| Complaint: | Complaint 22-85 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Jennifer Mayo |
| Premises: | Fletcher Heights Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 22-84 |
This complaint follows from the events in 22-84. They reiterate the dog's condition after discharge, also challenging Mayo's notes regarding the event. They state that they were definitely not pleased to learn their dog had a fourth tooth removed, nor were they happy about the dog being kept under for six hours for a dental procedure. We're told that when they mentioned their concerns to Mayo (an old dog being under anesthesia for six hours for a dental), she told them that age wasn't a disease. They believe Mayo kept their dog in a prolonged procedure to make money resulting in death; as a result, they believe she should not be able to continue to practice.
Mayo's response details the buildup to the procedure and noted that there weren't any serious abnormalities that precluded the dental. She also mentions the heart issue that arose during the procedure but notes it responded to medication so she continued (the complainants state that this happened midway through the procedure at the three-hour mark). Mayo also states that she used a chart to determine the billable time for the procedure per tooth, quoting it at 50 miuntes; that doesn't mean that it would really take 50 minutes, just that it would be all they would be billed for. She says the dog was doing fine when she sent the dog home, and she also states that she attempted to explain all this in detail when the complainants returned after the dog had died. She said there was no reason to think that the dog would have a problem with the procedure and has no idea why the dog died; she also states she's chosen not to include the complainants' more angry or nasty statements as they came from "a place of grief and misunderstanding."
The Investigative Committee found no major problems here in general. They stated that they had no concerns with how Mayo handled the low heart rate, also stating that six hours was a reasonable period of time given the dog's dental condition and that it's not like she just walked off. At least one committee member thought that after three hours it might have been time to do the rest another day, but it doesn't appear that was the majority opinion. In this case, three of the four committee members voted that it was all cool and dismissed with no violations; it fell to Steven Dow to be the apparent voice of reason that day, voting nay. The board, of course, thought this was all fine and only issued a Letter of Concern.
| Source: | June 6, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Jennifer Mayo | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Absent |
| Steven Dow | Nay |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Melissa Thompson |
| Seconded By: | Craig Nausley |
| 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 |
| Source: | August 8, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Jennifer Mayo | Respondent |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Melissa Thompson |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Nay |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Nay |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Nay |
| 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.