| Complaint: | Complaint 22-83 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Joanna Norman |
| Premises: | Eye Care for Animals Avondale |
The complainant says that she obtained a puppy from Julie Humeston of Heart Fire Australian Shepherds; as part of the sale she was provided with a statement from Norman that the dog had no blindness issues. However, the dog was examined at a different Eye Care for Animals clinic in California which diagnosed retinal detachment in both eyes; the dog was blind. An email from the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals stated that the ophthalmologist (Norman) should have detected the detached retinas, so the complainant filed a complaint; she says that Humeston would never have sold the dog if she had known about the blindness. The complainant takes a bit of time to note her continued disapproval with clinics being bought up by corporate interests, also detailing an experience with VCA Cardiology in San Diego. She says that she proactively euthanized the dog because he ran into things; she was afraid he might break his neck.
Norman relates that she takes veterinary medicine very seriously. She notes that the dog was examined once by her for the Companion Animal Eye Registry exam to register with the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals. She stated that the test was a snapshot in time that detected some eye issues, but that the results for this particular dog would be not considered a "fail" by those standards. She also notes that the puppy's eye was not fully developed, that any exam is only a snapshot in time, and also suggests a variety of other things that could have exacerbated the condition. She states that if the dog's issues had been brought to another ophthalmologist sooner, the dog's vision might have been at least partially saved; she quotes a letter sent to her about the dog's euthanasia and goes on the record as being very upset the dog was euthanized just for being blind. In fact, she correctly notes that blind dogs can adapt and do quite well; she's certainly never heard of one breaking its own neck; she points out the dog could have been rehomed with a group that specializes in such disabilities.
The Investigative Committee noted that the retinal detachment happened later on; there wasn't any way for Norman to predict such an outcome based on what she saw in the dog's eyeballs at the time.
(One wonders about the vet out there who apparently euthanized a dog for being blind.)
| Source: | June 6, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Joanna Norman | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Absent |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Melissa Thompson |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| 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.