ASSESSMENT: Open diagnosis. Neurologic disease (rule out neoplasia, vestibular syndrome), hepatophy (age related? medication related?), conjunctivitis.

OTHER: Gave owner guarded prognosis at best.  Advised owner that even if the heptopathy responds to supportive care there is still a neurologic precess going on which may or may not be treatable.  Advised owner that is highly unlikely that the condition is solely because of Rimadyl therapy.  Admitted for supportive care.  Advised owner that if there is no improvement (especially neurologically) within 24 hours that either a neurology consult or euthanasia will need to be considered. 

T [telephone] Spoke with owner & discussed necropsy findings.

• numerous chronic/low grade conditions
• endocrine neoplasia
• pancreatitis (mild)
• chronic pneumonia
• mild chronic active hepatitis

A/O [advised owner] the combination of all the chronic conditions plus the neoplastic and G.I. changes are likely the cause of death.

LETTER: #76:  8/26/04:  BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU: Consumer's Original Complaint, filed online by GINGER SANCHEZ on line 8/26/04:

Consumer's Original Complaint:  On 4/24/04 I rushed my very sick dog to the Five Corners Veterinary Hospital due to a different veterinarian having prescribed/dispensed what turned out to be a deadly canine FDA/CVM approved drug for "a touch of arthritis".  I provided Dr. Hammond of that facility detailed information/instructions as to who/how to contact the drug manufacturer, Pfizer, at their 1-800 number to obtain verifications of my dog's symptoms and medical treatment information.  They, instead, mis-diagnosed her condition and then told me that instead of giving my dog more time to try to recover on her own, gave me a choice of EITHER doing CPR or euthanasia [the early morning of 4/25/04, about 12 hours after the dog's admittance to their facility].  When I asked what doing CPR would accomplish, they told me 'nothing'.  My dog was euthanized and I requested that they make arrangements for a necropsy to be performed in order to determine the cause of my dog's death.  The veterinarian on duty at that time [the morning of 4/25/04] told me that the cost to me would be a 'ball park figure' of approximately $500.00 and I agreed to it.  After my dog was euthanized, the office person [name unknown] told me that before she would make a call to the laboratory to arrange for a necropsy, they required payment on the spot and in full of $1100.00.  When I asked why the figure was more than twice what I had been told to expect, I was told that they did not have adequate refrigeration facilities to hold my dog in until the necropsy laboratory could pick up her body on the morning of 4/26/04 [24+ hours after death] and the additional charge was for "a whole lot of ice" in order for my dog's remains to be sufficiently preserved for a proper necropsy to be done.  I agreed to pay the sum and did so by credit card [receiving a 10% discount as a senior citizen, total amount paid for the necropsy now being $990.00].  The necropsy report was supposed to be available about 4/29 or 4/30/04 and I was finally able to obtain a copy of the report about 5/3/04.  When I did not understand the 'findings', I called and was finally able to speak to Dr. Hammond who verbally summed up her opinion that my dog suffered from too many multiple conditions and didn't survive due to her 'age'.  When I was not satisfied with that explanation, I contacted the necropsy laboratory, Phoenix Central Laboratories, Everett, Washington [who does not appear on any of the BBB searches] to speak directly to the veterinarian/pathologist who allegedly did the necropsy, Dr. Robert Murnane, DVM, Ph.D., Diplomate, A.C.V.P.]on 5/10/04 and was informed by the office personnel there that no one would give me any information because the Five-Corners/Vet Hammond was the client and hung up on me after informing me that Dr. Hammond was the only person to contact.  On 5/24/04 I sent a demand letter by fax to Dr. Hammond/Five Corners demanding that they voluntarily provide written authorization to Dr. Murnane to speak to me and to order/authorize Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Lab to 'preserve' my dog's 'bits and pieces' for a second necropsy and DNA testing until I located and made arrangements at another facility for same and for Hammond/Five Corners to provide me with an itemized billing of the $990.00 necropsy charges.  When I called Five-Corners to determine that [they] had received my faxed demand letter, the office person [Margaret Baty]acknowledged receipt of the faxed demand letter and informed me that Dr. Hammond had 'opted' to NOT provide any written release/authorization but had provided the release/authorization to Dr. Murnane by a telephone call.  When I went to pick up the records and itemized necropsy billing, there was no itemized necropsy billing.  I faxed a demand letter to Murnane/Phoenix Lab stating I would call their 1/800-347-0043 on 6/1/04, and when I did so, I was only allowed to speak to a person who identified herself as "Linda Jewett" and stated that she was the 'marketing person in charge of everything at the laboratory'. Ms. Jewett acknowledged receipt of the complete fax addressed to Dr. Murnane and stated that Dr. Murnane would NOT speak to me, that I could NOT have his e-mail address; that my dog's 'bits and pieces' WOULD have been preserved and kept in appropriate condition for a second necropsy and DNA testing 'as a matter of routine procedure' and provided me with HER e-mail address so that I could confirm that after she had a chance to verify that as the person in charge of that had already left for the evening.  When I e-mailed Ms. Jewett several times and requested confirmation of the status of my dog's remains, I got no response from her and the e-mail had been delivered and not returned.  I have since learned that Dr. Murnane apparently has already had his license to practice veterinary medicine 'compromised' by checking his 'record' out at: www.wa.gov/doh/hpqa1/Application/Credential_Search/Action_Detail_Rot.asp?PCN.

 

Consumer's Desired Resolution: I want a complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr.Hammond/Five Corners and Dr.Murnane/Phoenix Lab, along with a complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinarian Hospital with respect to my dog, my dog's condition, and any/all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer regarding same; an itemized billing of the necropsy charges as outlined in my fax demand letters; all of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties; the current 'status' of ALL of my dog's 'bits and pieces' as previously demanded; a full refund of the monies paid to Five Corners [which totals just under $2,000.00]; a 'replacement' dog of like quality/training and a written apology from both parties that includes an explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory, why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer or IF they did, when they did and for what purpose and upon what 'basis' Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the 'credentials' of said laboratory and whether "Ms. Jewett" is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory and under what authority the Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington.

 

LETTER:  #77: FROM BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU VIA U.S.MAIL REC'D 9/25/04, DATED 9/22/04, POST-MARKED 9/24/04 TO GINGER SANCHEZ:

9/25/04

 

Better Business Bureau Serving Oregon & Western Washington

PO Box 1000

Dupont, WA  98327

Tel: 206 431-2222 Fax: 206 431-2211

 

The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received a response from the business regarding your complaint.  Please review their response to your original complaint and advise us of your position in the matter by October 2, 2004.

 

The details of the complaint (including the business' response) are included on the reverse.  Please be sure to indicate whether the company's response has resolved the complaint.

 

If you find you are dissatisfied with the company's response, please provide us with a MIDDLE GROUND offer we can present to the company in an effort to resolve this dispute.  If this is not provided, the BBB may not be able to be of further assistance in this matter.

 

We encourage you to use our ONLINE COMPLAINT system to respond to this complaint.  The following URL (website address) will take you directly to this complaint.  You will be able to enter your response directly on our website:

http://www.thebbb.org/complaintconsumer.html?cid=22016444&auth=3fvwc4

 

If you are unable to respond using the internet, then please respond in writing to the address above or FAX to (206) 431-2200.  Thank you for using the services of the BBB!

 

Sincerely,

Deborah Schenk

Better Business Bureau

Complaint Department

 

LETTER #78:  RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT BY HAMMOND/FIVE CORNERS VETERINARY  HOSPITAL [ENCLOSED WITH ABOVE BBB LETTER]

9/8/04                           DATE STAMPED: 9/13/04

 

Better Busines Bureau

PO Box 1000

Dupont, WA  98327

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

Redarding:    Complaint Activity Report

               Case #22016444 Ginger Sanchez

 

Ms. Sanchez presented her dog "Romy" to this facility as an emergency case on 24 April 2004.  On presentation the dog was unable to stand on her own and unable to support her own weight when lifted.  She had severe (1)neurological symptoms [symptom of Rimadyl toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10 for both horizonal and rotary nystagmus, which Hammond commented on in my presence] (2) was hypothermic [symptom of Rimadyl/carprofen toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10], (3) had conjunctivitis,[symptom of Rimadyl/carprofen toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10], (4) and a urinary tract infection [symptom of Rimadyl/carprofen toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10], Routine blood chemistries showed that she had (5) elevated liver enzymes [symptom of Rimadyl/carprofen toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10,and NOTE: lab results were faxed to Williams/BVH on 4/25/04, see original fax document #3 - five out of five symptoms in this letter point to Rimadyl toxicity, which I INFORMED Hammond of prior and during the initial examination, which was the ONLY time I saw Hammond] [the foregoing referenced report is now document #80].

 

Ms. Sanchez was given a summary of initial exam findings [NOTHING was given to me except the BILL to be paid on the spot; the only paperwork I saw besides the itemized anticipated charges was the form I was required to sign stating and agreeing that when my dog was released from care with Hammond/Five Corners, I would take her to Williams/BVH for the next 180 days following her release, previously submitted as document item #5] and was offered referral to a board certified veterinary neurologist, which she declined [the ONLY thing said to me was that the first thing was to get ROMI 'diagnosed' via x-rays and lab tests and then 'stable' via IV's and 'monitoring'; that IF the diagnosis, AFTER TESTING, was of neurologic origin, THEN it would be recommended to do a 'neurological consult', but at that point, until testing and monitoring had been done; it would have been PREMATURE to have OFFERED a 'neurological consult' on Saturday 4/24/04 in the evening and it was 'wait and see' what the lab/x-ray results were and how ROMI responded to the IV's- there was NO 'neurological consultation "offered" and therefore no 'neurological consultation' was "declined".  In any event, it's totally irrelevant whether any 'neurological consult' was allegedly offered/allegedly declined and can only be viewed as a self-serving attempt to try to justify the mis-diagnosis that occurred because of the veterinarian apparent refusal to pay attention to the Rimadyl toxicity information provided; this is literally a case of 'beating a dead DOG to death'].  She was then presented with a detailed estimate for supportive care and continued monitoring of liver enzymes  [this is true- the gal with the clipboard was continuously giving me itemized printouts of how much money they wanted before doing anything;].  Ms. Sanchez opted to continue "Romy's" care at Five Corners Hospital at least overnight. [when I was there I paid the first set of 'anticipated charges' of $376.30 for the initial exam, blood work, urinanalysis and x-rays (the reports of which were never provided to me, despite my demand faxed letter); I WAS repeatedly told that once ROMI was released from care at Five Corners that I was REQUIRED to return her for ANY care for the next minimum time frame of 180 days; then I paid by phone authorization another $497.70 on 4/24/04 for the first 12 hours of ICU/monitoring & IVs, see exhibit #15][please NOTE that the statement of "continued monitoring of liver enzymes" is both misleading and self-serving:  unless there are additional laboratory reports that I have NOT been provided with there were only TWO [2] CBC/full chemistry lab tests done: the first one 4/24/04 at 3:55 p.m., shortly after admittance (item #7 previously submitted); and 4/25/04 at 7:24 a.m. which I requested being done prior to ROMI's being euthanized for the purposes of comparison and BOTH of these are additionally documented on the billing statements (Item #15) and BOTH of these were faxed by Hammond/Five Corners to Williams/BVH on 4/25/04 (Item #3) LONG before I ever saw them.  I was initially told that the liver enzymes were "off the chart" (another classic Rimadyl toxicity indication) but the second 'full cbc/full chemistry (liver enzymes) showed a significant reduction JUST PRIOR TO ROMI's death, although Dr. Meyer refused to wait either for lab results OR to give ROMI any more time to 'come out of it'].

 

On presentation, and during several subsequent conversations with Ms. Sanchez, she indicated that she was sure "Romy's" illness was secondary to the administration of Rimadyl that had been prescribed by the regular veterinarian [there was only ONE conversation that took place with Hammond, although it was a very LONG conversation in which I CONTINUED to relay the symptoms ROMI'd been having AND that they were all listed and explained on the www.srdogs.com and Pfizer.com websites, ALONG WITH the 1/800 Pfizer number to get veterinarian assistance  - the initial exam was conducted in the presence of the 'clipboard woman', and I repeatedly told BOTH of them I very strongly believed it was Rimadyl toxicity, ASKED if they had Internet access and provided both the www.srdogs.com website and www.Pfizercom website and TOLD them to call Pfizer's 1/800 number (which was ON both websites) to verify the symptoms AND get the correct treatment information as to IV's, etc.].  Despite assurances by myself [I was NOT 'assured by Hammond that it wasn't Rimadyl; I kept telling Hammond that it WAS most likely due to Rimadyl toxicity and she just wasn't listening apparently] and later by Dr. Rachel Meyer, that Rimadyl toxicity does not cause neurologic signs [but it DOES, Pfizer knows that: see Items #24,#31,#32,#33,#35,#36,#38,#40,#59,#60,#61,#62,#63,#64,#65, #66,#67,#68,#73,#80 and veterinarians are supposed to know that's one of the "risks" with NSAIDs [Rimadyl/carprofen]- see: AVMA at: www.avma.org for "Minimizing the risk factors associated with veterinary NSAIDs, 4/15/04, Item #81; FDA Veterinarian for March/April, "Adverse Drug Experience Reports . . ." , Item #82; www.valleypetnews.com "Veterinarians Prescribing Rimadly: Don't Know v. Don't Tell", 4/13/04, Item #83; www.valleypetnews.com "Pfizer Repackages 'Rimadyl' Arthritis Drug To Educate Dog Owners of Risks", 4/13/04, Item #84; Ms. Sanchez was unwilling to hear our professional opinions.  Ms. Sanchez never provided contact information and/or instruction regarding contacting Pfizer, the manufacturer of Rimadyl. [totally untrue, see above; additionally Five Corners was in contact with Williams/BVH, providing HIM with lab results, etc., by fax and doing so LONG before I had any of the information either verbally or in written form]

 

"Romy" was hospitalized overnight during which time her neurologic status continued to deteriorate while her liver enzymes improved [THIS IS A HUGE CLUE AS TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM, RIMADYL! and yet the ongoing veterinarian DENIALS CONTINUE to this very day!  When I called at 9:00 p.m., I was told ROMI "was resting comfortably and on IV, and it was a 'wait and see matter"].  Dr. Meyer attempted to contact Ms. Sanchez multiple times after midnight on 25 April 2004 to inform her of her dog's condition, even going so far as to call the operator to request an emergency interruption of Ms. Sanchez's busy telephone line, but was unable to contact Ms. Sanchez until nearly 7:00 a.m. on 25 April 2004.  At that point "Romy" was comatose and close to death.  Dr. Meyer advised Ms. Sanchez that due to the degeneration of "Romy's" condition overnight "Romy" was unlikely to recover and offered euthanasia for humane reasons. [Dr. Meyer offered CPR! and when I asked what CPR would do to bring her out of a coma, Dr. Meyer said 'nothing' but it was either CPR OR euthanasia, and that the alleged 'brain condition', that's once again claimed above in this letter response to the BBB, was DEBUNKED by the necropsy report]  Ms. Sanchez indicated at that time that she was concerned, should "Romy" be euthanized, that necropsy findings would be altered and she would not be able to prove that "Romy's" death was due to Rimadyl. [NOT what I said; I said IF Rimadyl was INDEED the cause of ROMI's death, that needed to be 'exposed' by having a necropsy done so that other dogs wouldn't be dying needlessly, too]

(page 2)

When I arrived on the morning of the 25 April 2004, "Romy" had been euthanized and the owner's request for necropsy had been noted.  Joanne Rideout, I.V.T. and I arranged with Phoenix Labs to perform the necropsy [when I paid the remaining amount to cover the necropsy charge, I was ASSURED by the 'clip board woman' that the arrangements had ALREADY BEEN MADE THEN, AS SOON AS MY CREDIT CARD PAYMENT WAS CLEARED/AUTHORIZED which was 4/25/04 at 8:07 a.m. according to Master Charge records].  At that time, Ms. Sanchez was informed of the cost of the necropsy through Phoenix Labs ($1,100.00)  [what was Phoenix Labs actually PAID?] to which she agreed and paid.  While Phoenix Labs does not usually have a courier come to our hospital, the lab did arrange to have a courier come that day to pick up "Romy's" remains.  Since we don't have refrigerator space sufficient for a Rottweiler, we prepared "Romy's" remains as directed by the lab.  I can attest to the fact that "Romy's" body was in possession of the courier from Phoenix Labs by 3:00 p.m. that afternoon.

 

The full necropsy results were not available to us until the afternoon of 2 May 2004.  A partial report, the gross findings, was printed on 27 April 2004, but the microscopic findings were still pending at that point.  It is our policy that the veterinarian who was responsible for the case be the one to discuss laboratory results with the owner.  I was unavailable from 26 April 2004 through 3 May 2004.  Dr. Melanie Caviness read the preliminary report to Ms. Sanchez on 30 April 2004.  [the ONLY person who gave me any verbal necropsy information over the phone OTHER than Hammond on 5/3/04, was a young and VERY 'silly' sounding female who answered the phone, did NOT identify herself as a veterinarian, and after telling me that the 'cause of death was euthanasia', said that all the vets were busy, tried to read the report to me, was all tangled up trying to say the medical terminology and then 'gave up' trying to pronounce the words and said for me to call back and talk to Hammond; when I continued calling to speak to Hammond, everyone answering the phone offered to 'help me' as she was not available, and when I said I wanted information regarding the necropsy report, each and everyone of them said that ONLY Hammond could tell me anything; at NO time did anyone ever identify themself as a veterinarian at Five Corners.] I discussed the full report with her on 3 May 2004.

 

On 25 May 2004 we received a fax from Ms. Sanchez demanding an itemized breakdown of the necropsy fee, a written statement from myself to Phoenix Labs regarding the release of her pet's remains, information regarding specifics on the necropsy which were only available through Phoenix Labs, and "Romy's" full medical records.  We provided Ms. Sanchez with copies of "Romy's" medical records and I contacted Phoenix Labs regarding release of "Romy's" remains.  At that time Ms. Sanchez was provided with contact information for Ms. Linda Jewett at Phoenix Labs regarding "Romy's" necropsy and the release of the remains. [as stated in my response to this letter below, I was NEVER given any information by ANY PERSON regarding Linda Jewett; the ONLY information that I ever had was by my reading the letterhead of the necropsy report that showed the phone and fax numbers of Phoenix Lab and my contacts with THEM are outlined in the 3rd section of the complaint previously submitted].

 

All of "Romy's" medical records and the communications we have had with Ms. Sanchez can be made available to you on written request from Ms. Sanchez.

 

Sincerely,

[signed]

Margaret Lynn Hammond, D.V.M.

 

LETTER: #79:  BBB GINGER SANCHEZ RESPONSE TO RESPONSE OF HAMMOND/5 CORNERS SENT VIA E-MAIL ON 9/25/04 TO BBB:

 

9/25/04

 

Deborah Schenck

Better Business Bureau Serving Oregon & Western Washington

Complaint Department

PO Box 1000

Dupont, WA  98327

 

e-Mail: dupont.bbb@hurdmanivr.com

 

Re: Case #22016444: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital

     Response of Ginger Sanchez to the Response of Hammond/Five Corners

 

Per your cover letter from the BBB, dated 9/22/04, post-marked 9/24/04 and received by me via U.S. Mail on 9/25/04: I went to the website listing provided in your letter, and while it gives the 'history' of the case and my complaint and the "Consumer's Desired Resolution" that was filed along with my complaint, I was not able to locate either the "response" of Five Corners on line OR find any way to ADD anything to the website, such as my 'response', which is now below and which includes the BBB required "MIDDLE GROUND offer" for presentation to Hammond/Five Corners:

 

1.    The "company", Five Corners Veterinary Hospital's/Margaret Hammond, DVM's, "response" has NOT resolved the complaint because NONE of the issues contained in the Consumer's Original Complaint OR the Consumer's Desired Resolution have been addressed by the "company".  This BBB complaint deals ONLY with the financial aspects and the previously demanded records information [and for 'making me whole'] and it is NOT a forum for self-serving 'rebuttal' statements regarding the veterinarian malpractice/incompetence mis-diagnosis and cover-up issues which are being dealt with by the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors, in Case#2004-04-0008VT originally filed on 4/29/04 and added to on 5/16/04 and 6/10/04, and currently still under investigation by that entity which does NOT deal with and doesn't have the 'authority' to deal with any financial/billing issues, production/furnishing of any records/information or 'making whole' of an injured party in any manner.

 

2.    I will re-state the issues RELEVANT to the BBB complaint in the hopes that even the most dim-witted [or stonewalling] individual can comprehend what the issues ARE as outlined in the BBB 'complaint' filed by me and have additionally provided the BBB required "MIDDLE GROUND offer" to be presented at the end of each previously stated item:

•  I want a complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr.Hammond/Five Corners and Dr.Murnane/Phoenix Lab, along with a complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinarian Hospital with respect to my dog, my dog's condition[s], and any/all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer regarding same; [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
• an itemized billing of the $1,100.00 necropsy charges, that were paid in full, as outlined in my fax demand letters; [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
• all of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties;  [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
• the current 'status' of ALL of my dog's 'bits and pieces' as previously demanded; [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
• a full refund of the monies paid to Five Corners (which totals just under $2,000.00); [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
• a 'replacement' dog of like quality/training and a written apology from both parties that includes an explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory  [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
• why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer or IF they did, when they did and for what purpose [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
• upon what 'basis' Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the 'credentials' of said laboratory  [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
• and, whether Ms. Jewett is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory and under what authority the Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington, as according to the Hammond/Five Corners' 'response' "At that time Ms. Sanchez was provided with contact information for Ms. Linda Jewett at Phoenix Labs regarding "Romy's" necropsy and the release of the remains." Hammond/Five Corners NEVER provided me any information as to "contact information for Ms. Linda Jewett at Phoenix Labs". My  SOLE 'source of information' was from reading the letterhead of the Phoenix Lab necropsy report upon which the name of "Ms. Linda Jewett" does NOT appear and NOTHING was ever conveyed to me by Hammond/Five Corners regarding any policies anyone had as to who would explain the necropsy findings [other than Hammond at Five Corners] and absolutely NOTHING was ever conveyed to me by ANYONE regarding any "policy" that would continue to prevent the release of my dog's remains for a 2nd necropsy and DNA identification testing prior to "Ms. Linda Jewett's" refusal to release any of the 'bits and pieces' or the 'frozen carcass' of my dog without a court order in the one and only telephone conversation that I had with "Ms. Linda Jewett" on 6/01/04 when I called and spoke to "Ms. Linda Jewett" after sending a demand fax to Phoenix Labs that included a copy of the demand fax sent to Hammond/Five Corners, BOTH of which have been totally ignored by both Hammond/Five Corners and Phoenix Central Labs [who is not a member of the BBB].  

ALL of the items listed above are either IN the control and/or possession of Hammond/Five Corners or are accessible ONLY TO Hammond/Five Corners.  For your convenience I am including in this e-mail response to the Hammond/Five Corner's response, a complete and true copy of the demand fax letter sent to Hammond/Five corners on 5/24/04 [mis-dated 5/25/04], receipt of which was verbally acknowledged by a "Margaret Baty, Operations Manager" of Five Corners, and which was incorporated into and provided to the WA Vet Board to include in the WA Vet Board Complaint via their investigator as Document/Exhibit #12:

May 25, 2004

 

Margaret Hammond, DVM
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
15707 1st Avenue
Seattle, WA  98148

 

Re: DEMAND/REQUEST FOR YOUR VOLUNTARY PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
      Client ID: 17264
      CLIENT NAME: Ginger Sanchez
      PATIENT NAME: ROMY
      Disposition: Euthanized 4/25/04

 

Dear Dr. Hammond,

 

It is with deep regret and sadness that I write to you regarding the unnecessary death of my sole friend and companion Rottweiler, ROMY, at your facility on 4/25/04.  I am hereby DEMANDING that you VOLUNTARILY provide me with the following information/records regarding this matter:

 

1. An itemized breakdown of the necropsy fee charged in the sum of $1,100.00 [paid in full before time of service less the 10% senior citizen discount), including, but not limited to the sum actually paid to the Phoenix Central Laboratory,  any/all transport fees, and the itemized costs/fees allegedly incurred for refrigerating ROMY with a description of said efforts, along with the time-frames such events occurred.[still not provided]

 

2. A Release Form, signed by you, Margaret Hammond, DVM, and/or Five Corners Veterinary Hospital, the original to be sent to Robert Murname, DVM, Ph.D, Phoenix Central Laboratory, Lab ID#: 04-07223, with a copy bearing your signature provided to me, which authorizes the release of ALL of ROMY?s remains, including any and all bits and pieces of ROMY, from their or your custody and/or control, including but not limited to any and all histopathological  specimens, any and all reports and/or records regarding, in any/all forms either written or oral, relating to and/or referring to same; any and all tissue specimens, samples, or other such bits and pieces, including but not limited to any such items mounted on slides; the "Representative portions of all organ systems [that] are preserved in formalin.  Adipose, heart, lung, kidney and liver frozen. [and the] Remainder of the carcass frozen?" as referred to in the necropsy report bearing Lab ID#: 04-07223 and your account number: 1190, with the instructions that said ?remains? shall be retained in appropriate condition until I have made arrangements for their examination and removal to an appropriate facility. [form not provided; Murnane/Phoenix Labs refused to even confirm the location and/or status of ROMI's 'remains' and 'frozen carcass' to this day, no doubt because I planned to arrange for a 2nd necropsy and DNA identification]

 

3. As the Phoenix Laboratory informed me that they will not tell me, as the pet owner, any information whatsoever about anything and that you are the only one they will have and/or permit any contact with regarding this matter, I additionally DEMAND that you inquire into the following, if you don?t already have such information, and provide me with the a copy of any/all results, in any form, whether written, recorded or as contemporaneous note, of such :

 

 A. What tests, if any, were done to determine : ". . . there is no strong evidence of extensive hepatic toxicity such as from Rimadyl." [per the necropsy report]; [not provided]

 

 B. Upon what source of information was the foregoing statement: ". . . there is no strong evidence of extensive hepatic toxicity such as from Rimadyl." [per the necropsy report] based; [not provided]

 

 C. A report and/or statement as to whether ANY evidence of liver toxicity existed and, if to so what degree; the expected length of duration such toxicity existed and upon what source of information such an opinion is based. [not provided]
 
  D. Upon what source and/or sources of information the ". . . overall only moderate hepatic liver compromise would have been predicted." [from the necropsy report] statement was made; [not provided]
 
 E. The full identity of the individual and/or ANY and ALL individuals who allegedly provided "A second opinion was obtained on this case on liver sections and the thyroid-associated mass section and concurred." [from the necropsy report], providing such persons? full name, address, telephone numbers and credentials as to providing such opinion[s]; [not provided]

 

4. A chronological listing developed from your contemporaneously kept treatment records indicating the specific identity/brand name and quantity of any/all of the IV fluids allegedly administered, along with the time-frame[s] of same and the specific identity/brand name quantity and time of each and every medication and/or other item allegedly added to each specified IV. [WAS provided, but without times as near as I can read it, Exhibit#8]

 

5. An itemized listing containing any and all x-rays taken along with any/all reports of same, either written or oral, containing any/all findings and/or reference regarding same. [not provided - were they even done?]

 

6.  Copies of any/all Release/Consent Forms signed by me, including but not limited to the form agreeing that I would take ROMY for any/all additional treatment to the original veterinarian during the 180 days time period after she was released from emergency care. [WAS provided]

 

Dr. Hammond, it is my hope that this matter can be resolved to my satisfaction by you voluntarily providing all of the above-requested information and without the necessity of my having to ask the State of Washington,  Department of Health, Veterinary Board of Governors to intercede on my behalf as I have had to do by filing a complaint against Dr. Williams.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ginger Sanchez  [the above letter was provided to WA Vet Board as exhibit #12]

Additionally, please be advised that according to the first paragraph of 2nd page of the Hammond/Five Corners' "response":

• "Joanne Ridout, LVT and I [letter signed by Hammond] arranged with Phoenix Labs to performed the necropsy." [I NEVER saw 'hide nor hair' of Hammond on 4/25/04, despite my being there from about shortly before 4:00 a.m. until approximately 8:30 a.m., I only saw Dr. Meyer and some of the staff people];
• The ball park figure quoted to me by Dr. Meyer before Romy was euthanized was "about $500, a little more or less"; after Romy was dead, a person [whose name I don't know, but they appeared to be a staff person of some sort and walking around holding a clipboard] came outside of the building at the entry door area, where I was trying to compose myself, and informed me that I needed to pay $1,100.00 right then and there before she would make any call to the necropsy lab.  When I asked her why the charge was going to now be more than double the estimated amount I'd been quoted, she stated that as they had nothing to refrigerate Romy's body in until the laboratory could pick my dog up on Monday, as they [the lab] "did not do 'special pick-ups'", that they [Five Corners] would "need a whole lot of ice".  NOW in the Hammond/Five Corners 'response' Hammond states: "I can attest to the fact that "Romy's'" body was in possession of the courier from Phoenix Labs by 3:00 p.m. that afternoon." [the only possible relevance I can see to this "attestation" is the repeated phrase of Murnane/Phoenix Lab throughout the necropsy report regarding 'autolysis', which I understand is 'decomposition', and appears to be a potential compromising factor in obtaining a more specific cause of death than Hammond's assertion of 'too many problems, most likely old age' interpretation of the necropsy report information to me]

Please advise by return e-mail if you received this, so I'll know whether it's going to be necessary to print it out and mail it or fax it to the number provided on your letterhead before the 10/02/04 deadline you have given me.  Thank you.

 

Ginger Sanchez

e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com

September  14,  2004
Dear Ms. Sanchez ,
I have been asked to respond to the email, dated Sept 10, that you sent to Dr. McKinnel at Pfizer, Inc.  I can tell you that the incident involving your dog Romy was reported to us by Dr. Williams on July 12, 2004. It was submitted to FDA by Pfizer Animal Health on July 23, 2004.  If you wish to discuss this further please call the US Drug Safety group at 1-800-366-5288.  You may ask for me, Dr. Tina Wahlstrom, Director US Drug Safety.  I am unable to provide additional service over the Internet but would be happy to talk to you over the phone.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tina Wahlstrom
US Drug Safety
812 Springdale Drive

      Exton, PA. 19341

After all of the DENYING by Williams/BVH, Hammond/Meyer/Five Corners and Murnane/Phoenix Central Labs as to even any POTENTIAL of Pfizer's drug Rimadyl being the 'culprit' leading to my dog's horrific death on 4/25/04, WHY EVER would Williams/BVH turn in an ADE report to Pfizer and do so almost three MONTHS after my dog DIED, and exactly 30 DAYS after I provided all of the documents supporting the "allegations" contained in the WA Vet Board complaint to the Investigator, on 6/14/04? 

With respect to Pfizer, the maker of Rimadyl, and the FDA/CVM, I saw a posting at the doghealth2 list on Yahoo about 9/10/04, in which someone had posted an e-mail contact address for Pfizer with the statement that Pfizer could be contacted at that e-mail address IF the e-mail sender could/would 'talk rationally' about losing their dog.  I sent an e-mail requesting that they [Pfizer] tell me whether or not an ADE [adverse drug event] report had been done regarding my dog.  The Pfizer contact person, a Dr. McKinnell at: hmckinnell@Pfizer.com  responded by saying 'someone' [else] would be contacting me by e-mail with that information [Exhibit #87].  I then received an e-mail from a Dr. Wahlstrom at: PfizerAnimalHealthTechnicalServices@pfizer.com stating that an ADE had been reported by Dr. Williams to them on 7/12/04 [almost three MONTHS after my dog DIED, and exactly 30 DAYS after I provided all of the documents supporting the "allegations" contained in the WA Vet Board complaint to the Investigator, which filed was on 4/29/04, Exhibit #86] and further stating that Pfizer had turned in an ADE to the FDA on 7/23/04.  Dr. Wahlstrom stated in her e-mail that I could call her at 1-800-366-5288 if I wanted to 'discuss the matter'.  As I prefer to 'do business' via e-mail so there's no question later as to 'what was said', I e-mailed her back requesting that they provide me a copy of both ADE reports [Williams' and Pfizers'] and any supporting documents, either by e-mail or by U.S. Mail, and to send me a bill for copy charges/postage, if any.  The e-mail was returned to me as 'not accepted' TWICE. [Exhibits #88 and #89].  I then sent a copy of my original request, Dr. Wahlstrom's reply and the returned e-mail notice to Pfizer's Dr. McKinnell, hmckinnell@Pfizer.Com, and to three [3] of the contact e-mail addresses at the FDA/CVM VHAMPSHI@CVM.FDA.GOV, MLarkins@cvm.fda.gov and RUMBLEW@cedr.fda.gov asking 'what must I do to get a copy of these documents?' [Exhibit #90] .  Pfizer did not respond; one of the FDA persons, VHAMPSHI@CVM.FDA.GOV, sent me an e-mail containing a link to the 'Manual' on how to file an FOIA Request [Freedom of Information Request] http://www.fda.gov/cvm/default.html [Exhibit #91], but without an FDA/CVM case number [NOT a Pfizer number], it's not possible to make the request and that request IF/WHEN one has the FDA assigned number can only be done by regular U.S. Mail along with a signed statement as to the maximum amount of money the requester is willing to pay for the research efforts to locate the document.  Not having that much Excedrin on hand and not having that big of a grudge against myself, I called the 1-800-366-5288 number for Pfizer earlier today [9/16/04]: Dr. Wahlstrom was not available, and that she's 'on the road' traveling all over the country on behalf of Pfizer; I spoke to a gal named 'Debbie' who was able to give me a Pfizer case number, told me they didn't know what number the FDA might have assigned to 'my case', stated that there was NOTHING in the way of 'records' TO provide me with as it was 'all done electronically' and put into their 'database'.  I asked her who I could speak to and she told me Dr. Radford was Debbie's supervisor, and when I asked that she connect me to Dr. Radford, she told me that Dr. Radford was on another phone call and that they would be 'closing down' soon for lunch - I then asked her if they didn't have any physical records, HOW had Dr. Williams provided them with an ADE and she said it was done by phone and then entered into the database and that was also how Pfizer provided the FDA/CVM with an ADE report, via telephone and the data base information was not available.  I then asked her to see if Dr. Radford's call was finished yet and if she was now available to speak to me and she was.  My chat with Dr. Radford resulted in being told basically the same information as Debbie had provided and that she did not have the authority to determine if or what records I might be allowed to see/have and that would have to be decided by Dr. Wahlstrom [the one who's "on the road and unavailable"], so I asked her to make a note, forward all the information about what-all that I was requesting to anyone/everyone who might be able to help and to have someone/anyone get back to me via e-mail to advise whether they would provide me with anything and if so, what and when.  Dr. Radford said she'd find out if she's allowed to research and I should get a response from her in 7-10 business days via e-mail.  On Saturday, 9/24/04, I received a letter via U.S. Mail from Pfizer's Dr. Wahlstrom, dated 9/21/04, postmarked 9/20/04 and a true copy of the pertinent contents follows [Exhibit #92]:

September 21, 2004

Re: case #2004EX07093

Dear Ms. Sanchez

You requested a copy of an adverse event report that has been submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, and received by Pfizer from your veterinarian, that pertains to a civil lawsuit in which you are involved. 

FDA regulations, 21 C.F.R. 514(e)(4), require us to maintain the confidentiality of the "names and any information that would identify the person using the product" and the "names and any information that would identify any third party involved in the report, such as a physician, hospital or other institutions."  Because of the existence of this regulation, Pfizer would require receipt of a formal subpoena for the report in order to comply with this request. 

Pfizer agrees to accept service of any such subpoena by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Dr. S. Kristine Wahlstrom.  In order to assure fairness to all parties, the subpoena should be accompanied by a certificate of service indicating that it was also served on the adverse party, and providing the name, address and telephone number of counsel for the adverse party.

Sincerely,

Dr. S. Kristina Wahlstrom

Pfizer is one of the most active drug makers. It is the top lobbying spender among health care interests. The industry devoted at least $85 million to lobbying Congress and the Bush administration last year. See: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040901_137.html

There is a potential for causing harm to public health and to animals when drug products are compounded, distributed, and used in the absence of adequate and well-controlled safety and effectiveness data or adherence to the principles of contemporary pharmaceutical chemistry and current good manufacturing practices. Use of compounded drugs in animals can result in adverse reactions and animal deaths. see: http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgvet/cpg608-400.html

Pfizer Reaches Agreement to Settle Rezulin Lawsuit in Illinois: see: www.pfizer.com, www.prnewswire.com [Exhibit #94]

FDA Lawyer Collaborated With Drug Firms-Lawmaker: see:http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040713212309990003 [Exhibit #95]

FDA is Placing Corporations Above Public: see: http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/fda.shtml [Exhibit #96]

Major FDA Warning? see: http://www.thomasjmoore.com/pages/drug_fda.html [Exhibit #97]

Pfizer Lawsuits - On July 23, 2004, a citizen's consumer protection lawsuit was filed against Pfizer Pharmaceuticals for concealment of evidence and deceptive marketing of the antidepressant Zoloft. The California law firm of Baum Hedlund has filed a suit against Pfizer on behalf of a doctor of public health / nurse and on behalf of "all California residents who have been misled about Zoloft." [press release below]

On May 14, 2004, Pfizer pleaded guilty in federal court to criminal fraud charges for the unlawful promotion and marketing of Neurontin by its predecessor, Warner-Lambert. Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million in settlement.

The New York, the law firm of Finkelstein & Partners, petitioned the US Attorney and the Judge who presided over the Neurontin case to consider the thousands of individuals who have been harmed - many died because their "doctors were fraudulently enticed to prescribe Neurontin." The letter noted that Pfizer "with full knowledge of the problem [ ] knowingly continued marketing the drug for unapproved, off-label conditions, thereby becoming criminally prosperous."

Andrew Finkelstein noted that the firm knew of 160 "Americans who, having never attempted any form of suicide before taking Neurontin, committed suicide while on the drug." Furthermore, he informed the court, he knew of "over two (2,000) Americans who, having never attempted suicide before taking Neurontin, were hospitalized following a suicide attempt while on the drug."

Finkelstein asked the court to hold Pfizer officials personally responsible:

"A prison sentence must be considered when so many lives have been damaged through a clear corporate program of criminal activity."

 see: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=3&u=/nm/20040903/bs_nm/health_pfizer_dc , and http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/26a.html [Exhibit #98]

"Black Hole" of medical research: Negative Results Don't get Published": The JAMA report notes that 80% of industry sponsored trials conducted at universities such as Yale, Hopkins, and others, are reported as positive, reflecting bias.

"In almost two-thirds of these cases, the results omitted concerns over potential harmful effects. Independent researchers were just as prone to bias as those funded by industry. Crucial information, from the intensity of pain to survival rates, was either downgraded in importance or omitted from the published report." . . . "The medical research community and its self-regulating system is dysfunctional; failing to protect the public from hazardous drugs and medical procedures, and tainting the credibility of the scientific literature with fraudulently manipulated findings." see: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/06/05.html [Exhibit #99]

Ethical Violations/Pfizer: http://www.ahrp.org/ethical/EthicalViolations.html [Exhibit #100]

Press Release Pfizer Class Action Suit - RIMADYL: see: http://hometown.aol.com/sn1154/RIM2.html/ [Exhibit #101; this is the press release for out of court settlement of the case against Pfizer because of Rimadyl deaths; the original complaint and Pfizer's Answer and Affirmative Defenses was provided previously as Exhibit #19]

"Vets May Not Warn You About Potentially Deadly Pet Drugs" see: http://www.kpho.com/Global/story.asp?S=2343141&nav=DIH7RGXh [Exhibit #102]

    During the time frame of 8/12/04 to 8/24/04 I conducted an on-line Survey Request asking that folks on the doghealth2 list respond to a short questionnaire regarding their own personal ADE [adverse drug event].  I received a total of 44 responses, all of which I included in a Summary, [which is approximately 45 pages in length], in each instance the responder provided their e-mail address for verification of the facts they provided.  A summary of the statistics follows, the full report is available as [Exhibit #104]:

[Note: you may view the entire report at this website at the "Pfizer and the FDA' section, which has had additional FDA/CVM "aproved" drug victims included since 8/24/04.]

ADE [adverse drug event] Information, SURVEY and Summary - 8/24/04

 

I.    A.   FDA/CVM Statistics: This article presents a descriptive overview of the 9,731 post-market adverse drug event (ADE) reports received by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine (FDA/CVM) during calendar year 1999.
SITE: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/2001/May_Jun.htm#adverse

 

Table 1.
ADE Reports by Year
Year Number
1992 1,011
1993 1,250
1994 1,746
1995 3,193
1996 3,112
1997 4,738
1998 9,385
1999 9,731

 

NOTE: the official FDA/CVM ADE 'doggy body bag' statistics, normally at the official FDA site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ade_cum.htm]

is presently showing the following messages [as of 8/24/04]:

• Note:  The August 2004 updated cumulative report will be delayed due to technical difficulties.

• Note: file is 11.70 MB (it takes between 8-11 minutes to download a one megabyte file using the average dial up internet connection)

B.    An excellent chart with the most current and available FDA/ADE statistics can be found at: http://dogsadversereactions.com/nsaid/comparison.html

 

 

II.    Doghealth2 ADE Survey done August 24, 2004:

 

Total number of responses: 44    Deaths: 40 [91%]
[please note there are/were possibly four [4] survivors in this group][9%]

 

Drug Reported Involved [question #3] and statistical percentiles:

• Rimadyl/Pfizer: 33 - [75%]
• Rimadyl/Pfizer OR Metacam/?:  1 - [2.25%]
• Rimadyl and/or Dermaxx 1 - [2.25%] 
• Proheart6/Wyeth-Fort Dodge: 8 - [18%]
• Dermaxx/Novartis:  1 - [2.5%]

State/Country [question #6]:
 
Arizona: 1
California: 3
Canada, Alberta: 1
Colorado: 4
Florida: 5
Georgia: 1
Great Britain: 2
Illinois: 1
Iowa: 1
Michigan: 1
Minnesota: 1
Missouri: 1
New Hampshire: 1
New Jersey: 1
New York: 3
New Zealand: 1
North Carolina: 2
Ohio: 1
Pennsylvania: 1
South Carolina: 4
Texas: 1
Vermont: 1
Washington: 4
Wisconsin: 2

 

Question #7: whether or not your veterinarian informed you of the potential/possible risks/side effects BEFORE dispensing the named drug, stating whether such information was provided verbally and/or in written form [and statistical percentiles]:

• NO risk/side effect warnings/info: 39 - [88.5%]
• Drug discussed verbally/full blood tests run, results ‘fine’: 1 - [2.3%]
• "Mild warning": 2 - [4.6%]
• Picked up brochure on way out of office: 1 - [2.3%]
• Told it was "perfectly safe": 1 - [2.3%]

Additional comments/info provided verbally by vet: "doggy aspirin", "mild pain killer", "treats", "safer than aspirin", "verbal discussion did not include ‘EM’ as possible/potential reaction" [had taken before and blood work done], "routine blood work done, but no information provided", "give with food", "provide lots of water".

 

"What's Wrong With Pfizer?"  [In 1990, the US Generic Pharmaceutical Industry listed Pfizer as one of the companies accused of fraudulent and deceptive practices for its failure to report severe side effects . . .][

It is not only the specific practices of individual companies that cause problems. The attitudes created by the currrent system of exploitation gives power and profits to the few, at the expense of people, animals and the environment. It is important to expose the unethical practices of specific companies as their behaviour is often indicative of the entire system.] see:  http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/pfizer.html [Exhibit #103]

As the non-veterinarian complaining party in this matter,[which is not a civil lawsuit, despite what Pfizer's Wahlstrom stated in Exhibit #92] and given my understanding that I'm not allowed to know anything or see anything regarding any of the veterinarians' responses/replies to my complaint, I can only assume from the above 'response' that WAS provided by the BBB [Exhibit #78], that the Five Corners group's defense to totally missing the correct diagnosis even after they were provided with all of the history AND the Pfizer and srdogs.com website information, and my dog's still unaccounted for 'remains' and 'frozen carcass' status is somehow explained in the Hammond/Five Corners BBB response above.  Again, the purpose in filing a complaint with the BBB is/was due to my understanding that the WA Vet Board doesn't deal with any issues regarding financial, billing/charging problems/disputes, accountability of records/production of same, has no authority over any laboratory functions, and has absolutely no interest in being involved in any way with respect to 'making whole' any injured party. 

I respectfully but strongly suggest that if it's within the WA Vet Board's power of discretion and/or authority to do so, that ALL of this information, both contained here and in the previously submitted portions of my complaint, as well as all of the supporting documentation regarding same, be provided to the Washington State Attorney General's office for in-depth investigation, irrespective of whether the WA State Vet Board should determine/decide if any of the veterinarian parties to this matter should be asked/required to attend continuing education seminars or not.  If the root of the problem regarding the casual prescribing/dispensing of Rimadyl by veterinarians who either know or should know the risks/side effects involved is due to veterinarians being somehow coerced and forced to dispense Rimadyl, then the drug company is 'bad', but the veterinarians who 'go along with it' are even worse with the 'no tell' and cover-ups of the death/damage that inevitably follows.

Ms. Tiffany, please add this e-mail letter to the complaint and materials already provided in this matter by me. 

PLEASE acknowledge receipt of this e-mail by return e-mail to me.  Thank you.

 

Ginger Sanchez

e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com

PART #6: The following is a true and correct copy of Part #6 to the complaint filed with the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors.

9/28/04

 

Darlene Tiffany, Admin. Asst.

State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors

e-Mail: Darlene.Tiffany@DOH.WA.GOV

 

Re:    Case #: 2004-04-0008VT    

        Lawrence Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital

        Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners Veterinary Hospital

        Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab

                                                         

Dear Ms. Tiffany:

 

Please add on to the above-referenced complaint and materials previously provided, Item #105, which is the FDA/CVM "Update" of 12/01/1999, which states in pertinent part:

". . . signs included . . . lethargy, behavioral changes. . . , and an increase in liver enzymes."

"The adverse effects in these reports are consistent with those expected for NSAIDs.  They typically involve the gastrointestinal system, renal/urinary system, hematopoietic (blood) system, neurological system, and the liver."

[font size change provided]

The complete original report regarding Rimadyl quoted above can be found at:

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/rimadyl2.html.

 

Ms. Tiffany, please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail as well as the one sent to you on 9/26/04 by return e-mail to me.  Thank you.

 

Ginger Sanchez

e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com

 

 

9/30/04

 

To:  Darlene.Tiffany@DOH.WA.GOV

and to:  lee.zavala@doh.wa.gov

 

Re:    Second Request for e-mail Acknowledgement

        State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors

        Case#: 2004-04-0008VT

        Lawrence Williams/BVH

        Hammond/Meyer/Bath/Five Corners and

        Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Labs

 

Please acknowledge receipt, via return e-mail to me, of the two [2] e-mails sent to you previously on 9/26/04 and 9/28/04 respectively, regardless of what is or is not done regarding the content of same.  Thank you.

 

Ginger Sanchez

e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com 

PART #7B

PART #8

10/22/04

EXHIBIT #109

In a message dated 10/18/04 2:18:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, MLARKINS@CVM.FDA.GOV writes:

Dear Ms. Sanchez,

I consulted with CVM professional staff members regarding your inquiry about the packaging/client information sheet approved by the FDA/CVM for "Rimadyl."  The only current regulation that specifically applies to "Rimadyl" is Title 21 Part 522.312 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).  The regulations on "Labeling" are in 21 CFR 201.  The labeling for any approved product generally provides adequate directions for its safe and effective use (as defined in 21 CFR 201.5) based on the data that was reviewed and evaluated prior to approval.  That data is summarized in the Freedom of Information (FOI) Summary for any approved drug and is available to the public.  The labeling requirements for veterinary prescription drugs are addressed in 21 CFR 201.105 and (a) (2) in that section addresses how a drug is to be dispensed.  These regulations generally apply to most of the drugs being considered for approval.  Any other more specific dispensing requirements for a particular drug would be handled at the state level by the board of pharmacy and/or the veterinary medical board.  

Marcia K. Larkins D.V.M.

Ombudsman

Center for Veterinary Medicine

(Voice) 301-827-4535

(Fax) 301-827-5505

-----Original Message-----
From: GingerLSanchez@aol.com [mailto:GingerLSanchez@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:35 PM
To: MLARKINS@CVM.FDA.GOV
Subject: Re: Information Request

7/20/04

Ginger Sanchez

e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com

 11/01/04

PART #9 POSTED 11/03/04

May my beloved partner ROMI rest in peace  -

no matter wherever her bits and pieces/frozen carcass are being held hostage.

                                            

[What's in YOUR "urn"?]

 

Copyright: 2004 Ginger Sanchez. All Rights Reserved.