| Complaint: | Complaint 21-55 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Brandon Prince |
| Premises: | Foothills Animal Hospital |
The complainant took her dog to Brandon Prince to examine injuries to the carpal pads. She relates that her sister was also there and when Prince was asked about fees he became defensive; she still agreed to surgery as she felt the dog needed help. She also relates that her dog seemed terrified of Prince which was apparently unusual. The surgery was performed and when she went to get the dog she claims she didn't even get any discharge instructions; she also says that when she asked the vet tech what was done to the dog she got a vague answer about the area being sanitized, cleaned, and trimmed down. She says she didn't receive any other follow-up from the clinic and was told Prince was in surgery whenever she asked. Her sister asked what was done (her sister is apparently an experienced registered nurse) and had to refer to the invoice to figure out what happened to the dog; apparently the dog had an abscess that was drained. The dog went for a recheck and she still didn't get to speak with the veterinarian, so her sister called the front office and tried to get more information. This time she was told there was a laceration, so they asked to get a copy of all the notes; the receptionist allegedly said that she couldn't send the notes because Prince has to go in and modify them. She again asked to speak directly with Prince but was told he was on vacation. The complainant says that Prince subsequently called her and said that he never hands out paper discharge instructions; he also allegedly asked her not to report him to the state veterinary board. Her sister subsequently spoke with Prince who told her that the difference in diagnosis (laceration vs abscess) was that the injury was unique and he didn't know how to code it. The complainant subsequently received mail from Sue Prince, the office manager, stating that they were no longer welcome at the clinic. Since this was the only clinic in town accepting new patients she's not sure where to take her dog.
Prince tells us that the dog had wounds on both carpal pads but was otherwise okay. He says he put together an estimate to sedate the dog and perform an examination, including possible surgery if needed. He tells us the complainant was unsure but finally agreed so they went ahead and did it; the wounds were superficial so surgery wasn't needed. He wrote up discharge instructions which are given for review on an iPad; they can then be emailed or printed as requested once the client has signed off on the instructions on the iPad. He says the complainant signed on the iPad. He says that a staff member from the clinic tried to call regarding follow-up but didn't get a response; he also says that he was subsequently working in Glendale so Brian Krisko checked the pet back at the vet. He found out that the complainant and her sister were trying to get in touch with him and also learned that Kirk Prince, DVM (Brandon's dad), was on the phone sorting it out with the complainant's sister. He says that they concluded they couldn't meet the clients' expectations and sent a letter telling them not to come back.
The Investigative Committee said that the real problem was that the experience at this vet was different than the experience she got at different vets where veterinarians would talk to her. She tried to sort it out but was dumped by the clinic; the Committee members say this made the complainant so angry that she filed a complaint. (One wonders what they did to deserve to be dumped as nobody seems to mention that.) Remember that three of the four Committee members are veterinarians and run their own practices (Dow, Rai, and Sidaway). One wonders how much of this is reflective of their own attitude; it's not an unreasonable question given the number of complaints against Dow's own Prescott Animal Hospital and Equine Center as well as a case at Desert Ark where Sidaway may have been coaching an employee on how to do surgery over the phone (21-22). Sidaway's biggest contribution to veterinary medicine, Midwestern University, did such a good job on two well-known complaints that the surviving family members testified in favor of a veterinary malpractice bill before the Arizona Senate.
Brandon Prince was also out of town on vacation in 18-103 when someone was trying to get in touch with him there too. It appears there were also problems getting medical records then as well. That time his dad also showed up.
| Source: | May 5, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Brandon Prince | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Jane Soloman |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| 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.