Brief Summary

The member examined a large-breed dog with decreased energy that had been vomiting and became anorexic the day before. The member had difficulty hearing the dog’s heart rate due to excessive panting but was able to record her pulse at 140. The member recommended blood testing, which revealed her white blood cell count was elevated and her pancreas was inflamed. The member advised the client the dog had pancreatitis. The dog was hospitalized for the day and treated with IV fluids, pain medication, anti-inflammatories and an antibiotic. When the client picked the dog up at the end of the day she could no longer walk and had to be carried home. The client was advised the dog’s condition would improve by the morning. The member did not prescribe any pain medication.

The next day, the dog’s condition continued to worsen. The client contacted the hospital and the member recommended that if the dog did not eat, the client should call back. The client contacted the hospital a short time later, and was advised the member was not available and the dog could not be seen that day. Later that day, the client contacted the hospital and indicated their decision to euthanize the dog. They were advised the earliest that could be arranged would be more than 24 hours later. The client was not provided with further options for urgent care or euthanasia.

The client took the dog to another clinic for further testing including an x-ray and further blood testing. The dog was euthanized that day.

Allegations of Professional Misconduct

• knew or ought to have known the dog’s heart rate was elevated, indicating the dog was seriously ill
• failed to order testing to properly diagnose the dog
• failed to rule out the possibility of comorbidities
• failed to communicate the seriousness of the dog’s condition and treatment options with the client
• failed to provide the client with an adequate description of pancreatitis or how it is caused
• failed to inform the client that the dog may not respond to treatment and may have comorbidities beyond pancreatitis
• failed to provide proper pain management
• failed to properly monitor the dog during her stay at the hospital and/or failed to conduct further testing, including heart rates, respiratory rates, or temperatures and/or failed to document further testing
• knew or ought to have known the dog needed to be transferred to a 24-hour facility and failed to recommend transfer
• discharged the dog without providing options for ongoing care
• failed to respond to the client in a timely fashion
• failed to advise the client of the option to take the dog to an emergency clinic
• failed to follow up with the client in a timely manner including offering a timely euthanasia when requested 
• failed to maintain appropriate records
• failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession
• failed to continue to provide professional services to an animal until the services are no longer required or until the client has had a reasonable opportunity to arrange for the services of another member
• an act or omission relevant to the practice of veterinary medicine, that having regard to the circumstances, would be regarded by members as unprofessional

Decision

The member acknowledged responsibility for the allegations of professional misconduct. The Panel accepted the member’s plea.

Penalty

• Reprimand
• Three-month suspension
• Completion of remediation which includes pre- and post- remediation assessment, a one-day mentorship on the medical issues that arose in the case, and a course or additional mentoring on appropriate client relations, auxiliary supervision, and informed consent.
• The member must pay costs to the College of $5,000.

Panel's Reasoning

The Panel accepted the joint submission on penalty and costs. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed penalty order was in the public interest and reasonable. The reprimand, suspension and remedial terms meet the goals of public protection and rehabilitation.

The Panel is hopeful the member will learn during his one-day mentorship meeting to address the medical issues that arose in this case and consider what he could have done differently for the dog, particularly in the area of pain management. 

The Panel understands this is not the first time the member has appeared before the Discipline Committee. His prior involvement was many years ago and he has had an unblemished record since that time. Further, the Panel notes the member was cooperative throughout this process, freely admitting his wrongdoing and avoiding the need for a protracted hearing.

The Panel recognizes the importance for all members of the College to demonstrate humane treatment of animals, and to maintain suitable communication skills to maintain public confidence in the profession.  The Panel is confident the remediation, including mentorship on communication skills, medical issues, and pain management that arose in the case, will protect the public should the member continue to practise veterinary medicine.

Decision

Since 2024, decisions have been posted on the CanLII website, the Canadian Legal Information Institute. A complete copy of this decision is available on CanLII.