accurate. | |
| Penalties: | |
| Probation (1 year) | |
| Continuing education (5 hours in anesthesia) | |
| Continuing education (3 hours in medical record keeping) | |
| Civil penalty ($500) | |
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.