RESOURCES

Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board

Veterinary Statutes and Rules

Article about other states' approaches to damages for loss of a pet

AZ Rep. John Kavanagh's Humane Animal Laws website

Information About our Legal and Administrative Journey:

Our Complaint to the AZ Vet Board: "...just a couple hours after we were told that Ernie had been doing well, [veterinarian] simply said 'Sorry' as they handed our heartbroken family Ernie's bandaged corpse."

Vet Board Investigative Committee Recommendation: The Investigative Committee recommended that the Board find Gross Negligence and Medical Incompetence on the part of the veterinarian for directing an assistant to place a nasogastric feeding tube: "the veterinary assistant incompetently inserted the NG tube."

Vet Board Final Response: Vet Board found no violations of the Veterinary Practices Act, in part because the unlicensed veterinary assistant was not subject to its jurisdiction, and because the veterinary facility had no procedures in place requiring a veterinarian to insert feeding tubes. The veterinarian also testified that after Ernie died she wrote a detailed policy about feeding tube insertion, and the facility improved its training. Had we not protested Ernie's death, it's very possible that nothing would have changed. But this is only one facility.

Our Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court: We alleged negligence on the part of the veterinary assistant, and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act because the facility represented that its staff was certified and highly trained.

Our Initial Disclosure Statement: Further information about our case.

Our Response to Summary Judgment Motion: "When Plaintiffs took Ernie to [veterinarian], they did not reasonably expect that they would be sacrificing their beloved family pet to inspire a teachable moment." .... "This flagrant lack of accountability leaves aggrieved consumers of veterinary services performed by unregulated personnel with the only options of pursuing relief in a civil action or through the criminal justice system."

Final resolution of our lawsuit: The tribunal found that the veterinary facility and the veterinary assistant were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on most of the claims in our case. We declined a monetary offer (the fair market value of a 5 year old Yorkshire Terrier) to settle and instead accepted no money to dismiss our lawsuit, because we did not want to be subject to restrictions on what we could say about Ernie's death.