Waterhouse Cheryl DVM

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/03/15) */
Here is my response to Mrs***'s complaint:
*** *** brought her dog to Waterhouse Animal Hospital and was seen by me (Dr***) on December 3, for difficulty breathingWe had a record in our hospital of a history of
congestive heart failureThe owner reported that *** had collapsed that day and twice prior to that dayThe day of presentation she said the dog's breathing was more rapidThe owner reported she was concerned about congestive heart failureOn physical exam the dog had increased lung sounds with wheezing and crackles heard on auscultationIt was difficult to hear the heart over the increased lung soundsDue to the nature of the previously diagnosed condition, the most pressing concern was pulmonary edema, and I recommended taking chest radiographs (X-rays) to evaluate for fluid on the lungs and further evaluate the chest cavityRadiographs showed a severely enlarged heart, left atrial enlargement, deviation of the windpipe and the pattern in the lung fields that showed there was fluid accumulationDue to the fact the hospital was going to be closing soon, and that the dog needed continuing care, and there were no staff members who remained in the hospital overnight, I recommended that the dog be transferred to an emergency hospital for further monitoring and additional treatment by a criticalist, a veterinarian specializing in emergency cases
The owner declined transferring due to financial concernsI explained that I believed that her dog was very sick, and having her dog seen by a criticalist at a 24-hours emergency hospital provided the optimal level of careThe owners said they were unable to afford transferringI then recommended she increase the dose of furosemide, which I assume they didI did not hear from the owner againIn January 25, 2016, I received a notice from a local emergency hospital that *** had presented dead on arrival on January
If there is anything you need from me, please let me know
-***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/03/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
None of the above addresses the issue which is that the x-rays were not needed to treat my dog What I did request when we brought *** in was oxygen, and that was denied to *** Increasing the furosamide is standard procedure for ***'s heart condition given her symptoms, and did not require x-rays The x-rays were not needed and my dog was harmed during the procedure Bulk of what was written above, was not told to us I have not waived privacy on my dog's medical condition to be posted as a public record
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2016/03/25) */
The complainant is incorrect in her assertionsIt was precisely because of the results of the thoracic (chest) radiographs that the recommendation was made to increase the dose of furosemideI have included an opinion of a Veterinary Cardiologist:
To Whom it May Concern,
As a board-certified veterinary cardiologist, it is my opinion that if a dog presents with labored breathing and episodes of collapse, thoracic radiographs are highly indicated Even if the patient has a history of congestive heart failure, it cannot be assumed that the current clinical signs are due to the heart failure This is because a number of other diseases can cause the same clinical signs and need to be ruled out To not advise thoracic radiographs in this situation, in my opinion, would be considered malpractice
Sincerely,
*** *** DVM, DACVIM (Cardiology)
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 14, 2016/04/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Those are not my assertions that the x-rays were of no help to the veterinarian for treatment but those of the vet herself Then, the veterinarian went ahead and increased ***'s furosamide anyway, without regard to the x-rays by her own admissions It is that simple
I was so surprised by the veterinarian's statements to my husband and I that once in the car, I made notes of them On December 4, I recorded the entire December incident in anticipation of receiving the "how are we doing" follemail I emailed my record of the event as a reply to that follemail with a request for a refund, and no one at your facility ever responded
Neither my husband nor I authorized you to x-ray *** at ANY COST to her, and definitely would never have agreed to her being x-rayed if it meant that you and your staff would have to harm her to get them, which the technician clearly did based on ***'s obvious state of trauma when she was returned to me (res ipsa loquitur), and the veterinarian's comment that she "saw her back there," a comment inferring she knew *** was under distress and did nothing to help her
I ask the Revdex.com to close the case Further options are under review

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/03/15) */
Here is my response to Mrs. [redacted]'s complaint:
[redacted] brought her dog to Waterhouse Animal Hospital and was seen by me (Dr. [redacted]) on December 3, 2015 for difficulty breathing. We had a record in our hospital of a history of...

congestive heart failure. The owner reported that [redacted] had collapsed that day and twice prior to that day. The day of presentation she said the dog's breathing was more rapid. The owner reported she was concerned about congestive heart failure. On physical exam the dog had increased lung sounds with wheezing and crackles heard on auscultation. It was difficult to hear the heart over the increased lung sounds. Due to the nature of the previously diagnosed condition, the most pressing concern was pulmonary edema, and I recommended taking chest radiographs (X-rays) to evaluate for fluid on the lungs and further evaluate the chest cavity. Radiographs showed a severely enlarged heart, left atrial enlargement, deviation of the windpipe and the pattern in the lung fields that showed there was fluid accumulation. Due to the fact the hospital was going to be closing soon, and that the dog needed continuing care, and there were no staff members who remained in the hospital overnight, I recommended that the dog be transferred to an emergency hospital for further monitoring and additional treatment by a criticalist, a veterinarian specializing in emergency cases.
The owner declined transferring due to financial concerns. I explained that I believed that her dog was very sick, and having her dog seen by a criticalist at a 24-hours emergency hospital provided the optimal level of care. The owners said they were unable to afford transferring. I then recommended she increase the dose of furosemide, which I assume they did. I did not hear from the owner again. In January 25, 2016, I received a notice from a local emergency hospital that [redacted] had presented dead on arrival on January 23.
If there is anything you need from me, please let me know.
-[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/03/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
None of the above addresses the issue which is that the x-rays were not needed to treat my dog. What I did request when we brought [redacted] in was oxygen, and that was denied to [redacted]. Increasing the furosamide is standard procedure for [redacted]'s heart condition given her symptoms, and did not require x-rays. The x-rays were not needed and my dog was harmed during the procedure. Bulk of what was written above, was not told to us. I have not waived privacy on my dog's medical condition to be posted as a public record.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2016/03/25) */
The complainant is incorrect in her assertions. It was precisely because of the results of the thoracic (chest) radiographs that the recommendation was made to increase the dose of furosemide. I have included an opinion of a Veterinary Cardiologist:
To Whom it May Concern,
As a board-certified veterinary cardiologist, it is my opinion that if a dog presents with labored breathing and episodes of collapse, thoracic radiographs are highly indicated. Even if the patient has a history of congestive heart failure, it cannot be assumed that the current clinical signs are due to the heart failure. This is because a number of other diseases can cause the same clinical signs and need to be ruled out. To not advise thoracic radiographs in this situation, in my opinion, would be considered malpractice.
Sincerely,
[redacted] DVM, DACVIM (Cardiology)
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 14, 2016/04/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Those are not my assertions that the x-rays were of no help to the veterinarian for treatment but those of the vet herself. Then, the veterinarian went ahead and increased [redacted]'s furosamide anyway, without regard to the x-rays by her own admissions. It is that simple.
I was so surprised by the veterinarian's statements to my husband and I that once in the car, I made notes of them. On December 4, 2015 I recorded the entire December 3 incident in anticipation of receiving the "how are we doing" follow-up email. I emailed my record of the event as a reply to that follow-up email with a request for a refund, and no one at your facility ever responded.
Neither my husband nor I authorized you to x-ray [redacted] at ANY COST to her, and definitely would never have agreed to her being x-rayed if it meant that you and your staff would have to harm her to get them, which the technician clearly did based on [redacted]'s obvious state of trauma when she was returned to me (res ipsa loquitur), and the veterinarian's comment that she "saw her back there," a comment inferring she knew [redacted] was under distress and did nothing to help her.
I ask the Revdex.com to close the case. Further options are under review.