| Complaint: | Complaint 22-92 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Randy Aronson |
| Premises: | Paws Veterinary Center |
The complainant relates that her dog is a canine cancer survivor who survived with radiation therapy and now moves around with the use of orthotics. Her dog started having some issues with his front right paw; VCA did x-rays, suggestd a sprain, and gave the dog carprofen. Things got worse until the dog couldn't bear any weight on the front paw at all, which was a problem as the back paw on the same side was the one with the orthotic. She couldn't get in with her normal vet so she went back to PAWS and Aronson who had previously seen the dog; she also needed an adequan refill and wanted to consult on a new orthotic device for the dog.
PAWS diagnosed an infection and dispensed antbiotics, saying to stop in for x-rays in two weeks (no appointment needed) if it worsened. She also mentioned the orthotic and she was referred to McCally because he was once the prescribing vet and Aronson had worked with him; Aronson also apparently had negative words to say about the provider for the current orthotic.
The dog's foot got worse and as both of the vets were closed the dog went back to VCA. VCA did a swab test and prescribed antibiotics. It appears that VCA needed to retake the x-rays, and when results of the test came back, they switched the dog to a different antibiotic with instructions to get follow-up x-rays in 14 days. All record were forwarded to PAWS and she scheduled an appointment.
When she arrived for the appointment she states that the veterinary technician seemed confused about what happaned at VCA; she notes the vet tech seemed rushed and stressed but found the records. Aronson appeared to be reviewing the information for the first time, stating that the VCA radiologist didn't even seem like he wanted to read the x-ray. He then told the complainant the dog didn't need more x-rays and to continue with the antibiotic for another 14 days.
The complainant says that when she asked questions Aronson became upset and accused her of not trusting him. She claims he tossed the dog's records at her and directed the vet tech not to charge her for the visit. She attempted to explain taht she was just confused, but Aronson told her that she was hard to work with and he left. The complainant said that she started crying, at which point the vet tech said she was uncomfortable and left the room as well. The office manager came in to try and help her calm down, telling her that her dog was just a difficult case; the complainant also noted that the clinic tried to sell her clavamox for $275 that she could get at VCA for $100.
Aronson's response details the dog's medical background, diagnoses, and prior treatments, also detailing that the clinic had "10-15 steps involved" in getting a casting of the dog's leg. They state that all of McCally's visits (who helped with the orthotic) were provided completely pro bono and provided the services without any compensation. We're also told that the complainant tried to cancel one appointment so they hurriedly got her in for another; he also says that he was so happy to see the dog's paw doing so well that he didn't feel further x-rays were necessary.
He says that the complainant became upset that he didn't want to do the x-rays, particularly since he assumed she'd be happy to learn it wasn't cancer. (Keep in mind that VCA had said to get further x-rays in 14 days, and per complainant took time off work to come in and get them.) He responds that he reacted by setting the records calmly on the table before him and telling the complainant "we are done here." He told the vet tech not to charge for the visit and told the complainant she had challenging to work with; he then left the room. He relates that his technician and Sarah Smith (practice manager) came in explaining the complainant was in tears; he says that he "thanked her for trying to console her" but wasn't willing to see the complainant again "due to her lack of respect for my veterinary prowess and time."
After having Sarah Smith review his response, he states she added a paragraph to back him up. She states that the complainant contacted another clinic about a cast orthotic, that they couldn't do it, that she turned down surgery, and that she also turned down surgery when they recommended it. That's why they special ordered materials and worked with McCally to do the job onsite. She says that the entire team has difficulty working with the complainant and it led to the situation described.
The Investigative Committee said that Aronson and his staff put a lot of time and effort into the complainant. Aronson terminated the relatinoship once "they felt they could no longer assist her to her expectations." No violations were found.
(The subtext here appears to be that the complainant is a b*tch. On the other hand, one might consider what she had been going through to try and save a dog who had survived cancer. It's also worth considering whether her dog would have stayed alive for so long if she weren't more than a little pushy, and it's not like Aronson's response reeks of humility either.)
| Source: | July 7, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Randy Aronson | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Absent |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| 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.