The complainant states that she took her dog and three vials of semen in a tank to Halbach for
breeding. She says that Halbach later called her to inform her that the surgery was complete but
that there was only one vial with the wrong name on it. She states that she reviewed the paperwork
and the wrong semen was used; it wasn't even the correct breed (the dog was a Labrador Retriever
but Pembroke Corgi semen was applied). She claims that she spoke with Halbach who told her that
he never reads the forms included with the semen. Halbach offered to give a mismate shot but it
could potentially end the dog's breeding career, so the complainant declined. The dog became
pregnant and the complainant later sought out terminations for the four puppies at Applewood Animal
Hospital (another clinic apparently told her to get lost). She concludes that this could all have
been avoided if Halbach had called her first. She wants over $10,000 in compensation from Halbach
(which the board has no legal authority to give) for the hypothetical four purebred puppies that
never existed in the first place.
Halbach's response begins by stating that he's been doing this work with Gene Nightengale (both
of whom show up in other complaints) for 20 years with great success. He explains the process that
goes on with the breeding, noting that most of it is under the control of the client; he says that
he does check the instructions on how to thaw out the provided semen, but the primary responsibility
rests with the breeder, many of whom turn out to be incorrect with the details of what's in the provided
semen tank. In this case it wasn't any more confusing than usual, and as there was only one male's
semen in the tank, he thought nothing of it. After the procedure he had time to review all the
paperwork, which he usually doesn't, and in this case discovered the dog breeds didn't match. He says
that when the complainant was contacted, he offered the mismate shot, but she said she'd need to think
about it; he notes that while there is the potential for side effects, he's never seen them happen in
20 years. He states that he wishes the complainant had followed up with him rather than what happened,
also noting that much of the problem stems from the semen supplier sending the wrong semen in the tank.
He wonders why the complainant took two years to file a complaint, also wondering why she never checked
what was in the tank before dropping it off.
The Investigative Committee said it was obvious Halbach didn't check the vials, also noting that he
subsequently made records mistakes confusing this dog with another dog at the clinic (with the same
owner). They stated Halbach knew there should be three vials in the tank but found only one. They
ended up finding violations on gross negligence, failure to maintain adequate records, and failure
to document the dosages of drugs given to the dog. The board had other ideas, rounding down the gross
negligence and wiping out the drug-dosage-recording violation; they said the medications have standard
concentrations used in veterinary medicine. He was required to take six hours of education in record
keeping and pay a $2000 fine, a rather steep penalty for the veterinary board; one wonders if this was
to keep the high-dollar breeding community happy or if they felt the need to strut given this
particular case.
ARS § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; failure to ensure the correct semen was provided by checking the paperwork and semen vials prior to injecting the semen into the dog which caused unnecessary suffering; the dog underwent a preventable surgical procedure and required follow up care and treatment.
ARS § 32-2232 (21) failure to maintain adequate medical; Respondent documented the services provided under the wrong dog.
ARS § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (L) (7) failure to document in the medical record the concentrations of atropine, torbutrol, and dexdomitor that were administered to the dog.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professional procedures for failure to ensure the correct semen was provided by checking the paperwork and semen vials prior to injecting the semen into the dog
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) failure to maintain adequate medical; Respondent documented the services provided under the wrong dog.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures by not ensuring the correct semen was provided by checking the paperwork and semen vials prior to injecting the semen into the dog.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) failure to maintain adequate medical records; Respondent documented the services provided in the wrong dog's medical record.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (6 hours in medical record keeping)
Civil penalty ($2000)
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.