| Complaint: | Complaint 22-98 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Jessica Sullivan |
| Premises: | Southwest Veterinary Surgical Service |
The complainants say that Southwest Veterinary Surgical Service pushed them into having their dog's spleen removed because of a tumor as well as a possible tumor on the pancreas. The complainants go on to say that Sullivan called stating that she was able to get most of the tumor out and the dog would be ready to go home the next morning.
They went to pick up the dog but by the time they got home 15 minutes later, the dog couldn't even get up to get out of the car. They made a makeshift cot to lift him out of the car but he remained unable to stand and urinated on himself. The complainant went to get a clean sheet and the dog had died within those few minutes. Biopsy results later came back indicating that the "tumor" was actually just scar tissue. Coupled with a CT scan that was already negative, the complainants question why Sullivan did the operation. We're also told that when they spoke to Sullivan she said that the dog was old and going to die anyway.
Southwest Veterinary Surgical Service allegedly offered to pay for the cremation but never reimbursed the complainants. They also note that they were charged for $4169 including post-op care that never happened because their dog died an hour and a half after being sent home from the hospital.
Sullivan's response begins with the informal "Hi Tracy" before getting into the details. She says the dog came in for a surgical consult about a splenic mass, right pancreatic mass, and regional lymph node swelling in that area. She says that she did an abdominal explore, removed the spleen, and performed a pancreatic biopsy, but were unable to get a biopsy of the lymph nodes as she couldn't find them in all the fat. The dog did great until he died at home, at which point she says the complainant was "sad and upset" but listened to her theory that a random clot killed the dog. She also suggested taking the dog for a necropsy at Midwestern (apparently still Arizona's leading necropsy provider?).
Later, an individual she believes 'is related or married to" the complainant because of the same last name posted a bad review online. She says they responded to his review but were told he would be reporting them to the board and contesting the billed charges.
The Investigative Committee said that everything was appropriate. They say that CT isn't an exact diagnostic tool, and that Sullivan did remove abnormal tissue but it was scar tissue. They also said removing the spleen was the correct thing to do. Like Sullivan, they chalk the dog's death up to a random clot; they do note that there was "a discrepancy" if a necropsy was offered or not. No violations were found.
The Findings of Fact state that while the complainants act as though they cared for the dog themselves, it was actually the complainant's mother who picked up the dog and brought him home. Note the complaint actually goes back and forth between "I" and "we," and to be sure, they could be using "we" in the family sense. The Findings of Fact also state that the CT they did found masses, but the complainants describe the results as negative; it would be interesting to know more about this.
Another fun fact is that it appears even before this, another veterinarian (Ou) was suspecting metastatic cancer in this dog based on x-rays. They got sent to Jones at Desert Veterinary Medical Specialists who ran a CT and maybe did or didn't find anything. Then a colleague of his on the surgical side cut the dog open, removed a variety of benign body parts, and then the dog went home to die. It's reminiscent of the Great Apricot Pit Incident of 2018, in which a Tucson dog was diagnosed with cancer and marked for death by multiple Tucson veterinarians and specialty centers despite a radiology report stating the probability of a blockage caused by a shelled nut (see 18-90 and sequelae).
| Source: | July 7, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Jessica Sullivan | Respondent |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| 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: | Jim Loughead |
| 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.