| Complaint: | Complaint 22-78 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Austin Gifford |
| Premises: | Primary Pet Care |
The complainant writes that her dog ended up with thermal burns to the stomach from a heating pad during a surgery. She includes some documents for review (the emails are included but the photos aren't). Following the email chain, it appears that she requested a refund from the clinic but didn't get one in a timely manner. It also appears that they did make her an offer, but after some consideration, she believes the offer to be unfair; she says if they don't compensate her better, she's going to post the photos of the burned dog to social media and make them look bad. She also regrets that the veterinarian might have taken that as a threat.
More interestingly for those of us at home, she also writes the following: "I have spoken to Arizona State Veterinary's office and was told to try to reach out to you once more before filing a complaint for negligence. I do not want to file a complaint but you are leaving me no choice." This sounds like the same situation as the previous complaint, 22-77, where veterinary board employees are trying to dissuade the public from filing complaints.
Gifford provides some bullet points as a response. He details the various warming devices that were used on the dog, states that they couldn't use a warming blanket until masses on the dog were removed, and that at one point the dog's temperature dropped so low that they considered aborting the procedure. However, they felt they should continue because the dog had a dental abscess and other matters that needed to be dealt with. They didn't discover "severe erythema" until recovery and immediately notified the complainant they'd do whatever it takes to make it right.
The Investigative Committee said that Gifford did his best to avoid a burn but that sometimes accidents happen. They also said that hypothermia would have been a far worse issue (true) and that since the complainant continued to follow up with him, it shows trust in Gifford's care (which doesn't necessarily hold).
And they're right, these things do happen! Check out 18-118 and 21-06 for two examples on file.
| Source: | June 6, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Austin Gifford | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| 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.