| Complaint: | Complaint 22-70 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Ann Adams |
| Premises: | University Pet Clinic |
| Related: | 22-71, 22-72 |
The complainant relates she brought her dog, an active older dog who could hike several miles a day, to University Pet Clinic for what she thought was infected teeth. White examined the dog and suggested the possibility of oral cancer, suggesting that it be handled under anesthesia. Blood work was performed and there were no obvious reasons to avoid the surgery.
She took the dog back for the procedure several days later, performed by Adams with the involvement of certified veterinary technician Beck. She states that she accepted a quote that included biopsy of the mass and was not warned of any anesthetic risks to the older dog for surgery. She received a call later that day stating that no cancer was found and the dog's teeth were all healthy. Adams diagnosed Canine Ulcerative Paradental Stomatitis, but said removing all the teeth wasn't an option as the dog wouldn't survive anesthesia; rather, Adams suggested treating with antibiotics and tooth brushing. Beck explained more when she came to pick up the dog and handed out various water additives, chews, Kongs, and more; she says that some of the directions he gave didn't match the product label. She also says her dog was breathing abnormally but Beck told her it was the result of intubation; she also noticed a cut on the dog's tongue.
Over the next days the dog began to have "bloody, green snot" coming out of the mouth and refused to drink water or eat food. She relates that University Pet Clinic staff said it was probably just drool, and a follow-up with White claimed no evidence of dehydration and recommended force-feeding and givin appetite stimulants. White apparently recommended pulling all the teeth to treat the CUPS, and when asked about the likelihood of survival, White allegedly said that the dog did all right this time. He attributed the abnormal breathing to a sore throat from the tube and discharged the dog; it appears the feeding syringe dispensed was of the wrong size. She states the records about this visit are inaccurate. She went back for a follow-up visit and was given painkillers and antiinflammatory medication, but White never spoke with her. The dog continued to deteriorate at home.
The complainant took the dog to VSCOT (itself a complaint generator) where the dog was seen by Vernasco. Vernasco allegedly said giving the dog appetite stimulants (as University Pet Clinic did) was "cruel" and said the dog's CUPS was not the cause of the problem, nor was it particularly severe. The dog was severely dehydrated, had an elevated white cell count, abnormal sodium, and more, and it appears that a mass under the tongue was also found. Vernasco also began questioning the dog's pre-anesthetic blood work, saying something didn't add up. The dog was later euthanized at VSCOT.
The complainant went to University Pet Clinic to request records and received a call from Adams. Adams allegedly said that the dog had something else going on and that the surgery had made it worse; it turned out that testing electrolytes wasn't part of their blood panel. She also states some of the records aren't accurate depictions of what happened. She also met with Vernasco who suggested the dog had an existing electrolyte abnormality.
Adams' response states that White decided on the treatment plan with the complainant before she was even involved in the case. She also says that she saw no sign of dehydration and that the dog was said to be normal. She states that the lesions in the mouth were consistent with CUPS; she also states that the complainant strongly declined pulling all the teeth (though in the complainant's version it appears Adams told her the wy to know what happog couldn't survive it). She says owners are typically very shocked by a CUPS diagnosis. She says that she wasn't involved with the remainder of the dog's care, that her following conversation with the complainant was circular, and that she had been warned beforehand of the risks of anesthesia. Confusingly, she states that if the complainant had been unreachable, she would have gone ahead and done a biopsy, but that she was supposed to check with the complainant first. She also says that as no necropsy was performed there's no way to tell what the dog died of, lamenting that board complaints like this drain people like her staff of compassion and tire them out when giving their all every day. It's a tough time for veterinarians.
The Investigative Committee stated that Adams did the dental cleaning and diagnosed CUPS, finding no problems with the care provided.
| Source: | May 5, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Ann Adams | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Aye |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Nay |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Nay |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Absent |
| 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.