| Complaint: | Complaint 22-17 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | John Oplinger |
| Premises: | Wickenburg Veterinary Clinic |
The complainant relates two concerning situations with Oplinger. She alleges that in one office visit she took an occasionally-aggressive dog muzzled to Oplinger; he turned down her offer to walk the dog to the scale, instead dragging it along by the leash. The dog subsequently became aggressive and he allegedly lifted the dog up by the leash and onto the exam table; she states the dog was terrified and urinated everywhere. She states that she has no proof and was too stunned to say anything.
She also relates a story about her one-year-old dog who died five days after a neutering procedure performed by Oplinger. She states that the dog began showing signs of an emergency but Wickenburg was too busy; she took the dog to Hassayampa Vet Clinic where the dog was subsequently euthanized. The veterinarian at Hassayampa (Ruisi) suggested that the pneumothorax that led to the dog's death was the result of a birth defect of the lungs, an injury from falling or jumping, or an injury from intubation during the recent neutering. Ruisi allegedly stated that the intubation appeared to be the most likely cause and the complainant specifically notes Ruisi's help during this difficult time.
Oplinger's response states that the first dog was a fear biter who was lifted up on the exam table; he states that he used the left hand to support the dog while the right hand kept the leash taut to prevent the dog from biting him. He also reviews the neutering procedure done to the second dog, including intubation and extubation of the dog. He states the dog had no problems and was discharged several hours after the procedure without a problem.
The Findings of Fact state the dog allegedly gone out the previous evening and was near the highway; the dog was stumbling, coughing up blood, not eating or drinking, and having diarrhea. The dog had also been at the dog park, leading to some concerns about possible poisoning.
The Investigative Committee stated that the complainant's timeframe was incorrect as based on the medical records it had actually been eight days between the procedure and the dog's death rather than five. As a result, they concluded that the procedure could not have been the cause of the pneumothorax; they stated it would have started to show up within 24 hours at most. They did mention some concerns about Oplinger's recordkeeping, including identical vitals recorded for each of the dog's visit, but that nothing met the level of a violation.
(The Findings of Fact are very matter-of-fact about the dog getting out the night prior and then having a health crisis set in, but they only cite the complainant's retelling of the story that Ruisi suggested the extubation from the neutering was the most likely cause. One would assume that if they had the information on file her official opinion in the records, if any, would also be included, wouldn't you?)
| Source: | February 2, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| John Oplinger | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | March 3, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | March 3, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (21) Medical record keeping violations | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | Order 22017 (May 5, 2022) |
|---|---|
| Violations: | |
| A.R.S § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502(L)(4) failure to record the results of the animals’ exam in the medical record, including general condition. | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502(L)(5) failure to record the animals’ tentative or definitive diagnosis in the medical record. | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates fo A.A.C. R3-11-502(7)(d) failure to document the route of administration of medications administered in the animals’ medical record. | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502(11) failure of the veterinarian performing the veterinary medical service to sign or initial the medical record. | |
| Penalties: | |
| Probation (6 months) | |
| Continuing education (2 hours in medical record keeping) | |
| Civil penalty ($250) | |
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.