This complaint follows from 22-70 and pertains to White's involvement.
White's response state that he examined the dog and pointed out the possibility of
oral cancer. Lab tests were within normal limits and the blood panel only read Senior
Cat but the same is correct for dog; it's just a code in the computer. He also cites
the communication regarding drool (the complainant seemed to describe something more
like green ooze), wondering if the dog was later beginning to rebound under treatment.
He wonders if the days without antibiotics and the stimulation with tooth cleaning had
overwhelmed the dog's immune system; he also questions why Vernasco at VSCOT would
describe the use of an appetite stimulant as cruel.
The Investigative Committee found that they had some concerns about the recheck
evaluation, but the dog wasn't said to be that bad at the time. They also said that
VSCOT had a large number of differentials so it was difficult to know what the problem
was; they also said that electrolytes are not part of a standard presurgical panel.
They conclude that the dog's death was a mystery and felt White's care was appropriate.
The board disagreed and made White take six hours of education in the area of diagnostics
and examinations.
ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure fo provide professionally acceptable procedures by not recommending follow up blood work to assess the patient's condition, failing to recommend hospitalization with supportive care, and recommending at-home care that did not provide for the patient's needs resulting in further suffering of the patient.
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 recommending follow up blood work to assess the patient's condition, failing to recommend hospitalization with supportive care, and recommending at-home care that did not provide for the patient's needs resulting in further suffering of the patient.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (6 hours in diagnostics and examinations)
Civil penalty ($250)
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.