ROMI's Website

Please use your "back" browser to return to the Main/Navigation Page.

Warning:  Due to the nature of this page, while you have it on your screen it is supposed to automatically play the music, "Behind Closed Doors" as the most appropriate song title for this page - feel free to turn your speakers off at any time you've "over-dosed" as I haven't figured out how to control it [yet]!  Thank you for your understanding.


PART #1: The following is a true and correct copy of the complaint filed with the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors, which was assigned Case #2004-04-0008VT; please note that color high-lighted areas are my comments after the fact and were not included in the original complaint filed:

TO: Ginger Sanchez
This e-mail is in response to your e-mail concerning Lawrence P. Williams, DVM.
A complaint has been set up against him.  See attached letter.  The original letter is being sent in the mail to you.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: GingerLSanchez@aol.com [mailto:GingerLSanchez@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:16 PM
To: kathrin@telisphere.com; hpqa.csc@doh.wa.gov; CVMHomeP@cvm.fda.gov
Subject: Report of Veterinary Malpractice/Dangerous Drug

April 28, 2004
 
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
 
I found your e-mail addresses on the WSVMA contact information website, FDA website [the FDA refused to accept my complaint or to deal with it in any manner other than suggesting that I could fill out a form #1932a that required a printer, that I did not have at that time], Pfizer websites [www.equiserve.com, which is not acceptable to AOL][Pfizer does not provide any e-mail method of contact, obviously with good reason], and KIROTV [www.kirotv.com, which is not acceptable to AOL] respectively and would greatly appreciate your forwarding this e-mail to any/all of the appropriate parties if this is not within your own personal' territory' to deal with, or advise me by e-mail whom I should contact via e-mail, as my single telephone is a dedicated internet connection, I do not have and cannot afford any long distance phone services and I do not have a printer to download/print any necessary/required forms to fill out and mail.
 
I wish to lodge/file a formal complaint/report of veterinary malpractice and request a full and complete investigation of same against, Lawrence P. Williams, DVM of the Burien Veterinary Hospital, 14628 Ambaum Blvd. S.W., Seattle, WA  98166, Phone: (206) 242-1290 for the following reasons:
 
I am a senior citizen [66], handicapped [severe bilateral arthritis/leg injury, get around with a cane], living alone in the Burien area with my 8-year old Rottweiler, ROMI, [ROMI was actually 7.5 years of age at the time of her horrific death, and had been in excellent health up to the visit to the vet]as sole friend and companion dog.  I have extremely limited finances [just social security and recently began a 90 day temporary, part time job at minimum wage through the 55+ Employment Program at the Seattle Mayor's Office].  I am providing these gory details about myself and the situation to give you a full picture of what 'my case' is about.
 
On April 13, 2004, I took my 8-year old female spayed Rottweiler, ROMI, into a local veterinarian, Dr. Williams, that I had gone to for many years, to have her overgrown toenails clipped/trimmed and to get her shots updated in response to a reminder card that his office had mailed to me.  Dr. Williams examined her eyes, ears, teeth and gums and said that she was 'looking good', but he felt he'd noticed some favoring of her right shoulder/neck area; he did some 'flexion' of her right foreleg and said it was probably a touch of arthritis, given her age.  After giving her the required vaccinations, he said I was to start her on a prescription he was supplying of a drug that would 'fix her right up' and to give them to her, one tablet twice a day.  When I questioned whether the tablets should be cut up and put into meat or cheese, he said that wouldn't be necessary, as she'd consider them as 'treats', and gave her one to demonstrate that she'd like them and putting them in food would not be necessary as she'd consider them as special 'treats'.
 
There were NO tests run, and no suggestion to me verbally that any tests SHOULD be run before giving her the Rimadyl. When I paid my vet bill at the front desk, I was given a container of 20 Rimadyl tablets with a label that showed the Burien Veterinary Clinic, Dr. Williams' name, Rimadyl, 1 tablet 2 times a day, the date [4/13/04] and "for arthritis"; he'd told me to get back to him and let him know how she did.
 
The first couple of days were somewhat uneventful other than her doing a lot more sleeping than usual and seemed to be having some difficulty getting up into the bed that she normally shares with me at night.  Then she began refusing regular food, would not come out of her crate, seemed disoriented at times and began having problems walking, as though she was 'drunk'.  I called Dr. Williams and asked him if she could be having some sort of reaction to either the vaccination shots or the tablets and he said that "that wasn't possible, something else was taking place", and since she wasn't able to walk well enough to go out to my van, much less get into it, and I couldn't physically carry or put her in the van, he suggested that I just 'keep an eye on her' and report to him how she was doing.
 
I went on the internet to look for the drug, Rimadyl, to see if I could find any information [no information had been provided to me with the tablets, either verbal or written] and located this website: www.srdogs.com which had a lot information about Rimadyl reactions.  I called his office, was told he was not available and left a very long message for him with the receptionist, providing the website address, the drug company's phone number on the site, and the list of 'symptoms' my dog was having, which was basically everything listed.  He called me back that evening, said that I should keep on giving her the Rimadyl and because by then she'd kept getting worse and additionally now her right eye looked like it was turned back in her head, Dr. Williams gave the opinion that her eye problem was most likely due to a 'third eyelid' being irritated and insisted there were no side effects to the Rimadyl, that it was 'totally safe', 'he'd used it a lot and never had any problems'.  I told him that she was NOT getting any more of those tablets.  He told me that was 'my choice' and to let him know if stopping the Rimadyl made any difference.
 
After a couple of days off the Rimadyl, she began to improve, but only minimally. Then she began to get even worse and at one point when she was trying to walk, she looked like the 'downer cows' shown on the TV video about 'mad cow disease'.  I called him again and he said that he'd gone to the website that I'd provided, told me that 'anybody could set up a website and say anything they felt like, but that didn't make it true' and I told him that I agreed with his statement and but felt that it also could apply to the drug company as well. 
 
About two [2] days after my having stopped giving her the Rimadyl, she seemed to improve, but only minimally and she still couldn't walk very well and there was no way I could pick her up to take her in to the vets to be examined.  She had started drinking some water again from a little cup and would eat a couple of bites of meat from a spoon.  Her right eye looked a little better and was no longer oozing pus.  A couple days after that she began 'going downhill' again, refusing both food and water, staying in her crate and sleeping most of the time.
 
On Saturday morning, 4/24/04 I went to the Dr. Williams' office, he was apparently not available and I didn't have an appointment, and asked if they had any phone numbers or information regarding some way of getting her transported to their office as according to the website, doing an IV drip of Ringer's Lactate and antibiotics might help her.  I was told that they closed at noon [it was approximately 9:30 a.m. then], and was given two phone numbers, after the receptionist went to the 'back' to 'see if she could find out the information I wanted' to try calling phone numbers for vets who might make 'house calls'.  I went home and began calling but was not able to make any headway on either a 'house call' for her or any other way to get her transported to an emergency facility [including Animal Control who informed me they only picked up dead dogs, not sick ones; and METRO's Senior Citizen Access line, where I got a recording giving their office hours.] 
 
I finally found and asked two burly young men from the neighborhood if they could/would carry her in her crate out to my van, and they agreed to do so for 'beer money'.  I rushed her to the Five Corners Pet Emergency facility, told them I strongly suspected that she was having a toxic reaction to the drug Rimadyl and provided them with the website information and what had been happening since she'd begun the Rimadyl on 4/13/04.  ROMI was examined, and tests were started and after the testing and x-rays were done she was put on the IV drip.  The main concern of the vet who examined her there, Dr. Hammond, was her 'eyes', in that it appeared she was very dizzy, disoriented, and there were 'unusual' eye movements occurring that the vet thought were possible indications of a serious neurological problem, 'something bad going on in her brain'.  By this time it was probably around 5:00 p.m. and they told me that I could call them about 9:00 p.m. to check and see how she was doing.  When I called them at 9:00 p.m. that night, I was told that she was 'resting comfortably', was on the IV drip and that it was a 'wait and see' matter. 
 
At around 4:00 a.m. Sunday morning, 4/25/04, they called me and told me that she 'was failing fast' and I rushed over there.  She was basically 'comatose', totally unresponsive to anything around her and just doing very labored breathing, her muzzle was resting in a plastic cone providing oxygen, although she was not tubed.  The vet on duty at that time, Dr. Meyers, said it was time to make a decision as to whether to do CPR or not.  The vet told me that CPR would not do anything towards fixing whatever the neurological problem was and that whatever the neurological problem was 'very severe', so I agreed to have her euthanized with the understanding from Dr. Meyers that they would help me make the necessary arrangements for a necropsy to be performed and that what they used for the euthanizing would NOT interfere or compromise the necropsy in any way.  The emergency facility made the arrangements with an independent laboratory for the necropsy and the necropsy results should be available by Friday, 4/30/04.  I also requested that they run a second set of the tests for comparison before beginning the euthanesia and they drew the blood for that.
 
It is my very strong belief that the original vet, Dr. Williams, prescribing the Rimadyl for 'a possible touch of arthritis' was totally wrong and completely inappropriate, basically sentencing her to death via the Rimadyl, particularly as the drug company, Pfizer, itself had warnings about the reported side effects of the drug [please see Pfizer's own website: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/safety/4045.htm.]
 
According to the website I originally went to: www.srdogs.com , this sort of thing has been happening all over the country and I would appreciate you taking a look at the information provided.  I very strongly believe that the drug is extremely dangerous, that Pfizer knows this and has failed to sufficiently provide vets with the necessary information and/or some veterinarians have not bothered to either 'educate' themselves OR their clients regarding this drug, and that specifically, Dr. Williams, who treated my 'partner' should have known it, had a DUTY to learn of it and then should have informed me about the potential side effects.
 
There are apparently quite a few other 'victims' of this problem all over the country who are going to be very interested in having the situation exposed and corrected according to the www.srdogs.com website.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com

 
PART #2: The below is "Part 2" of my complaint to the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors and is a true and correct copy of what was filed; there are NO comments, or additions, this is exactly what was filed.
 
May 16, 2004
 
Darlene Tiffany, Administrative Assistant
State of Washington
Veterinary Board of Governors
 
Re: Lawrence Williams, DVM   CASE #: 2004-04-0008VT
 
Dear Ms. Tiffany:
 
Please be advised that I wish to ADD COMPLAINT INFORMATION to my original Complaint in the above-referenced matter because of the information contained at the website previously provided in the original complaint but not specifically detailed in my original complaint:
 
PLEASE ADD ON: 
 [The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) reports 4,596 complaints filed by users of Rimadyl. Meanwhile, Rimadyl has been an alleged contributing factor in 651 suspected canine deaths. This is a record number of complaints about a drug for pets. In fact, of all the complaints filed in 1998, 43 percent targeted Rimadyl. see: http://wcvb-tvpet.ip2m.com/index.cfm?pt=itemDetail&item_id=4253&site_cat_id=106]. 
 
This drug has been 'approved' and aggressively 'marketed' since 1997, and has included 'incentives' to veterinarians to dispense it via 'perks' ["Pfizer's incentive program for veterinarians, captioned, "Loyalty Has Its Rewards." The program awards 10 points for every $1 of Pfizer dog and cat products purchased. It tells veterinarians, "You can earn points at a higher level based on the number of product categories in which you have purchased in excess of $1,000. Spend more than $30,000 overall, and you will qualify for a higher level even faster." The points are redeemable for ". . . practice accessories, medical and computer equipment, apparel, promotional items, and travel packages to important veterinary conferences." see: http://www.srdogs.com/Pages/rimadyl.misc.html].
 
GIVEN this information, I believe that it is more likely than not that Dr. Williams and/or the Burien Veterinary Hospital had received financial benefits and/or 'incentives' as a direct result of dispensing this drug, Rimadyl and I request that aspect of this situation also be investigated.
 
And GIVEN that the drug dispensed to me for ROMI was NOT in the Pfizer individual client-packaged form, but in the CLINIC's OWN CONTAINER and without any verbal or written warnings, I ask that you also determine through investigation from Dr. Williams' own records at what point in time Dr. Williams and/or the Burien Veterinary Hospital received the particular shipment of Rimidyl that was dispensed to ROMI and whether such time-frame would have made a difference in the product itself, i.e. 'shelf life/deterioration' in this case.
 
I am in receipt of your letter dated 5/5/04, post-marked 5/13/04 with the "Whistleblower Release Form" which I signed and mailed back to you on 5/14/04 in the envelope provided for my convenience and will await being contacted by your investigator.
 
Thank you for your assistance in this matter and I would additionally appreciate you acknowledging receipt of this specific e-mail as well.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail[only] GingerLSanchez@aol.com 

 
PART #3: The below is a true and correct copy of "Part 3" of the complaint filed with the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors; nothing has been changed on this:
 
6/10/04
 
Darlene Tiffany
State of Washington
Veterinary Board of Governors
 
Re:    Lawrence Williams    CASE#: 2004-04-0008VT
 
Dear Ms. Tiffany: 
 
I apologize ahead of time for what I anticipate is going to possibly give everyone/anyone a major headache, but during the course of my gathering and trying to comprehend the assorted medical records of my deceased dog, ROMI, and researching for additional information, it has become apparent to me that there is considerably more involved in this situation then I'd originally realized or could have ever even imagined, and because other vets/entities, besides Dr. Williams/BVH, had/have totally 'missed the boat here', I feel that I have to file complaints against them as well as they are part of this very ugly chain of events.  I don't know what your procedural requirements are, but what makes the most sense to me from the practical standpoint is that these other vets/entities should be added to the existing complaint and investigation, as opposed to separate 'filings', so that all of it can be sorted out at one time, but it's up to you as to how you handle it from here.  I am taking the liberty of e-mailing a copy this 'add on' to your investigator, Lee Zavala, as we are presently scheduled to meet on Monday, 6/14/04, in order for me to provide him with all of the documentation I have thus far supporting my claims/allegations. 
 
    My entire purpose in filing and in adding on is two-fold:
 
first, I have a NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH of HOW/WHY my dog, ROMI, died without any further 'fairy tales', mumbo-jumbo and/or cover-ups, and
 
second: I don't have any reason to believe that what 'happened' to ROMI and I is an 'isolated' phenomen, but is a direct result of wide-spread and unethical 'practice' taking place in the veterinary community and/or the 'group' ROMI and I had been unfortunate enough to get entangled/enmeshed with and is, therefore, a matter of 'public interest', which needs to be examined/investigated further, not just for my own peace of mind, but for the welfare of the resident pet owners of Washington State, and most likely across the entire country.
 
I. COMPLAINT RE: EMERGENCY CARE FACILITY:
 
       Margaret Hammond, DVM
       Rachel Meyer, DVM
       Margaret Baty, Operations Manager
       Five Corners Vet Hospital
       15707- 1st Avenue
       Seattle, WA 98148
       TEL: (206) 243-2982 FAX: (206) 248-0264
 
                  
    HISTORY: As you may recall from my original complaint filing, I had paid two burly young men 'beer money' to carry ROMI in her crate to our van and rushed her to the 5-Corners Veterinary Hospital on 4/24/04 so that her life could hopefully be saved.  The 'admitting vet', Margaret Hammond at 5 Corners Veterinary Hospital examined her at that time.  I had told Dr. Hammond that I very strongly suspected/believed that ROMI's condition was due to a toxic reaction to Pfizer's drug "Rimadyl" which had been prescribed/dispensed for ROMI by Dr. Williams. [see: original complaint for details].  As stated in the original complaint/filing against Dr. Williams, I TOLD Dr. Hammond to VERIFY the symptoms and the treatment for the Rimadyl reaction by checking on the www.srdogs.com website and TOLD Dr. Hammond and the person who was assisting/taking notes/providing forms for me to sign/asking for payment in advance, etc. to call the 1/800 number provided at that same website for information/treatment assistance from Pfizer.  During the course of the initial examination, the main focus of Dr. Hammond was a combination of examining ROMI's eyes with a little flashlight, stating she'd be getting x-rays and blood work started and, of course, my paying ahead of time for the anticipated charges which were determined to be $375.30 at that moment.  ROMI was taken to 'the back area', presumably for the x-rays and blood work to be done and I was instructed to 'the front area' to begin paying.
 
    I left ROMI ['somewhere in the back'] with Hammond/5 Corners to get cash from the bank to pay the 'beer money' to the two neighborhood fellows for having carried ROMI in her crate to put her into my van, and it was my 'plan' to return to ROMI as soon as I'd paid them off.  When I was at their house, which is about 3 doors away from mine and giving the money to the one fellow's mother, my van radiator 'blew up' and I barely managed to get the van backed into my driveway.  I immediately called 5-Corners, was told that Dr. Hammond was busy, explained 'who' I was, told them my van radiator had blown up and I did not have transportation at the moment to return to the ER clinic; I was told that it was not necessary for me to come back there right then, that ROMI had been started on the IV, but they DID need more money- over the phone I authorized payment for an additional $497.70 that was required to keep her on the IV for the next 12 hours and being 'monitored' during the night and was told I could call back and check up on how she was doing later that evening.
   
When the van had cooled off and it was still daylight, I put a bunch of water into the radiator and 'prayed' that would solve the problem, at least temporarily. 
 
I called in to 5-Corners to check on ROMI around 9:00 p.m. that night [4/24/04] and was told that ROMI was 'resting comfortably', was on an IV and that it was a 'wait and see' matter' from that point on. 
 
As previously stated in the original complaint, on 4/25/04, approximately 12 hour's after ROMI's admittance, the vet on duty was Rachel Meyer, who took me back to see ROMI in what appeared to be their lab/surgery area, when I arrived at 5-Corners, after having been told on the phone that ROMI 'was failing fast'.  ROMI was basically 'comatose', totally unresponsive to anything around her and just doing very labored breathing on her own, her muzzle was resting in a plastic cone [possibly] providing oxygen.  Dr. Meyer said it was time for me to make a decision as to whether to do CPR or not and when I asked about what they had learned about ROMI's condition at that point, Dr. Meyer told me that they didn't know precisely, only that it was some really serious neurological problem.  I asked whether doing CPR would change that and Dr. Meyer said it would NOT change any neurological condition and that I had to choose either CPR or euthanasia at that moment.  I asked her to just let ROMI 'stay' as she was to see if she could 'come out of it on her own', and Dr. Meyer said that was NOT an option, that there were ONLY TWO CHOICES: CPR or euthanasia and that I had to make that decision [of CPR OR euthanasia] on the spot at that very moment.  I told Dr. Meyer that if ROMI had to be euthanized, I wanted a full necropsy done to determine the cause of her death because if ROMI died because of the Rimadyl she was given that it needed to be 'exposed' so that other dogs would not continue to die because of Rimadyl.  Dr. Meyer stated that they [the ER vets] could not and/or would not be able/equipped to determine  if ROMI's condition was Rimadyl-induced and I told Dr. Meyer that's why I felt a necropsy was needed.  I asked Dr. Meyer if they could arrange for a necropsy and to give me a 'ball park' figure of what the charges would be.  Dr. Meyer said they could make the arrangements and that she would guess that a necropsy would probably be around $500.00.  I asked Dr. Meyer if what was going to be used to euthanize ROMI would in any way compromise or interfere with the necropsy results and she assured me that it would not.  I then requested that a full second set of blood work be done before ROMI was euthanized so that the information could be compared with the first set done.  Dr. Meyer had the blood drawn and then euthanized ROMI and at my request took off ROMI's collar and gave it to me when ROMI had stopped breathing.  I went outside the building for a few minutes to compose myself and when I returned to the building, someone who's name I do not know but who appeared to be an assistant and/or office person told me that they needed to have $1,100.00 right then and there before she'd make any call to arrange for the necropsy.  When I asked why it would be more than twice the 'ball park' figure Dr. Meyer had stated, this 'person' said that the extra amount was required in order to properly 'refrigerate' ROMI, that they didn't have anything large enough to hold ROMI in until the necropsy people could arrive to pick her up and that meant a 'whole lot of ice' would be needed.  I told the 'person' to go ahead and make the call to arrange for the necropsy, which she did after I first paid the sum of $990.00 [having been given a 10% senior citizen 'discount'] and I was told that the results of the necropsy could be expected by Thursday, 4/29/07 or Friday 4/30/04 at the latest and I could call into the ER facility at that time to find out what had been determined.
 
When I got the necropsy report I could not understand what it 'meant' and after a series of phone calls to be able to get an explanation of the necropsy report [I was told by the ER staff folks that Dr. Hammond was THE ONLY PERSON who could/would tell me anything] on 5/3/04 I finally I got a verbal 'interpretation/explanation' on the telephone from the ER vet/Hammond,  and when I kept persisting to know what the report meant as to the cause of ROMI's death as PER the necropsy report [other than 'death by euthanasia'] I was given the explanation by Dr. Hammond of:
 
 " - numerous chronic/low grade conditions
- endocrine neoplasia
- pancreatitis (mild)
- chronic pneumonia
- mild chronic active hepatitis"
 
[from the ER facilities OWN hand written records] which the ER vet, Hammond, verbally claimed meant that there WAS no known 'cause' of any of it, that it was 'most likely just old age' and too many problems for ROMI to cope with at one time and to 'survive'.  While I do not have any training/expertise in veterinary medicine, the explanation[s] for ROMI's death and her conditions did not make any 'common sense' to me and so on 5/10/04 I made a toll-call to Phoenix Central Laboratory to speak to Dr. Murname in order to get a DIRECT interpretation/explanation of what his necropsy report meant.
 
II: COMPLAINT RE: LABORATORY THAT DID THE NECROPSY
 
    Robert Murnane, DVM, Ph.D., Diplomate, A.C.V.P
    A person giving her name as: Linda Jewett, [who claims to be the
    'marketing person for Phoenix Lab and in charge of all communications
    from pet owners]
    Phoenix Central Laboratory
    11620 Airport Road
    Everett, WA  98204-3742 
    TEL: (425) 355-5252; 1 (800) 347-0043 FAX: (425) 355-3676
 
When I wasn't 'allowed' to speak to Dr. Murname at Phoenix Lab on 5/10/04 'because only Dr. Hammond can/will tell you anything', 'it's our policy that we don't discuss anything with pet owners', and then they hung up the phone on me, I sent a FAX from work [free/in (206) area] to ER vet Hammond on Monday, 5/24/04 [although I had mis-dated it as 5/25/04]: 
 
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.
 
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.
 
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];
 
 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;
 
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. 
 
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; 
 
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];
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
That SAME evening, 5/24, after the FAX had been sent early that morning, there was a letter from 5-Corners[Hammond] in my home mailbox dated 5/22/04/post-marked 5/25/04 stating:
 
"I have been unsuccessful in reaching you by telephone for the past three days.  We are receiving a request from Burien Veterinary Hospital for a copy of all of Romy's medical records.  We will need your approval to send this information.  Please contact me at (206) 243-2982 to discuss.  Thank you for your help with this matter.  [signed by Margaret K. Baty, Operations Manager]
I called Margaret K. Baty, Operations Manager, and first confirmed that they had received my faxed demand letter - she acknowledged receipt and I was told that Dr. Hammond had 'been out of the office' and therefore couldn't respond to my fax demands until she returned, which was anticipated to be after that Thursday, 5/27/04.  I asked Baty what records they were referring to as I had understood they had ALREADY sent all the records to BVH/Williams by fax, including the necropsy report, even before I got anything.  She did some 'side stepping' and finally admitted that they hadn't sent BVH/Williams 'everything' and NOW needed my permission to do so.  I told her she/they were NOT to provide BVH/Williams or ANYONE ELSE, other than an official investigator with the State of Washington Vet Board, with ANYTHING further; that I wanted a COPY of ALL OF THE RECORDS and that I would pick it ALL up on Saturday, 5/29 along WITH copies of those items listed in my demand letter and I volunteered to PROVIDE Baty/Hammond/5 Corners with a NON-RELEASE FORM FOR ALL RECORDS which I would sign and leave the original with them when I picked up the 'complete' records on 5/29 which should INCLUDE the copy for me of what should/would have been sent to Phoenix Lab/Dr. Murname along with ROMI's bagged body so that Phoenix/Murnane had 'information' to work with, the itemized necropsy bill and the information demanded in the fax. 
 
When I called Baty/5 Corners in anticipation of being able to speak to Dr. Hammond on 5/27/04, Baty then told me that Dr. Hammond had already 'opted' to just telephone Phoenix Lab/Dr. Murname to authorize them to now allow me to contact them because 'Baty/Hammond/Meyers/5 Corners didn't want to 'be in the middle' of this situation.  I told her it was a little 'late' to now 'move out of the middle'.  The NON-Release Form I provided/signed in front of one of the 'staff persons' there whom I required to sign as a 'witness' [getting the sealed packet of records first] and asking for a copy of our mutually signed/witnessed Release stated in pertinent part:
 
"to WITHHOLD and TO NOT FURTHER PROVIDE any such information to any person or entity with the SINGLE EXCEPTION of any investigator or other other official person, upon presentation of the proper official credentials, who is acting in their official capacity on behalf of the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors WITHOUT my prior written permission having been provided."
On Saturday, 5/29/04, after looking over the records packet provided by Baty/Hammond/Meyers/5 Corners that I picked up and seeing that it did NOT include an itemized necropsy billing or anything else I'd demanded, I sent a 'paid for' FAX to Phoenix Lab/Dr. Murname, which included a full copy of the fax sent to Baty/Hammond/Meyers/5 Corners, stating:
 
As part of this FAX transmission to you, please find a copy of my DEMAND letter faxed to Dr. Hammond of Five Corners Veterinary Hospital on 5/24/04 regarding the above-referenced matter.
 
It is now my understanding from Margaret Baty, Operations Manager of Five Corners Veterinary Hospital, per my phone call to her late 5/27/07, that Dr. Hammond and/or Five Corners Veterinary Hospital has apparently chosen to not follow any of my very specific instructions to provide you with a written/signed Release form as outlined in my Fax to her, but instead called you on the phone to authorize my being allowed to now have contact with you.  Therefore, I am hereby directly requesting that you continue to preserve ALL of the 'remains' of my dog, ROMY, in appropriate condition for a 2nd necropsy and DNA identification and to NOT provide ANY information whatsoever regarding this matter to any person/entity other than an official investigator from the State of Washington, Department of Health, Veterinary Board of Governors without my prior express written consent/authorization.
 
I will be calling your toll-free number, 1-800-347-0043, to obtain your e-mail address and would greatly appreciate you instructing your staff persons to provide same to me and not to hang up the phone on me again.  The purpose of my obtaining your e-mail address is so that I can obtain the information, as outlined in the FAX, directly from you.  I would greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter.  Thank you.
 
Ginger Sanchez
 
As Monday, 5/31/04 was a holiday, Memorial Day, I called the Phoenix Lab/Murname toll-free number on Tuesday, 6/1/04 around 4:00 p.m., when I got home from work.  A woman identifying herself as "Linda Jewett" told me that she had gotten my FAX because she had been working when it was received and that additionally it was 'her territory' to deal with it as she was 'in charge of marketing' for Phoenix Lab.  When I asked for Dr. Murname's e-mail address, she said that HE would NOT be responding to me, but that I could have HER e-mail address at the Lab for further correspondence.  When I persisted in wanting to talk to Dr. Murnane for further explanation/interpretation of HIS necropsy report she told me that it was [now] 'their policy' that NONE of the vets who worked there would EVER speak to a 'pet owner' or EVER EXPLAIN anything to a pet owner about a necropsy report because "their area of expertise is NOT in talking to people, but ONLY in doing the pathology stuff" "because it was very easy for a pet owner to not understand or to misinterpret the information".  We spent close to 2 HOURS on the phone conversation and she wanted to know 'what' it was that I ultimately wanted as she claimed she didn't have the actual fax in front of her at the moment.  I told her she needed to READ the FAX, that it was pretty 'self explanatory' as to the information I wanted; that I wanted ROMI's 'remains', ALL OF THEM', to be continued to be 'preserved in appropriate condition' until I could locate a qualified veterinary pathologist/laboratory to examine and review everything and I wanted that VERIFIED along with the information requested/demanded in the fax.  She told me that the 'histological slides' were the sole 'property' of Phoenix Lab and while they 'might' be willing to share/provide a 'portion' of them, they would NOT be 'releasing' them to ANYONE or 'sharing' anything as that was THEIR 'stuff' to be kept as part of 'their records', until/unless I got an attorney to have a subpoena issued by a Court for a filed case, and then wanted to know if I'd like her to recommend an attorney, as it was HER opinion that I needed to file a suit against Pfizer, the drug company, that makes, sells and distributes Rimadyl.  I said that I didn't need an attorney name, that I was considering filing my own case in small claims court and wouldn't need an attorney, that I wanted her/their assurance/guarantee that 'ALL the bits and pieces' of ROMI would continue to be 'appropriately preserved' until I had made all the necessary arrangements for a 2nd necropsy and DNA identification and she stated that the 'woman who is in charge of that' had already gone for the day, but that she was POSITIVE that all of ROMI's remains WERE 'intact' [appropriately preserved] and WOULD REMAIN 'intact' and in appropriate condition, as that was their standard operating policy, and that she would get back to me by e-mail to CONFIRM that.  MEANWHILE, she gave me a lot of unsolicitated advice as to how important it was for me to 'allow myself' to 'go through the grieving process' so that I could 'get on with my life' and I agreed with her and told her that's precisely what I WOULD be doing ONCE all of this situation had been totally explained/resolved to MY satisfaction by a full 'exposure of the whole truth'.  She then went into a very sympathetic mode as to how awfully 'lonely' I must be with no ROMI in the house, especially since I 'lived alone' except for my dog, and suggested that I get another dog as soon as possible to 'ease the loneliness' and I AGAIN explained I totally agreed with her and but AGAIN 'once all of this situation had been totally and fully explained/resolved to my satisfaction by a full exposure of the whole truth', I would be doing just that. 
   
During the course of our discussing attorneys and legal actions, I told her that a class-action suit had already been filed against Pfizer regarding the Rimadyl drug and the deaths already resulting from it, and that it was my understanding that the case had been settled out of court but not yet finalized.  She claimed she was very interested in the class-action suit against Pfizer and Pfizer's responses and requested that I e-mail her a copy of what I had [the class-action Complaint and Pfizer's Answer and Affirmative Defenses] to her e-mail address, which I did that same evening, 6/1/04.  As I had NOT heard anything from her as of 6/5/04, very early that morning I again e-mailed her asking her to acknowledge having received my previous e-mail of 6/1, and to additionally CONFIRM by e-mail that ROMI's remains were and would CONTINUE to remain 'intact' - I'm still waiting for a response from her.
 
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATION[S]:  Based upon my experiences and a review of the records and research information gathered thus far, I complain, again, against Williams.BVH for inappropriately dispensing the Rimadyl to ROMI; that a possible 'touch of arthritis' was NOT an appropriate 'diagnosis' to justify the potential KNOWN risks of using Rimadyl; that Williams/BVH violated both the FDA and Pfizer's 'rules/regulations' by Rimadyl being dispensed in the Williams/BVH green plastic vial and WITHOUT any of the 'packet inserts' provided by Pfizer; that Williams/BVH FAILED TOTALLY to provide any of the information about the risks/side effects of Rimadyl, both verbally and in writing, as allegedly 'regulated' by the FDA and 'suggested' by Pfizer; that having learned of the risks of using and symptoms/conditions that can occur regarding using Rimadyl from ME and PROVIDED to Williams/BVH, Williams/BVH failed to check up on the information provided by both the FDA and Pfizer and instead advised me to continue giving ROMI the Rimadyl; that ROMI's prescription of the Rimadyl started a chain of events that resulted in ROMI's unnecessary death,[and I realize that the 'law' and presumably the WA State Vet Board could care less about the devastating emotional impact this situation has resulted in for me personally or for other pet owners], as well as the expenses generated which are close to $2,000.00, because not only did Williams/BVH inappropriatly prescribe and illegally dispense the Rimadyl, but continued to DENY that Rimadyl was in any way implicated in ROMI's condition and then ROMI's subsequent death.
 
According to Hammond/5 Corners own medical records, I believe that Dr. Hammond TOTALLY IGNORED the information I provided about the root of ROMI's problem being a massive toxic reaction to the Rimadyl; did NOT check to verify the symptoms that Rimadyl can cause; did NOT call the 1/800 number at the website to verify the symptoms or to get any medical treatment information that might have saved ROMI's life, but INSTEAD concentrated SOLELY on her own preconceived notion that ROMI's condition was strictly 'a severe neurological problem' of UNKNOWN ORIGIN, 'something bad going on in her brain'.  I NOW believe that Dr. Hammond was so totally focused in on the 'neurological' aspects that she totally blocked out of her mind the information that I had provided her as to the ROOT CAUSE of ROMI's condition and instead basically 'did her own thing', as opposed to LISTENING and FOLLOWING MY INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO GET PROPER INFORMATION FOR TREATMENT.   It is now my belief that not only was I ignored and no follow up was done to verify the CAUSE of ROMI's condition OR to seek the available treatment information, BUT that Dr. Hammond's diagnosis totally ignored/ruled out her even CONSIDERING the massive toxic reaction to the Rimadyl as the ROOT cause:
 
[Rimadyl is KNOWN for causing 'suspected renal, hematologic, neurologic, dermatologic, and hepatic effects' [per Pfizer's OWN "U.S. Prescribing Information"]; 'nausea, appetite loss. . . hepatopathy, a type of liver disease . . . marked  elevations (3-4 times higher than the normal range) in liver enzymes measured in the blood [ROMI's lab tests showed ALKP = 882/normal being 23-212;ALT = 988/normal being 10-100; LIPA = 2346/normal being 200-1800] . . .loss of balance . . . depression . . . renal failure [from: VeterinaryPartner.com "Carprofen (Rimadyl)]; and from the www.srdogs.com website: 
  • loss of appetite
  • change in drinking habits (refusal to drink or increased water consumption)
  • unusual pattern of urination, blood in the urine, sweet-smelling urine, an overabundance of urine, urine accidents in the house
  • vomiting
  • diarrhea
  • black, tarry stools or flecks of blood in the vomit
  • lethargy, drowsiness, hyperactivity, restlessness, aggressiveness
  • staggering, stumbling, weakness or partial paralysis, full paralysis, seizures, dizziness, loss of balance
  • jaundice (yellowing of the skin, mucus membranes and whites of the eyes)
These are the same symptoms/lab results ROMI had BUT INSTEAD resulted in the production of a typed/legible summary sheet by Dr. Hammond which states:
 
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. 
I NOW believe that Hammond/5 Corners are guilty of veterinary medical malpractice by having misdiagnosed ROMI's condition DESPITE my having provided them with all of the necessary information to verify both ROMI's symptoms and to seek APPROPRIATE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE INFORMATION and then CORRECTLY make a diagnosis and THEN from there ADDITIONALLY and INAPPROPRIATELY gave me ONLY the two [2] choices of CPR or euthanasia.  We will never know for sure whether ROMI could have survived with the 'supportive therapy', but she was NEVER GIVEN THE CHANCE TO TRY.
 
    On 5/3/04, after MANY unsuccessful attempts to make contact with Dr. Hammond to get an 'translation/interpretation' that I could understand in lay person's terms of the necropsy report dated 4/29/04, I was finally able to speak to Dr. Hammond. [see "progress notes"]:
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.
What Dr. Hammond ACTUALLY SAID on the phone was that: the combination of all these things caused ROMI to die due to her 'old age' because 'there were just too many things for ROMI to cope with at one time'.  PLEASE NOTE that on the necropsy report it states: "Grossly there was no obvious evidence of described CNS signs."  I believe that Dr. Hammond, in ignoring the information I'd provided about ROMI having been given Rimadyl and ignoring checking out any information about Rimadyl's known side-effects, resulted in Hammond/5-Corners having failed to give ROMI any chance to try to pull out of her condition on her own.
 
I believe that the figure of $1,100.00 to be immediately paid in full and on the spot in order for a necropsy to be arranged for, was a figure 'pulled out of a hat' in an attempt to discourage me from having a full necropsy done.  I have repeatedly asked Hammond/5-Corners, through Margaret Baty, Operations Manager, to provide me with an itemized necropsy billing and they have ignored my request.  [see: FAX to Hammond/5 Corners dated 5/25, sent 5/24/04]. 
 
In the course of trying to find a qualified laboratory/pathologist to perform a 2nd necropsy [referred to in that same FAX], I have learned that the going rates for canine necropsies range from $70.00 to $135.00 [primarily teaching facilities] and am currently awaiting confirmation information from a person who's large dog had a necropsy performed on it by the same lab, Phoenix Central Laboratory, for the charged amount in the sum of $288.00.
 
When I determined that Dr. Hammond's explanation/interpretation of the necropsy did not satisfy me, I called Phoenix Central Lab to get that information from the vet who did the necropsy, Dr. Robert Murnane, and was told that NO ONE at Phoenix Central Lab would give me ANY information, that I could not have Dr. Murnane's e-mail address, that I had to contact Dr. Hammond.  I believe that Dr. Hammond's instructions or whatever were designed to keep me from asking any questions Dr. Hammond was not comfortable in answering, LIKE:  SHOULD ROMI HAVE BEEN EUTHANIZED AT ALL?  Allegedly, according to Pfizer who manufactures/sells/distributed all the Rimadyl to veterinarians, an adverse reaction to Rimadyl is 'rarely fatal', and can be overcome by withdrawing further Rimadyl and supportive therapy as in the IV's and monitoring.
 
It is now my belief that Dr. Meyer's refusal to 'give ROMI more time on her own to try to come out of it' was based on Dr. Meyer's trusting Dr. Hammond's WRONG diagnosis that Rimadyl was not involved in causing ROMI's condition and that Dr. Meyer was basically relying on Dr. Hammond's totally incorrect working diagnosis; that Dr. Meyer failed to give ROMI any more time despite the original 'plan' of 'supportive care' for '24 hours' and instead, after 12 hours of supportive care, gave me only the TWO choices of CPR, which she said would not change the 'neurological' status they claimed existed, OR euthanasia. 
 
That the part of the chain of events involving Hammond/5-Corners 'mis-diagnosis', was more likely than not DESIGNED to not only get Williams/BVH, who inappropriately prescribed and then illegally dispensed the Rimadyl, 'off the hook', but ALSO very conveniently would get Hammond/BVH off the hook as they don't have to face up to a completely WRONG and inappropriate original working diagnosis on THEIR part of [verbal] 'brain tumor/severe neurological problem' and 'something real bad going on in [ROMI's] brain' that got DEBUNKED by the necropsy report's findings of "Grossly there was no obvious evidence of described CNS signs" BECAUSE Hammond/5-Corners totally IGNORED my telling them it was a severe toxic reaction to the Rimadyl [from their own chart but WRITTEN AFTER THE ADMITTANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DAY "she is convinced dog's status is from Rimadyl - told her Dr. H (Hammond) and myself (Meyers) did not think so but we could not prove any link to Rimadyl."]  Hammond/5-Corners was NOT asked to prove any link to Rimadyl, they were SUPPOSED to TREAT ROMI's CONDITION via verifying the information I provided to them and they failed to do that.
 
At the present time, as of the writing of this add-on to the original complaint, I am out close to $2,000.00 in medical/necropsy costs, have been deprived of my sole friend/companion ROMI and do not even know for certain, and cannot verify, where or in what condition the 'bits and pieces' of my dead dog are.  This entire situation is totally unacceptable to me.
 
In closing it comes to mind that this entire situation can appropriately be summed up by the famous quote of Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor who did the horrific medical experiments on people:
 
The more we do to you,
the less you seem to believe we are doing it.
 
    I hope and pray the State of Washington can do a better job for the 'public' than Mengele did.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com

 

PART #4:The following is a true and correct listing of documents/exhibits provided to the Investigator for the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors on 6/14/04 in support of my "allegations" as contained in the 3-part Complaint filed at that point, as "Part 4" of the complaint; the source sections are color high-lighted for readability.

On 6/14/04 I met with the investigator assigned to the case by the WA Vet Board, Lee Zavala, and provided him with copies of the following documents and the listing of same in support of my 'allegations':
 
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, VETERINARY BOARD OF GOVERNORS
RE: Lawrence Williams/BVH  CASE#: 2004-04-0008 VT
 
DOCUMENT LISTING - Provided by Ginger Sanchez
 
SOURCE: Burien Veterinary Hospital
 
1. Summary Sheet entitled "Master Problem List" with attached envelope [picked up 5/8/04; initially palmed  off to Ginger Sanchez by BVH as ‘the complete records’]
 
2. "Progress Notes" [picked up 5/8/04, 9 pages - last entry made 4/24/04]
 
3. FAX Packet [original staple/hole punch, given to Sanchez by BVH on 5/8/04 by staff person as being "it’s  not our records; just trash"]
 
 A. FAX to BVH from 5-C dated 4/25/04 stating 10 pages including cover, consists of 9 pages; includes:
  1). 5-C 2-page typed admission report;
  2). 5-C Lab "results" of 4/24/04, time: 16:45 [has original hand written letters/numbers at     bottom scratched out];
  3). 5-C Lab "Results" 4/24/04, 03:55 p.m.;
  4). 5-C  Urinanalysis;
  5). 5-C Lab "Results" 4/25/04, 4:21 a.m.;
  6). 5-C Lab "Results" 4/25/04, 7:24 a.m.;
  7). 5-C Lab "Results" 4/25/04, 7:13 a.m.;
 B. FAX to BVH from 5-C dated 5/4/04, cover says 7 pages, consists of 10 pages], includes:
  1). 6-page Phoenix Lab necropsy report [with original pen circles around items 3, 9 & 10;
  2). 2-page Phoenix Lab "Preliminary Report" ONLY;
  3). 5-C ‘euthanasia letter’ dated 4/25/04 to BVH.
 
SOURCE: Hammond/Meyer/Baty/5-Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
4. Necropsy report of Phoenix Lab/Murnane provided to Ginger Sanchez by Hammond/5-Corners -6 pages.
 
5. Owner Information/Patient Information/Initial Treatment Authorization/Medical Consent and Referral  Case Admission Agreement [signed/dated 4/24/04] 2 pages.
 
6. "Progress Notes", starting 4/24/04 @ 2:50 pm, ending 5/6/04 @ 6 am. - 5 pages.
 
7. Laboratory Results: [blood]: dated 4/24/04 @ 16:45 & 3:55 pm; "urinaysis" dated 4/24/04; [blood] dated  4/25/04 @ 4:21 am; 4/25/04 @ 07:13; and 4/25/04 @ 7:24 am - total of 6 pages
 
8. [Presumed IV chart]  1 page dated 4/24/04 pm; 2 pages dated 4/24/04 am. - 3 pages.
 
9. Letter dated 4/25/04 by Rachel Meyer, DVM to Burien Veterinary Hospital advising of ROMY’s euthanasia.
 
10. "Patient Data" sheet re: "card sent 4/25/04".
 
11. Sympathy card, post-marked 4/24/04 sent to wrong address & returned to 5-C; provided by hand to Ginger  Sanchez when records picked up. 
 
12. FAX  DEMAND letter to Hammond/5-Corners by Ginger Sanchez dated 5/25/04, sent 5/24/04; 3 page  letter and proof of fax send [fax machine date error of 5/23/24] - total 4 pages.
 
13. Letter dated 5/22/04 with envelope postmarked 5/24/04 from Bath/5-Corners requesting approval to send  a copy of all of ROMY’s medical records to Burien Veterinary Hospital per BVH request.
 
14. Copy of NON-RELEASE FORM FOR ALL RECORDS provided to 5-Corners regarding ROMY’s records,  signed, dated & witnessed 5/29/04.
 
15. BILLING/UP FRONT PAYMENT INFORMATION provided by C-Corners to Ginger Sanchez - 6 pages.
 
SOURCE: Phoenix Central Laboratory/Dr. Murnane/Linda Jewett
 
16. QUEST bill with charges for two [2] calls to Phoenix Central Lab in attempt to speak to Dr. Murnane and/or  obtain his e-mail address [and envelope; payment sent 6/12/04] - 3 pages..
 
17. FAX letter to Phoenix/Murnane of 5/29/04 [referenced document 3-page FAX sent to Hammond/5-Corners  is document 12.]
 
18. e-Mail to Linda Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab testing for viable e-mail address [6/1/04, 5:49:50 pm].
 
19. e-Mail to Jewett/Phoenix, 22-page Class Action lawsuit against Pfizer with Pfizer Answer and Affirmative  Defenses [6/1/04, 6:00 pm] - 22 pages.
 
20. e-Mail to Jewett/Phoenix with Joseph Mengele quote [6/2/04, 4:00:07 am].
 
21. e-Mail to Jewett/Phoenix asking to confirm receipt of Pfizer pleadings and to confirm status of ROMI’s  remains [6/5/04, 7:54:14 am].
 
22. "Credential Look Up Results" on Dr. Murnane [from public records at Washington State Department of  Health, 2 pages].
 
SOURCE: PFIZER - from the Internet, arranged by subject matter
 
 Rimadyl, the product:
 
23. Internet photocopy of packaged Rimadyl product.
 
24. Pfizer’s "Dog Owner Information" sheet that’s supposed to be provided with all Rimadyl dispensed per the  FDA and CVM.
 
 Rimadyl, dispensed to ROMI:
 
25/A. photo copy of container and label of the Rimadyl dispensed by Williams/BVH on 4/13/04 for ROMI  [copy made in front of Investigator].
 
25/B. April 2004 Calendar Printout showing Rimadyl given 4/13 - 4/20/04; ROMI euthanized 4/25/04.
 
26. OBJECT: one Rimadyl tablet, beige-speckled, dosage unknown from remaining Williams/BVH container  [originally vial contained 20 tablets; owner gave ROMI 13 tablets per instructions of Williams/BVH; 7  remained in the ‘clinic’ emerald-green plastic container, now there are 6tablets remaining after Lee Zavala, Investigator for State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors removed one and placed in a plastic baggie].
 
 Pfizer’s "Perks/Incentives/Rewards" program for  prescribing/dispensing veterinarians:
 
27. "Care Rewards" letter to "Dear Veterinary Professional" undated, redacted addressee info].
 
28. Pfizer’s "Quarterly Program Newsletter’ outlining how the "Care Rewards" program works [2-double sided  pages].
 
29. Pfizer’s new website with access ONLY to licensed veterinarians, which includes "Practice-Management  Tools".  [as I am neither a registered/licensed veterinarian nor a ‘hacker’, I don’t know what’s here].
 
30. [from doghealth2] "Pfizer - Rimadyl -Care Rewards Program" information that Pfizer was going to  discontinue the program on 10/31/01 - 3 pages [now only Pfizer can confirm/deny this].
 
 Pfizer’s Rimadyl [carprofen] information:
 
31. Pfizer’s "U.S. Prescribing Information". - 8 pages
 
32. Pfizer’s "Dog Owner Information About Rimadyl (carprofen)" - 3 pages.
 
 Pfizer’s "Dear Doctor" letters:
 
33. Pfizer’s "Dear Doctor" letter dated 7/30/97 [front and back side].
 
34.   Pfizer’s  letter to Jean Townsend [who filed the class-action lawsuit against Pfizer], dated 8/13/99,  regarding FDA packaging of Rimadyl, etc. ]front and back with attached ’advertisement ’ regarding the pet-owner/veterinarian relationship. ]
 
35. Pfizer’s "Dear Doctor" letter dated 2/18/2000.
 
36. Pfizer’s "Dear Doctor" letter dated 3/9/2000 - 2 pages.
 
SOURCE: FDA/CVM/AMVA:
 
37. e-Mail from FDA/CVM stating "The method of informed consent and dispensing that you describe is not  what either FDA or the company endorse in the labeling." in response to Ginger Sanchez’s "wish to  lodge/file a formal complaint/report of veterinary malpractice and request a full investigation" [entire complaint/report attached].
 
38. CVM Update: "Update on Rimadyl" ,dated 12/1/99 - 6 pages.
 
39. AMVA: "Emerging issues regarding informed consent", dated 1/15/04 - 4 pages.
 
40. FDA: "Animal Health/Dear Doctor" letter, signed by Kankara/Pfizer, dated 3/9/2000.
41. FDA: CVM/Division of Surveillance letter to Pfizer [looks to be date-stamped 12/13/2002] regarding  misleading conclusions.
 
SOURCE: State of Washington, Department of Health, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
42. Original Complaint and receipt response e-Mail from Darlene Tiffany - 3 pages.
 
43. Letter [U.S. Mail] acknowledging receipt of Complaint and case number assignation, dated 4/29/04.
 
44. e-mail Darlene Tiffany response dated 4/29/04.
 
45. Letter [U.S. Mail} from Darlene Tiffany regarding investigator identity, dated 5/6/04 [and envelope]. 
 
46. Copy of signed/dated "Whistleblower Release Form" [with envelope copies postmarked 5/13/04.
 
47. "Add On" to Complaint, e-Mail dated 5/16/04 to Darlene Tiffany - 2 pages.
 
48. e-Mail response from Darlene Tiffany regarding "Add On" to Complaint [being forwarded to Investigator]   dated 5/17/07 - 2 pages.
 
49. e-Mail "PLEASE ADD TO COMPLAINT", adding other vets/entities,  dated 6/10/04 - 11 pages.
 
50. Reference Material: WA State: "The Complaint and Disciplinary Process - Who are the decision-makers?" -  2 pages.
 
51. Reference Material: WA State: "The Complaint and Disciplinary Process - What is the process?" 3 pages.
 
52. Reference Material: WA State: "The Complaint and Disciplinary Process - What do I need to know if I’m  thinking about submitting a complaint?" - 2 pages.
 
53. Reference Material: WA State: "The Complaint and Disciplinary Process - What is a violation?" - 2 pages.
 
54.  Reference Material: WA State: RCW 18.130.180 - Unprofessional Conduct - 3 pages.
 
55. Reference Material: WA State: RCW 18.130.185 - Injunctive Relief for violations of RCW 18.130.170  or 18.130.180 - 1 page. 
 
56. Reference Material: WA State: RCW 7.72.060 - Length of time Product sellers are subject to liability.  - 1 page.
 
57. Reference Material: WA State: "The Complaint and Disciplinary Process - How do I submit a written  complaint?" - 2 pages.
 
58. Reference Material: WA State: "The Complaint and Disciplinary Process - Is there a time limit to file a  complaint?" - 1 page.
 
SOURCE: REFERENCE MATERIALS, assorted sources provided
 
59. "The History of Rimadyl", from the Senior Dogs Project - 6 pages.
 
60. "Wall Street Journal Article about Rimadyl, published 3/13/2000" from the Senior Dogs Project - 13 pages.
 
61. "Carprofen (Rimadyl)" from Veterinary Partner/The Veterinary Information Network - 3 pages.
 
62. "Rimadyl Risk - Be Aware" from Whats New - 3 pages.
 
63. "Rimadyl - Miracle Drug or Silent Serial Killer?" from the Senior Dogs Project - 5 pages.
 
64. "Is Rimadyl your best friend’s friend? Or foe?" by Steve Dale, Tribune Media Services syndicated columnist  - 9 pages.
 
65. "Miscellaneous Reports Related to Rimadyl" from Senior Dogs Project - 14 pages.
 
66. "Reactions Reported to FDA" from http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/ - 6 pages.
 
67. "FDA CVM - Cumulative Adverse Drug Effect Report for the drug Carprofen (Rimadyl)" from  http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/ - 2 pages.
 
68. "The Truth About Rimadyl Side Effects - Dangerous & Deadly . . . " from http://www.arthritis-glucosamine.net/ - 4  pages.
 
69. "Antech Diagnostics News - December 1998 - More on Liver Disease" from http://www.antechdiagnostics.com/ - 5  pages.
 
70. "Vet Incentives to Prescibe Rimadyl . . . " from http://www.escribe.com/ - 4 pages.
 
71. "How To Read Laboratory Tests" from Douglas Island Veterinary Service - 5 pages.
 
72. "Canine Chronic Hepatitis: Overview" from Merck Veterinarian Manual - 2 pages.
 
73. "Hepatotoxins" from Merck Veterinarian Manual - 1 page.
 
74. "Hepatic Cysts and Nodular Hyperplasia" from Merck Veterinarian Manual - 1 page.
 
75. "Collection And Submission Of Laboratory Samples: Introduction" from Merck Veterinarian Manual - 5  pages.
 
 
 
ALL DOCUMENTS/OBJECTS PROVIDED TO INVESTIGATOR LEE ZAVALA FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, VETERINARY BOARD OF GOVERNORS BY GINGER SANCHEZ
 
Re: Lawrence Williams CASE#: 2004-04-0008 VT
 
ON THIS ____ DAY OF ______________, 2004.
 
_________________________________  ___________________________________
Lee Zavala, Investigator    Ginger Sanchez
 

_________________________
Print Name: _______________
Witness: Sudden Printing

 
 
PART #5:
The following is a true and correct copy of Part #5 of the Complaint filed with the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Govorners.
 
9/26/04
 
Darlene Tiffany, Admin. Asst.
State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
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:
 
As my filed complaint[s] are still pending and have not yet been scheduled for hearing as of this date, please find below new information which I request be added to the complaint[s] previously filed as part of the record in this matter.  I have numbered each of the items referenced, picking up where the previously submitted "DOCUMENT LISTING" provided by me left off at Item#75.
 
For the record in this matter, I filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau on 8/26/04 in the hopes of being able "mitigate my damages"
  • by gaining access to the previously requested documents/information still being withheld by the variously named defendant parties as listed on the reference line of this letter, in order to learn the 'real truth' of what happened;
  • to attempt to recoup my seriously and unnecessarily depleated financial losses which were a direct result of the unbelievably ugly chain of events set in motion by the casual and inappropriate prescribing/dispensing of Pfizer's drug Rimadyl, and its aftermath;
  • to make a serious and practical committment to 'getting on with my life' by being able to obtain/get another Rottweiler companion dog of like quality and training, so I could try to 'move on', although obviously there can be no true 'replacement' of ROMI, 
because it is my understanding that the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Govorners does not deal with any of those aspects, but only with the issues of whether a veterinarian has committed malpractice and/or gross negligence resulting in the damage/death of an animal, and if so, the 'remedy' is more likely than not limited to requiring a veterinarian found 'guilty' to be required to attend continuing education courses.  
 
After filing the BBB complaint, I learned that only Hammond/Five Corners is potentially subject to the procedures of the BBB [due to that entity either still or in the past having been a member] and the other parties are totally immune from any of the limited intervention the BBB might exercise.
 
There is no doubt in my mind [nor can I believe that any rational/logical thinking person could have any doubts] that the real 'culprit', the 'agent of death' for ROMI was the drug Rimadyl made by Pfizer, but I also realize that Pfizer is totally immune from any accountability from the aftermath of Rimadyl with respect to the Vet Board's 'jurisdiction'. 
 
Since it is also my understanding that as a the non-veterinarian party who filed the complaint, I am not allowed to see or know of any responses and/or information that the veterinarian parties provide to the WA State Vet Board, I have incorporated via inserting [red text parenthesis comments, statements, information, etc.] where it seemed appropriate in order to provide my input.
and I have copied your investigator, Mr. Zavala, with this e-mail and he is welcome to again contact me by e-mail should he care to meet me at the copy place in order to copy the additional new original letters/documents for the WA Vet Board file although they are also available from the both the veterinarian parties and the Internet [I have provided websites] and in the instance of information held by Pfizer and the FDA/CVM, perhaps the WA Vet Board would have better luck than I've had in obtaining same.
 
As "Item #76" of the "Document Listing" in this matter, I submit a true copy of the complaint filed with the BBB as follows:
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:
 
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
 
 
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
With respect to Williams/BVH and the issue of my not being informed by him regarding the known [to Pfizer and veterinarians] risks and side effects of the casual prescribing/dispensing of Rimadyl vs. the alleged benefits, I hereby submit Exhibit #85 from www.avma.org/onlnews/java/jan04/040115f.asp AMVA's "Emerging Issues Regarding Informed Consent", 01/16/2004 which deals with the issues regarding 'shelf life' aspects of the FDA/CVM "approved" veterinary drugs, ADEs [adverse drug events] and client/pet owners not being provided with the necessary information by the veterinarians in order to be able to make 'informed' choices about these drugs.  Additionally, as Item #86, I provide you with a true copy of an e-mail response I received from Pfizer [the full outline of how I got this e-mail is detailed further below in the informtion provided about Pfizer and the FDA/CVM]:

    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

 
It would appear that despite there NOT being any civil lawsuit in which I am involved, that I am not allowed to see or have ANY information regarding the ADE reports other than being told that they 'exist'.  It would appear that both Pfizer and the FDA/CVM have issues with respect to information [Exhibit #93]:

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
 
 
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 #7A
 
 
10/17/04
 
State of Washington
Veterinary Board of Governors
 
 
Re:    ADD ON #7 to Complaint and Ongoing Requests
        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
 
Dear Ms. Tiffany, 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, as well as this one of 10/17/04.  Thank you.
 
Ms. Tiffany, Please add on as Part #7 to the above-referenced open/under investigation complaint the following items:
 
Exhibit #106: On-Line closure of Better Business Bureau complaint filed by Sanchez against the Five Corners Vet/Hammond/Meyer/Baty [and now apparently someone named DVM Caviness] group:
 

This is the final "solution" of the BBB's efforts at a "resolution" as posted on-line via the BBB search engine on 10/13/04.

BBB Reliability Report

Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
15707 1st Ave S
Seattle, WA 98148

General Information

Original Business Start Date: April 1962
Local Business Start Date: April 1962
Principal: Dr Melanie Caviness, Medical Director
Phone Number: (206) 243-2982
Membership Status: No
Type-of-Business Classification: Veterinarians

Customer Experience

Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to two or more unresolved complaints.

Additional Information

Additional TOB Classifications:

Animal Hospitals

Report as of 10/13/2004
Copyright© 2004 Better Business Bureau®, Inc.

As a matter of policy, the Better Business Bureau does not endorse any product, service or company. BBB reports generally cover a three-year reporting period, and are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information contained herein is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy. Reports are subject to change at any time.

The Better Business Bureau reports on members and non-members. Membership in the BBB is voluntary, and members must meet and maintain BBB standards.

The Better Business Bureau serving Oregon and Western Washington

Complaint System

BBB CASE#: 22016444

Complaint filed by: Ginger Sanchez    (More)
Complaint filed against:

Business Info

NAME:

Five Corners Veterinary Hospital 

 BBB MEMBER:

NO 

CONTACT:

Dr Melanie Caviness 

ADDRESS:

15707 1st Ave S
Seattle, WA 98148

PHONE:

206 243-2982 

FAX:

206 248-0264 

    (Less)
Complaint status:

Activity

Date
Activity
Description
10/13/2004  Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Inform Business - Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Inform Consumer - Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Bureau judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Bureau judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  No Response from Business re: Consumer Rebuttal   
09/27/2004  Forward Consumer Rebuttal to Business 
 
[note from the BBB on 10/13/04]:
We have received your most recent correspondence in the above-mentioned complaint.
You have indicated that you are NOT satisfied with the business' response in the matter.
The business has not made any further concessions to their original response.
Unfortunately, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) cannot pursue the matter further. This complaint is now considered
closed UNRESOLVED.
The BBB develops and maintains Reliability Reports on companies across the United States and Canada. This information is available to the public and is frequently used by potential customers. The company's level of cooperation in resolving to this complaint becomes a part of their file with the BBB.
A summary of this complaint case can be seen by clicking http://www.thebbb.org/complaintconsumer.html?cid=22016444&auth=3fvwc4.

Sincerely,
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
 
Exhibit #107: Sanchez letter to Better Business Bureau regarding closure of case/complaint due to non-response of Five Corners Group:
 
10/13/04
 
Deborah Schenck
Better Business Bureau Serving Oregon & Western Washington
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
 
Re: Case #22016444: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
Dear Deborah,
 
I am assuming, from having gone on-line and using the search engine to locate information on the Five Corners Veterinary Hospital group, that they have chosen to not respond and/or are not interested in reaching any sort of resolution in this matter, which I find disappointing, but not very surprising.
 
I do want to take this opportunity to thank you and your organization for all of your efforts in trying to provide some sort of solution to a very ugly situation and additionally want to be certain that you know that I do not hold either you or your organization responsible in any way for the despicable behaviors or attitudes of the Hammond/Caviness/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners group and their business practices, either during the initial malpractice/financial scam they obviously ran on me or how they've chosen to continue ignoring accepting or acknowledging any responsibility for the grevious damage they caused despite the obvious facts.
 
Thank you again for your time and efforts.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
 
Ms. Tiffany, again I request that you forward to any/all other potentially appropriate State entities, including, but not limited to the Attorney General's Office, King County Prosecutor's Office, State Pharmacy Board, Department of Health, Consumer Fraud Department, etc., such portions of my complaint as appropriate that the Veterinary Board will not be addressing, dealing with and/or investigating for any reason.  Thank you.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com


PART #7B

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

Dear Dr. Larkins:  Thank you very much for your e-mail regarding FDA/CVM controlled drugs.  I am specifically looking for any rules/regulations/controls regarding the canine arthritis drug, "Rimadyl", made by Pfizer, in particular as to whether there are any rules/regulations/controls as to the packaging and client information sheets.  My question is whether the packaging/client information sheets 'approved' by the FDA/CVM for "Rimadyl", which Pfizer apparently complies with, is considered a rule/regulation/control/LAW or merely a "suggestion" for dispensing veterinarians that's left up to the individual personal judgment and/or discretion of the veterinarian.  I am unable to determine if "Rimadyl" specifically falls into ANY of the drug categories listed, as neither the brand name of "Rimadyl" nor the generic name of Carprofen are mentioned. 

Are you able to tell me where I can find WHAT IF ANY FDA/CVM and/or DEA rules/regulations/controls/conditions/laws would specifically apply to the dispensing of "Rimadyl" [carprofen] ?  Thank you.

Ginger Sanchez

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

 


 
In a message dated 10/20/04 4:54:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Ginger L Sanchez writes:
 
10/20/04
 
Pharmacist Consultant - Board of Pharmacy
Department of Health
 
Dear Dr. Mecca,
 
Thank you for your prompt response, I really appreciate it!  I realize that the questions I've asked are somewhat 'complex' in that the answers to same are going to involve and be controlled by the FDA and FDA/CVM federal rules/laws applicable to both drug dispensing by veterinarians and the repackaging of FDA/CVM controlled 'legend' drugs for dispensing by veterinarians. 
 
I have recently received a long-awaited response from the FDA/CVM as to the "location" of the federal rules that apply, along with an included note that states: "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."
 
I am currently researching the applicable federal drug rules in order to provide both you and the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors all of the pertinent information and will be sending you the research results when I have it completed and send it to the Veterinary Board as "Add-On #8" to the complaint filed with them on 4/29/04 in Case# 2004-04-0008 VT, which is currently open and still under investigation. 
 
It is irrelevant to me personally whether violations of these federal statutes then comes under the jurisdiction of the Pharmacy Board, the Veterinary Board, the Health Board, The Attorney General's Office or any other applicable State entity charged with the "protection of the public", but rather than starting yet another 'ping pong game' in which I watch 'the ball' fly back and forth amongst 'entities', I am sending a copy of this e-mail to the Veterinary Board so that all concerned/involved are on the "same page" so to speak.
 
Whose ever "territory" this is, I respectfully but strongly request that the matter be appropriately dealt with.  Thank you, again, Dr. Mecca, for your prompt reply.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
cc:  [to be included as Exhibit #108 to Case# 2004-04-0008 VT]
     Darlene Tiffany, Veterinary Board: Darlene.Tiffany@DOH.WA.GOV
     Lee Zavala, Investigator, State of Washington: lee.zavala@doh.wa.gov

In a message dated 10/20/04 4:15:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Andrew.Mecca@DOH.WA.GOV writes:

Ginger,
I have received your emails.  I am trying to find the best answer to your questions.  I will try to email you a response early next week. Thank you.
 
Andrew Mecca
-----Original Message-----
From: GingerLSanchez@aol.com [mailto:GingerLSanchez@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 4:17 PM
To: Andrew.Mecca@DOH.WA.GOV
Subject: 2nd Information Request

10/19/04
 
Pharmacist Consultant - Board of Pharmacy
Department of Health
 
Dear Mr. Mecca,
 
Below you will find my previous request for information regarding rules/laws for veterinarian dispensing of the FDA/CVM controlled/approved drug "RIMADYL" sent to you on 10/08/04 with the questions now numbered:
1.    what, if any, requirements are there under Washington State law for a veterinarian to dispense "Rimadyl";
 
2.    more specifically whether a veterinarian is required to provide the client (pet owner) information sheet (that Pfizer is required by FDA/CVM 'rules' to provide with all shipments), to the client/pet owner when dispensing the drug, when the veterinarian repackages the drug into their own container which is only labeled with the vet/clinic name, date, etc., and no 'warning' or 'side effects' information is provided either on the label or verbally. 
 
This is apparently not regulated by the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors:
 
3.    is it regulated by the State of Washington, Department of Health or Pharmacy Board,
 
4.    and if not, do you know what entity/authority would regulate this or are there no regulations or requirements?
Additionally, as question
#5 I request that you advise me whether or not the Washington State Board of Pharmacy enforces the FDA/CVM rules/laws regarding drug dispensing as outlined by law in the Federal drug rules at CFR Title 21, Parts 1 through 1499 and IF NOT what entity/agency does
Thank you for your attention and I will be looking for your response.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
NOTE: BELOW YOU WILL FIND THE PREVIOUS E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE THAT I STILL AWAIT A RESPONSE ON.
*****
In a message dated 10/8/04 9:32:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Ginger L Sanchez writes:
In a message dated 10/8/04 8:47:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Andrew.Mecca@DOH.WA.GOV writes:
Ginger,

This email is in response to the question regarding the requirements needed for filling a Rimadyl prescription.  Since Rimadyl is a legend drug, a valid signed and dated prescription from the veterinarian would be required under WA state law for a pharmacy to dispense this item.  Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Thank you.

Andrew Mecca, R.Ph.
Pharmacist Consultant-Board of Pharmacy
Department of Health
PO Box 47863
Olympia, WA 98504-7863
Voice: (360)236-4831 Fax: (360)586-4359
Andrew.Mecca@doh.wa.gov


10/08/04
Dear Dr. Mecca:  Thank you for responding; and I do have additional questions.  My questions are:
 
  • what, if any, requirements are there under Washington State law for a veterinarian to dispense "Rimadyl";
  • more specifically whether a veterinarian is required to provide the client (pet owner) information sheet (that Pfizer is required by FDA/CVM 'rules' to provide with all shipments), to the client/pet owner when dispensing the drug, when the veterinarian repackages the drug into their own container which is only labeled with the vet/clinic name, date, etc., and no 'warning' or 'side effects' information is provided either on the label or verbally. 
This is apparently not regulated by the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors:
  • is it regulated by the State of Washington, Department of Health or Pharmacy Board,
  • and if not, do you know what entity/authority would regulate this or are there no regulations or requirements?
Thank you and I'll be watching for your reply.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 

PART #8

10/22/04

Darlene Tiffany
State of Washington
Veterinary Board of Governors

Andrew Mecca, R.Ph.
Pharmacist Consultant-Board of Pharmacy
Department of Health
 
Lee Zavala, Investigator
State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors

 
To:  Darlene.Tiffany@DOH.WA.GOV
        Andrew.Mecca@DOH.WA.GOV  and to:
     lee.zavala@doh.wa.gov
 
Re:    ADD ON #8 to Complaint and Ongoing Requests
        for e-mail Acknowledgements
        State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
            Case#: 2004-04-0008VT
            Lawrence Williams/BVH
            Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners and
            Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Labs
 
Dear Ms. Tiffany, Please acknowledge receipt, via return e-mail to me, of the three [3] e-mails sent to you previously on 9/26/04, 9/28/04 and 10/17/04 respectively, regardless of what is or is not done regarding the content of same, as well as this one of 10/22/04, making a total of four [4] outstanding e-mail receipt acknowledgements thus far.  Thank you.
 
Please be advised that I received the below e-mail from the FDA/CVM on 10/18/04 in response to my inquiry of 7/20/04 and ask that you add the e-mail and the accompanying information to the above-referenced complaint as Part #8, Exhibit #109.
 
Part #8 of my complaint will hopefully then be supplemented with the research results located regarding the federal rules/laws that control the dispensing of FDA/CVM controlled drugs and the repackaging of FDA/CVM controlled drugs by veterinarians once I've managed to wade through what appears at present to be about 2,500 pages or so of federal law. 
 
As it would appear from the below FDA/CVM e-mail response, that while the federal laws/rules control the dispensing and repackaging of FDA/CVM controlled drugs dispensed and repackaged by veterinarians, it is the responsibility and territory of the State Vet Board and/or State Pharmacy Board to ENFORCE such laws/rules, so I once again strongly request that this matter be brought to the attention of the State Attorney General and/or any other State entity charged with "protecting the public".  Thank you.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
 
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

Dear Dr. Larkins:  Thank you very much for your e-mail regarding FDA/CVM controlled drugs.  I am specifically looking for any rules/regulations/controls regarding the canine arthritis drug, "Rimadyl", made by Pfizer, in particular as to whether there are any rules/regulations/controls as to the packaging and client information sheets.  My question is whether the packaging/client information sheets 'approved' by the FDA/CVM for "Rimadyl", which Pfizer apparently complies with, is considered a rule/regulation/control/LAW or merely a "suggestion" for dispensing veterinarians that's left up to the individual personal judgment and/or discretion of the veterinarian.  I am unable to determine if "Rimadyl" specifically falls into ANY of the drug categories listed, as neither the brand name of "Rimadyl" nor the generic name of Carprofen are mentioned. 

Are you able to tell me where I can find WHAT IF ANY FDA/CVM and/or DEA rules/regulations/controls/conditions/laws would specifically apply to the dispensing of "Rimadyl" [carprofen] ?  Thank you.

Ginger Sanchez

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

 


 11/01/04

 
Andrew Mecca, R.Ph.
Pharmacist Consultant-Board of Pharmacy
State of Washington
Department of Health
Dear Dr. Mecca:
 
I really appreciate you responding!  I have cut/pasted the contents of your response here and am responding to same:
 
1.    I am unable to definitively answer any of your questions.
 
Question: Are you able/allowed to tell me why?
 
2.    I understand your questions are in reference to an open case with the Veterinary
          Board of Governors.
 
That is absolutely true and correct.  I provided that information to you in my e-mail of 10/22/04 (in the re: line: State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors, Case#: 2004-04-0008VT) because I did not want to create a situation where anyone would be potentially compromised in any way due to not knowing that my questions are in reference to and relevant to an open case that's under investigation with the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors.
 
My concerns at present regard whether or not the Veterinary Board will/would be requesting ANY information relevant to the laws/rules/controls that apply to veterinary prescribing/dispensing of RIMADYL as set forth in the FDA, FDA/CVM and/or the State of Washington, Department of Health and/or Pharmacy Board laws/rules/controls for same OR if the procedures/guidelines within the Veterinary Board itself are such that they would 'ignore' dealing with anything that is not in their assigned/specific area/territory of the apparently unspecified 'standard of care' that applies to veterinarian complaints regarding veterinary incompetence, negligence and/or malpractice issues, because there are 'prescription drug issues' involved in this case.
 
3.    I will assist and help clarify any pharmacy related issues as necessary.
 
It is my very strong belief that unless the Veterinary Board has the correct and accurate information regarding the proper, appropriate veterinarian prescribing and dispensing of RIMADYL by FDA, FDA/CVM and State of Washington Pharmacy laws/rules/regulations regarding same, and has the information from an 'official source', that these issues in the case will not even be addressed.  At the present time I have no idea whether the Veterinarian Board policies/procedures are or will be to ask the experts, such as yourself [or whomever's area/territory that this is in], for the information or not.
 
IF the Veterinarian Board does ask you, [or whomever's area/territory that this is in] for this information, I believe they will then have the correct information to use to enable them to make informed decisions regarding the aspects of the veterinarian prescribing/dispensing of RIMADYL, which are at issue from my perspective in this case.
 
On the other hand, IF the Veterinarian Board does NOT ask you [or whomever's area/territory that this is in], for this information, I have a 'duty' to myself to do everything within my limited power to provide this information to them, as I have continued to provide them with research information regarding the many other issues pertinent to this case since filing the complaint on 4/29/04 with them.  
 
When I initially filed the complaint on 4/29/04 with the Veterinarian Board, I had absolutely no idea
  • how many different 'issues' would arise from my original allegations or
  • how complex the situation would become,
  • how this is not simply a matter of interest to me because my dog died a horrific, unnecessary and needless death but 
  • that this is a matter of very serious interest to all pet owners who are citizens of the State of Washington, and 
  • particularly with respect to 'what' is 'whose' 'territory', given that other than either accepting or rejecting a complaint, from that point on where everything is apparently then handled and/or dealt with 'behind closed doors'.
 
IF you deem it appropriate, I would be more than happy to send you e-mail copies of the complaint and subsequent "add-ons" and exhibit copies with the RIMADYL drug veterinarian prescribing/dispensing information highlighted for your review.  PLEASE let me know if this is NOT appropriate, and IF NOT,why not.
 
As I want everyone to be 'on the same page' regarding this case, I am sending a copy of this e-mail to both the WA Vet Board and their Investigator [again requesting acknowledgement of receipt from them individually].
 
Thank you.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
cc: Darlene.Tiffany@DOH.WA.GOV [please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail]
    lee.zavala@doh.wa.gov [please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail]
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 11/1/04 8:27:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, Andrew.Mecca@DOH.WA.GOV writes:

Ginger,
I am unable to definitively answer any of your questions.  I understand your
questions are in reference to an open case with the Veterinary Board of
Governors.  I will assist and help clarify any pharmacy related issues as
necessary.  Thank You.

Andrew Mecca


Andrew Mecca, R.Ph.
Pharmacist Consultant-Board of Pharmacy
Department of Health
PO Box 47863
Olympia, WA 98504-7863
Voice: (360)236-4831 Fax: (360)586-4359
Andrew.Mecca@doh.wa.gov

 


PART #9 POSTED 11/03/04

11/03/04
 
Darlene Tiffany, Admin. Asst.
State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
and
 
Lee Zavala, Health Care Investigator
Investigation Service Unit     MS: TB-33A
E-mail:  lee.zavala@doh.wa.gov
    
Re:    ADD-ON #9 (Hammond/Five Corners BBB Rebuttal & Sanchez Responses) 
and ADDITIONAL NEW CHARGES against all parties
to this complaint as outlined below
        Case #: 2004-04-0008 VT    
        Lawrence Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital
        Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
        Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab
 
As usual: Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail along with the other e-mails sent to you previously on 9/26/04, 9/28/04, 10/17/04, and 10/22/04 respectively, regardless of what is or is not done regarding the content(s) of same, in addition to this one of 11/02/04, making a total now of five [5] outstanding e-mail receipt acknowledgements thus far.  Thank you.
 
Dear Ms. Tiffany and Mr. Zavala:
 
I have good, bad news and some really horrible news for both each of you and the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors.
 
The 'good news' is I anticipate that this is more likely than not to be the last add-on that I will be sending in this matter.
 
The 'bad news' is that I am expecting that the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors to actually do something positive and contructive for both myself and for all other pet owners, who continue to be at risk from the actions and behaviors by veterinarians as I was, in the State of Washington.
 
The really horrible news is that based upon both information and belief, I must now allege that it is more likely than not that the three groups of parties named in this complaint, individually and/or collectively and/or semi collectively, in addition to their individual behaviors(s), entered into and/or became involved
  • in covering up not only their own respective and individual responsibility and/or liability for their assorted roles in ROMI's death as previously outlined, but have also 
  • additionally and intentionally committed serious fraud
  • by the Hammond/Five Corners group charging me $1100 for the necropsy, said figure 'pulled out of a hat' in an effort on their part to discourage me from having it done, 
  • by the Hammond/Five Corners group continuing to refuse to provide legitimate [not recently concocted for self-serving purposes] information as to an itemization of the necropsy charges [such as actual charges for the pick up/transport of ROMI, 'refrigeration costs' if any, including for 'what', how much 'ice', what times and 'receipts' for same, and most importantly what was initially paid to the Murname/Phoenix Central Lab group and on what date [or alternatively to Murnane personally] and ANY subsequent payments by itemized by date and amount, copies of receipts for same [if any] to either Murnane personally, the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group and/or any other person and/or entity for 'necropsy related services,
  • by both the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group refusing to provide ANY information regarding the status/availability of ROMI's body for a second necropsy with DNA IDENTIFICATION, or alternatively
  • that no necropsy of ROMI was actually performed, but possibly only written
  • and/or that ROMI's 'bits and pieces/frozen carcass' and/or 'remains' were destroyed by either the Hammond/Five Corners group or the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group and what date(s) such event occurred and by whom.
I hereby request that the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors thoroughly investigate the above allegations by locating ROMI for the purposes of a second necropsy and DNA identification or to alternatively determine what the real truth was/is regarding ROMI's remains.
 
NOTE: as to the allegations above, until someone comes up with legitimate information that proves otherwise, this more likely than not allegation must remain as a part of the complaint and be reviewed as well as a WA Vet Board decision and/or determination made upon it.
 
Please include ALL of the information contained in this e-mail as ADD-ON #9 to my Complaint referenced above.  As I have still not received the courtesy of an acknowledgement of receipt of any of my e-mails containing information sent in this matter since 9/26/04 from the WA Vet Board, I have no idea whether any of these items have already been included and/or will be added to the complaint and the investigation of same and ask once again that they be included and/or added to the complaint. 
 
I additionally ask/request that the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors actively seek the 'official' information with respect to veterinarian prescribing and/or dispensing of RIMADYL to determine an official status/position on same, and, if this issue falls within the area/territory of the Vet Board to deal with that it be included in the information upon which any/all decisions and/or determinations are made regarding same.  If on the alternative, it is determined by the Vet Board that such decisions and/or determinations with respect to veterinary violations of prescribing and/or dispensing RIMADYL [or other FDA/CVM approved but dangerous and/or drugs that are not risk free] are NOT within the area/territory and/or scope of authority of the Vet Board, that such information is immediately provided to the proper authority, whether such authority is the State of Washington, Department of Health, the Pharmacy Board or ANY and all such appropriate entities who do have that authority. Should the WA Vet Board choose either of the above activities regarding the aspects of 'veterinarian prescribing and/or dispensing of FDA drugs, it will free me from having to continue e-mailing further 'research'. documents, exhibits and/or materials and such for information and/or review by the WA Vet Board in this case.  I make this request because it appears that I am unable to obtain any of this information myself.
 
In any event, I now additionally also make and/or remake the following allegation statements(s) upon information and belief based upon the information that I do have [barring any new information that surfaces in the future that would lead a person to believe there's some other reasonable explanation, rather than merely more concocted ones], along with statements/suggestions for the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors to not only be added to the original complaint filed on 4/29/04, but to be considered when making their decision(s) and/or determination(s) regarding this case 'behind closed doors' and which are all supported by documentation either previously provided and/or provided in this e-mail, along with a listing of documents #76 through #117 at the end of this e-mail.  I have requested by e-mail that the investigator, Mr. Zavala, meet with me, at his convenience, to copy same.  My allegations are based upon my own personal experience, documents and research obtained and provided as what appears to be the applicable relevant law:
 
APPLICABLE/RELEVANT LAW
RCW 18.130.180
Unprofessional conduct.

The following conduct, acts, or conditions constitute unprofessional conduct for any license holder or applicant under the jurisdiction of this chapter:

     (1) The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption relating to the practice of the person's profession, whether the act constitutes a crime or not.

 (4) Incompetence, negligence, or malpractice which results in injury to a patient or which creates an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed.

(6) The possession, use, prescription for use, or distribution of controlled substances or legend drugs in any way other than for legitimate or therapeutic purposes, diversion of controlled substances or legend drugs, the violation of any drug law, or prescribing controlled substances for oneself;

     (7) Violation of any state or federal statute or administrative rule regulating the profession in question, including any statute or rule defining or establishing standards of patient care or professional conduct or practice;
     (a) Not furnishing any papers or documents;

     (b) Not furnishing in writing a full and complete explanation covering the matter contained in the complaint filed with the disciplining authority;

(13) Misrepresentation or fraud in any aspect of the conduct of the business or profession;

(16) Promotion for personal gain of any unnecessary or inefficacious drug, device, treatment, procedure, or service;

(20) The willful betrayal of a practitioner-patient privilege as recognized by law;

(23) Current misuse of:

     (c) Legend drugs;

(25) Acceptance of more than a nominal gratuity, hospitality, or subsidy offered by a representative or vendor of medical or health-related products or services intended for patients, in contemplation of a sale or for use in research publishable in professional journals, where a conflict of interest is presented, as defined by rules of the disciplining authority, in consultation with the department, based on recognized professional ethical standards.

 
1.    With respect to DVM Williams/BVH
  • unprofessional conduct involving dishonesty (claim that RIMADYL was totally safe; continued denials that RIMADYL in any way related to ROMI's condition(s) which only developed after taking RIMADYL and no other potential factor or change in her life occurring) [WA Vet Exhibits #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #40, #59 through #68, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, and #105]
  • corruption relating to the practice of the person's profession [WA Vet Board Exhibits #27, #28, #29, #30, #70]
  • incompetence, negligence, or malpractice which results in injury to a patient or which creates an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed [WA Vet Board Exhibits #3, and #4]
  • The possession, use, prescription for use, or distribution of controlled substances or legend drugs in any way other than for legitimate or therapeutic purposes (inappropriate prescribing/dispensing: WA Vet Board Exhibits #23, #24, #25A, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67, #68, #70, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, #102, #104, #105, #106, #107, #108, and #109)
  • diversion of controlled substances or legend drugs (repackaging of RIMADYL without including the FDA approved information inserts: WA Vet Board Exhibits #23, #24, #25A, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67, #68, #70, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, #102, #104, #105, #106, #107, #108, and #109)
  • the violation of any drug law (repackaging of RIMADYL without including the FDA information WA Vet Board Exhibits #23, #24, #25A, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67, #68, #70, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, #102, #104, #105, #106, #107, #108, and #109)
  • Violation of any state or federal statute or administrative rule regulating the profession in question, including any statute or rule defining or establishing standards of patient care or professional conduct or practice;
         (a) Not furnishing any papers or documents (no RIMADYL information per Pfizer's FDA required "CIS" sheets, see above applicable WA State Board Exhibit listings)

         (b) Not furnishing in writing a full and complete explanation covering the matter contained in the complaint filed with the disciplining authority; (if this applies)

    Misrepresentation or fraud in any aspect of the conduct of the business or profession (misrepresentation of the known risks of Rimadyl and fraud as to the denial of RIMADYL toxicity symptoms, then fraud once again by filing an ADE report with Pfizer apparently based on the Hammond/Five Corners records without ever having seen and/or examined ROMI to obtain first hand knowledge, WA Vet Board Exhibits previously listed)

    Promotion for personal gain of any unnecessary or inefficacious drug, device, treatment, procedure, or service (inappropriate prescribing/dispensing of RIMADYL WA Vet Board Exhibits #27, #28, #29, #30 and #70)

    The willful betrayal of a practitioner-patient privilege as recognized by law (by apparently providing records and/or information that was not HIS, but was records/information apparently obtained from the Hammond/Five Corners group WA Vet Board Exhibit #86, #87, #92 as well as the above new allegation)

    Current misuse of: (c) Legend drugs (inappropriate use RIMADYL, see WA State Board Exhibits previously referenced)

    Acceptance of more than a nominal gratuity, hospitality, or subsidy offered by a representative or vendor of medical or health-related products or services intended for patients, in contemplation of a sale or for use in research publishable in professional journals, where a conflict of interest is presented, as defined by rules of the disciplining authority, in consultation with the department, based on recognized professional ethical standards [WA Vet Exhibit #27, #28, #29, #30 and #70]. NOTE: As I've not been privy to ANY information the WA Vet Board Investigator may have obtained during the course of the investigation of this matter, I do not know what was learned as to any 'perks/incentives' to 'push' RIMADYL that Williams/BVH may have received and/or what 'profit level' may have occurred regarding the prescribing/dispensing RIMADYL, but restate the very high potential of same, as outlined previously [WA Vet Board Exhibits #27, #28, #29, #30 and #70].

In addition to my original allegations of his incompetence, negligence and veterinarian malpractice, I must now add the strong potential for adding a total lack of ethics and/or moral fiber on his part with respect to his behaviors(s) in dealing with the clearly foreseeable aftermath that his original incompetence, negligence and/or veterinarian malpractice caused, although I do not know whether the WA Vet Board's territory of review ever includes either 'ethics' or 'moral fiber' (along with the new allegation outlined previously): 
 
After continuously denying to me that the RIMADYL drug that Williams/BVH prescribed/dispensed was in any way related to ROMI's subsequent medical conditions and her resulting death, according to Pfizer, Williams/BVH filed an ADE report with Pfizer on 7/12/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #86, previously provided], which was a full three MONTHS after he prescribed/dispensed the RIMADYL, and, perhaps not so coincidently a full 30 days after I provided the WA State Vet Board investigator with the 75 exhibits and list of same and I now additionally allege for the purposes of this complaint that the filing of the ADE report by Williams/BVH with Pfizer was a "self serving" attempt to try to cover up and/or continue to avoid accepting any responsibility for the resultant death of ROMI and as such is an egregious breach of ethics.
 
Due to the FACT that not only had Williams/BVH continuously denied to me [on 4/20/04 and 4/22/04 as previously provided in Part #3 Add-On to Complaint and his own records WA Vet Exhibits #1 and #2] that RIMADYL even could either be the cause or even a factor in ROMI's conditions, that he totally failed to provide any information and/or treatment options when she was 'under his care' that might have saved her life; he made NO "referral" to another veterinarian and no suggestion that I even needed, or might need, to seek any further treatment or emergency medical treatment for ROMI.  The only 'advice' that Williams/BVH ever offered was to insist that I keep giving her the RIMADYL, and when I refused to continue giving her any more RIMADYL, he only said to "keep an eye on her" and let him know how she did after the RIMADYL had been stopped.  If the Vet Board does not make a decision/finding that the original prescribing/dispensing of the RIMADYL by Williams/BVH falls into the category of incompetence, negligence and/or malpractice, [either based on it being an inappropriate prescribing action and/or in violation of the applicable controlling drug 'laws/rules' with respect to the actual dispensing itself in a NON FDA approved container, and/or without any warning, either verbal or in writing per the FDA [which Pfizer is required to provide to veterinarians with every shipment of RIMADYL] [WA Vet Exhibit #37], then the subsequent callous indifference and failure to provide or even offer to provide any information regarding further treatment options, even a referral for treatment of ROMI's conditions which only developed after taking RIMADYL, can only be viewed as additional incompetence, negligence and/or veterinarian malpractice, as well as being both ethically and morally reprehensible and I ask that this additional specific allegation be added/included to my complaint charges against Williams/BVH.
 
Despite my not being allowed to 'see' or 'know' what information is contained in the ADE [Adverse Drug Event] that Williams/BVH supposedly filed/reported to Pfizer [the manufacturer of RIMADYL] on 7/12/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #86] which Pfizer alleges they had then turned into the FDA/CVM on 7/23/04 or what information was received by the FDA/CVM by Pfizer [which is also not available to me - WA Vet Exhibit #92], said ADE could only have been filed/reported to Pfizer WITHOUT Williams/BVH ever having seen and/or examined ROMI after she began displaying all of the symptoms that are consistent with RIMADYL toxicity, and that such subsequent ADE filing/report by Williams/BVH then constitutes an egregious breach of ethics.
 
Due to the FACT that ADE reports are filed on a 'voluntary basis' by veterinarians and as far as I know are NOT filed for NON-reactions, the only possible purpose that I can see [unless I am provided with other information not presently available to me] for the ADE report filing by Williams/BVH without ever having even seen my dog after 4/13/04, is that it was/is an attempt on the part of Williams/BVH to "cover up" his own responsibility/liability three MONTHS later and/or assist in covering up any responsibility/liability on the part of the Hammond/Five Corners group and/or the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group (see new allegation), and as such is also an egregious breach of ethics. 
 
That ADE report/filing allegedly made by Williams/BVH to Pfizer can ONLY have been based upon and/or arrived at by his using the information/medical reports of Hammond/Five Corners as Williams/BVH had absolutely NO first hand knowledge himself other than the two phone calls I made to him on 4/20/04 and 4/22/04 [previously provided and in his own records, WA Vet Board Exhibits #1 and #2] in which he had continuously denied any possible/potential relationship whatsoever between the RIMADYL he prescribed/dispensed and ROMI's subsequent horrific medical conditions which developed only after the RIMADYL and her death.
 
B.   On the positive side for DVM Williams/BVH, in all fairness I have to state that I had trusted him to do the right thing by my dog, ROMI, which is why I had 'believed' him when he said that RIMADYL was 'totally safe' and that it would 'fix her right up'.  That level of trust had not been given lightly on my part and I had considered DVM Williams/BVH to be 'my' veterinarian for over 10 years, not only in treating ROMI but for treating my companion Rottweiler, Gonif, before her.  DVM Williams/BVH had allowed me to stand by and watch the entire procedure when ROMI was spayed, and I was extremely impressed with his surgical technique and the skills he displayed.  My trust level for DVM Williams/BVH had been very high until this incident with ROMI and the RIMADYL and what followed.
 
Not having and not being allowed to have any facts in this case other than those medical records that I'd succeeded in prying loose from the involved veterinarians, and despite my own personal experience with ROMI's horrific and needless death, I would really hate to think that between the previously earned trust level in DVM Williams/BVH and the Vet Board's 'public record' that shows he's been practicing for nearly FORTY [40] years without a single complaint ever having been filed against him, that his prescribing/dispensing of the RIMADYL was an intentional act done out of malice.  I think it's entirely possible that when DVM Williams/BVH dispensed the deadly RIMADYL to and for ROMI, it was possibly a deadly 'boo boo', done out of ignorance and possibly based on believing 'positive spins' made by Pfizer and/or Pfizer's salespeople in order to sell RIMADYL to veterinarians.  I base that 'possibility' on what I've learned in the six [6] months since ROMI died from the similarities of experiences of many other people, including a number of them who are residents of the State of Washington, and who have had the same experience of taking their beloved companion dog into their trusted veterinarian, being prescribed/dispensed RIMADYL inappropriately for 'minor' conditions, provided RIMADYL in veterinarian clinic vials, without verbal warnings about the risks, without information as to the signs of an adverse drug reaction to watch for, without being given the RIMADYL "CIS" or client information sheets allegedly provided by Pfizer in every drug shipment, and then being told that the 'cause' of their beloveds pet's death or severe health damage was 'unknown' or blamed on 'cancer', etc.
 
On the other hand, should it turn out that DVM Williams/BVH is/was involved in covering up any information regarding either ROMI's medical condition's and/or ROMI's death and/or the location and/or condition of ROMI's 'remains', then it's obviously inappropriate for anything of a positive nature to come from me.
 
Regardless of what decision(s) and/or determination(s) the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors reaches with respect to DVM Williams/BVH, or ANY of the other veterinarians involved in this complaint and situation, either individually, as part of their respective group, or collectively and/or semi/collective per the new allegation above, this is an opportunity for the Vet Board to take a good long and hard look at whether or not otherwise 'good' veterinarians are being compromised and/or coerced by the drug industry to disregard 'ethics' and then placing their skills and integrity several rungs below their financial concerns and from there the Vet Board is in a position to open these 'secret decision-making meetings' to the public as well as to stop turning a blind eye to the behaviors of the 'bad' veterinarians and the various 'cover up' activities such as that which resulted in my own personal experience.
 
2.  As to both the past and the ongoing behavior(s) of the Hammond/Five Corners group named in the above-referenced complaint, I now add, in addition to my original allegations of their collective incompetence, negligence and veterinarian malpractice, having, causing and/or permitting/allowing an alleged current licensed veterinarian, RACHEL MEYER, to practice emergency medicine in the critical care, diagnosis and recommendations situation with respect to ROMI and her very serious medical conditions who appears to be now and was on the date of ROMI's death of 4/25/04, without a current veterinarian license [WA Vet Exhibit #116], a total lack of ethics, a complete and reprehensible lack of 'common decency' and/or 'moral fiber', and a totally unethical manner of 'doing business' on their part with respect to their collective behavior(s), which then added additional, unnecessary and clearly foreseeable personal grief, additional grief per the above new allegation regarding ROMI's remains, as well as financial loss, to the damage(s)
  • caused by and in dealing with the clearly foreseeable aftermath that their original incompetence, negligence and/or veterinarian malpractice resulted in by refusing to correctly diagnose ROMI's conditions, despite my having provided all of the information to them from the very beginning,
  • by refusing/failing to even verify the information as to the most  likely and obvious cause of ROMI's condition, that I had provided to them by not making any effort in contacting Pfizer, the manufacturer of RIMADYL, and by now claiming to the Better Business Bureau that I had not TOLD them to contact Pfizer [WA Vet Exhibit #111],
  • by refusing/failing to make any reasonable or prudent effort to learn on their own any information as to the known symptoms of RIMADYL toxicity [WA Vet Board Exhibits #23, #24, #31, #32, #33, #34. #35, #36, #38, #40, #41, #59 through #68], ***
  • by continuing to deny, to this very day and despite the FACTS of the many known conditions and/or side effects that RIMADYL can cause, and thereby not only totally misdiagnosing my dog's condition(s) originally, and repeatedly according to their own records, but that their collective and possibly intentional misdiagnosis resulted in my having to have ROMI needlessly and unnecessarily euthanized, instead of ROMI having been given any opportunity to survive.
  • And if all of that hasn't been bad enough, Hammond/Five Corners [per their own statements provided to the Better Business Bureau in the below Exhibits to be added as Part #9 to the complaints already alleged and filed against them] has continued to refuse to either provide any information or to take any responsibility for having contracted with Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab, who allegedly ONLY contracts and/or does business with veterinarians only and not pet owners, and which has resulted in ROMI's remains having either been actively 'held hostage' this past 6 months by the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group or other unknown party(s) and/or 'disposed of' in some manner [which I have not been informed of], presumably for the purpose(s) of destroying the 'evidence' of the true cause of ROMI's needless and unnecessary death due to euthanasia and which was and still is more likely than not intentionally designed to cover up and assure that the Hammond/Five Corners group's behaviors(s) [misdiagnosis thereby leading to euthanasia] would not come to light with a second necropsy and DNA Identification of ROMI's remains.
  • That, if indeed, the 'policy' of the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab was [at the time of the contract between the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group and the Hammond/Five Corners group] to only do business with veterinarians and never with pet owners, then the full and sole responsibility for providing all of the information regarding both my ROMI's remains and the medical information previously demanded in my fax demand letter to the Hammond/Five Corners group on 5/24/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #12]  was and still is the sole responsibility and duty of the Hammond/Five Corners group to produce/provide, as well as the information regarding the present location and/or condition of ROMI's remains for a second necropsy and DNA identification and the continued, to this day, refusal of the Hammond/Five Corners group to provide this information can only be viewed [barring new information not known at this time by me] as additional evidence of all of the charged allegations contained in the complaint, add-ons and the newest allegations to same.
  • Additionally, after having already faxed copies of the Hammond/Five Corners medical records of my dog on 4/25/04, and again on 5/04/04 to Williams/BVH [WA Vet Exhibit #3], the Hammond/Five Corners group then faxed copies of my dog's medical records [the specifics of which are unknown to me] to Williams/BVH on 5/19/04 at noon that date [WA Vet Exhibit #114], and then began an alleged series of attempted phone contacts with me AFTER that faxing, and knowing that my single phone line is a dedicated Internet connection only and which culminated in 'Baty' from the Hammond/Five Corners group then sending me a letter dated 5/22/04 and received by me on 5/24/04 asking my 'permission' to a fax sending, which I adamantly refused to give and additionally advised 'Baty' that absolutely NO records were to be provided to ANYONE for ANY REASON other than to "an investigator or other official person, upon presentation of the proper official credentials, who is acting in their official capacity on behalf of the State of Washington Veterinary Board of Governors" [WA Vet Exhibit #14].  At NO time did 'Baty' ever 'mention' that the permission she was seeking from me was in fact being sought LONG AFTER they had already, and for at least the third time according to their own records, provided Williams/BVH with my dog's medical records.  While this item may not be 'actionable' as far as the WA Vet Board is concerned, it certainly DOES provide yet another obvious and sterling example of the Hammond/Five Corners 'ethics and moral levels' when it comes to 'doing wrong' and then scrambling to 'cover up' afterwards.
  • It would appear that "DVM Rachel Meyer" who had told me, amongst other things, that she needed my permission [which had already been provided in writing in WA Vet Board Exhibit #5] to perform "CPR" on my comatose dog, may not have had a current license to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Washington [WA Vet Board Exhibit #116], and at NO time was I ever informed of this situation, but such a situation again goes to show the 'ethics' level of the Hammond/Five Corners group.
3.  As to the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group complaint(s) previously filed as Part #3 to the complaint on 6/10/04, [based upon the information that I do have and barring any new information that surfaces in the future], I hereby additionally add that upon information and belief, it is more likely than not that the necropsy report provided to the Hammond/Five Corners group was written and designed to 'whitewash' and/or 'cover up' the full and very ugly truth regarding the causes and/or contributing factors to my dog's death, by intentionally downplaying the necropsy findings with respect to the effects of the RIMADYL on my dead dog. While it is my present understanding that there are absolutely no rules/laws or controls of any sort exercised by the State of Washington over 'veterinarian laboratories', the now obvious high probability that the necropsy of my dog was very cleverly 'respun' in the final necropsy report to provide cover-ups to the actively involved veterinarians and/or the drug company who set in motion and then perpetuated this monstrous and despicable chain of events shows just how utterly lacking in ethics, moral fiber and values the Murnane/Phoenix Central lab also is.
 
It would appear from the State of Washington's Veterinary "Credential Search" that DVM Murnane has had a documented past history of "problems" regarding "histology reports" [WA Vet Board Exhibit #117], which certainly goes a long way towards explaining why ROMI's 'bits and pieces/frozen carcass' was not going to be available for a second necropsy and DNA IDENTIFICATION even IF a first necropsy had actually been performed.
 
It would appear from the the State of Washington "Provider Search" that DVM Murnane's license to practice veterinary medicine was suspended per Docket No. 02-04-A-1010VT, and on 8/05/02 a final order was signed/issued which stated in pertinent part:
"Respondant [Murnane] shall be monitored with regard to providing histology reports in the practice of veterinary medicine by a Board certified veterinary pathologist for a period of six (6) months after the effective date of this Agreed Order." . . . during which time Murnane was to have at least weekly review of histology reports by the monitor, ordered to "submit written protocols for issuance and review of histopathology reports" . . .  "The protocols shall address procedures for detecting inaccurate information in histopathology reports", and in addition was orderd to complete mandatory continuing education AS WELL AS seven (7) hours of continuing education in the area of record keeping.
That, if indeed, the 'policy' of the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab was [at the time of the contract between Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group and the Hammond/Five Corners group] to only do business with veterinarians and not ever with pet owners, then that information should be officially provided to me now by the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab, rather than expecting that I am going to rely on the statements made by "Linda Jewett" who held herself out to be the official spokesperson for the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab and authorized to 'speak' and 'make decisions' on behalf of Murnene/Phoenix Central lab group.
Ms. Tiffany and Mr. Zavala, [and the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors] when I filed Part #3 to my complaint on 6/10/04, I stated that:
"first, I have a NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH of HOW/WHY my dog, ROMI, died without any further 'fairy tales', mumbo-jumbo and/or cover-ups, . . . "
and barring any legitimate new information that might surface now, I am satisfied that I now know the truth of how/why my dog, ROMI, died:
  • that I had mistakenly placed my trust in a 'general practice' veterinarian, licensed to practice veterinary medicine by the State of Washington, who was/is incompetent, negligent and guilty of veterinarian malpractice and additionally guilty of being severely 'ethically challenged'. 'morally bankrupt' and an obvious disgrace to the veterinary profession; or alternately had allowed himself to be conned by the drug company and then compounded the situation by trying to cover it up;
  • that I had mistakenly placed my trust in an alleged 24/7 'emergency facility' owned, operated, run by and/or worked out of by veterinarians licensed to practice veterinarian medicine by the State of Washington, who were/are incompetent, negligent and guilty of veterinarian malpractice and additionally guilty of being severely 'ethical challenged', 'morally bankrupt' and 'financial scam artists' as well and are obviously a disgrace to the veterinary profession; and in view of the information submitted below to the Better Business Bureau, I can't see much hope for this group;
  • that I had mistakenly assumed that a veterinarian/pathologist, licensed to practice veterinarian medicine by the State of Washington, would be completely honest, forthright and unbiased as to the "COMMENT" section [WA Exhibit #4], which is presumably presented as a final diagnosis and/or determination of my dog's death given both the history of the prescribed/dispensed RIMADYL, whatever medical history/records allegedly provided by the Five Corners group, and the known side effects that RIMADYL can and does produce in dogs, instead of a 'whitewashed' version that was presumably done for the purposes of assisting those veterinarians in covering up their respective portions of responsibility and liability
  • That I was 'scammed' out of $1100 charged (less a 10% discount) for a necropsy that was 'whitewashed' at best, or more likely than not never even DONE
  • and at present time there is NO legitimate information available to me from any of these "licensed by the State of Washington veterinarians" as to the real location and/or status of ROMI.
and
"second: I don't have any reason to believe that what 'happened' to ROMI and I is an 'isolated' phenomen, but is a direct result of wide-spread and unethical 'practice' taking place in the veterinary community and/or the 'group' ROMI and I had been unfortunate enough to get entangled/enmeshed with and is, therefore, a matter of 'public interest', which needs to be examined/investigated further, not just for my own peace of mind, but for the welfare of the resident pet owners of Washington State, and most likely across the entire country."
Ms. Tiffany and Mr. Zavala, I can only hope and pray that you and/or whomever's responsibility it is to do so, have indeed added and/or will be adding ALL of this information to the above referenced filed/accepted complaint and previously sent information and add-ons and that the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors will read and examine all of it before making their decision(s) and/or determination(s) 'behind closed doors' and that the final decision(s) and/or determination(s) made by them in this matter will be in the best interests of the dog/pet owners who are citizens of the State of Washington, i.e. in the interests of the 'public' and whom the WA Vet Board is by law charged with 'protecting, rather than the personal 'interests' of any of the individual veterinarians involved.  Thank you for your attention, and please find below the pertinent exhibits/documents for Part #9 of this filed/accepted complaint.
 
 
*****
 
EXHIBIT #115
11/01/04
 
Better Business Bureau
dupont.bbb@hurdmanivr.com, and
deborah@thebbb.org
[there was no e-mail address provided for: Jennifer Mitten]
 
Re: CASE #22016444 - Sanchez vs. Hammond/Five Corners
 
Apparently due to the length of my response to the Hammond/Five Corners "rebuttal", I was not able to use the website to post my response.  I am e-mailing my response to you so that you have it in a timely manner before the deadline given to me expires.  Please advise by return e-mail, or ASAP, that you received this e-mail response and advise if the BBB has accepted same.  Thank you.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
*****
 
The below three [3] items are true copies of the "rebuttal letter" and accompanying cover letter of the Hammond/Five Corners group addressed to the Better Business Bureau regarding the complaint of Ginger Sanchez, Case#22016444 as provided to Ginger Sanchez by the Better Business Bureau with the BBB cover letter by U.S. Mail received 10/29/04 and postmarked 10/27/04 and which are now 'labeled' and hereby assigned Exhibit# 110, #111 and #112 as indicated, for submission to the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors, Case#2004-04-0008 VT against Williams/BVH, Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners and Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab and are being provided to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors as "Part 9" of the Sanchez complaint filed 4/28/04 and currently still under investigation.
============================================
 
[True "clean" copy of item]
Exhibit #110 [cover letter from the Better Business Bureau accompanying Exhibits #111 and #112].
 
October 27, 2004
 
Ginger Sanchez
637 South 159th Street
Seattle, WA  98148
 
re: Case # 22016444: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received a response from the business in the above-referenced complaint.  Please review this response to your complaint and advise us of your position in the matter by November 6, 2004.  If we do not hear back from you, the BBB will assume you are satisfied and will close your complaint.
 
The details of the complaint (including the business' response) are included on the reverse.  Please be sure to indicate whether the business' response has resolved the complaint.
 
We encourage you to use our ONLINE COMPLAINT system to respond to this complaint.  The following URL (website address) will take you directly to the 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.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Jennifer Mitten
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
 
==============================================
 
[True "clean" copy of item]
Exhibit#111:
October 20, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
Re:    Ginger Sanchez
File:   22016444
 
We are in receipt of your notice dated October 14, 2004, stating that you have not received our response to the unresolved complaint.  Please note that our response was mailed to you on October 11, 2004.  I have attached another copy for your review.  Our reply has probably crossed in the mail with your subsequent request.
 
Please let us know if further information is required.
 
Sincerely
 
[signed]
Margaret K. Bath
Officer Manager [Five Corners Veterinary Hospital]
================================================
 
[True "clean" copy of item]
Exhibit #112[this item is date-stamped by the Better Business Bureau as "RECEIVED" Oct 20, 2004]
 
October 11, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
We are in receipt of the rebuttal by Ms. Sanchez.  To aid in the reply, we have separated the issues presented by Ms. Sanchez and will address each individually.
 
1.  Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Nurnane/Phoenix Lab.
 
We have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which include any conversation(s) between Dr. Murnane and Dr. Hammond.  Specifically, the only conversation between Dr. Hammond and Dr. Murnane was on May 27, 2004 regarding the release of the remains and to be sure the release is authorized.  This was documented in the medical records, which has been previously provided to Ms. Sanchez.
2.    Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners  Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital.
Again, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which would include any conversation that took place.  Dr. Hammond and Dr. Williams did not consult regarding Romy.  Ms. Sanchez came to Five Corners Veterinary Hospital on an emergency basis advising that her dog, Romy, stopped eating and was listless.  Ms. Sanchez advised that she was a client of Burien Veterinary Hospital.  As part of our customary emergency procedure, we faxed Burien Veterinary Hospital a Case Summary describing presenting complaint, history and emergency medical treatment.  A copy of this Case Summary was provided to Ms. Sanchez.
3.    Any and all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer.
There was no contact between Dr. Hammond and Pfizer.  While Ms. Sanchez shared that Romy was on Rimadyl for arthritis, she further advised that she stopped treating Romy with the Rimadyl and that, it was her opinion that Romy seemed to improve.
4.    An itemized billing of the $1,100.00 necropsy charges.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital charged Ms. Sanchez $990.00 for the necropsy.  The actual invoice was $1,100.00 less a senior discount of $110.00.  Ms. Sanchez has advised that she was originally advised that she was originally advised by Dr. Meyer that the charge for this service would be around $500.00 but would need to contact the laboratory to determine the exact price.  The following morning our office contacted the laboratory to determine the exact price and was advised of the specific necropsy fee.  Our office contacted Ms. Sanchez and advised her of the $1,100.00 fee and Ms. Sanchez authorized us to proceed.  Please note that this is not a service that Five Corners Veterinary Hospital commonly provides, therefore, we had to contact the laboratory directly for an actual quote.
5.    All of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties.
We have provided Ms. Sanchez all copies of medical and laboratory records.  This included the names of all the drugs used in Romy's treatment.
6.    The current status of my dog's bits and pieces as previously demanded.
Ms. Sanchez would need to work directly with Phoenix Central Laboratory regarding this request.
7.    A full refund of monies paid to Five Corners.
Ms. Sanchez was presented an initial estimate for medical treatment for Romy, which she approved with her signature.  Subsequent medical treatment and associated costs was discussed with the owner who approved over the telephone by authorizing payment on her credit card.
8.    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.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital does not provide replacement animals.  In reference explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory, this information would need to be provided by Phoenix.
9.    Why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer of[or] IF they did, when they did and for what purpose.
According to Dr. Hammond, there was no request to contact Pfizer nor was there evidence of any medical connection between Romy's symptoms presented to Five Corners being related to Rimadyl administration.
10.    Upon what basis Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the credentials of said laboratory.
At the request of Ms. Sanchez, Dr. Meyer of Five Corners Veterinary Hospital arranged for a necropsy to be completed by Phoenix Central Laboratory.  Phoenix Central Laboratory can provide their credentials.
11.    Whether Ms. Jewett is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory.
This should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
12.    What authority Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington.
Again, this question should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
As listed above, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with copies of all medical records, laboratory reports, necropsy report from Phoenix Central Laboratory and all invoices related to this case.  Additionally, we have advised Ms. Sanchez that she should contact Phoenix Central Laboratory directly regarding obtaining access to Romy and any questions regarding the services they provide.
 
Sincerely,
[signed]
Melanie W. Caviness, D.V.M.
Medical Director
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
    and
[signed]
Margaret K. Baty
Operations Manager
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
=========================================================
Exhibit #116
******
Sanchez Responses to Rebuttal of Hammond/Five Corners filed 11/01/04 with the Better Business Bureau.
 
Below are the Sanchez "responses to Five Corners, et. al, rebuttals" for both the BBB and the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors.  As I was unable to utilize the Better Business Bureau on-line 'box' for my below responses, it was e-mailed to the BBB folks at dupont.bbb@hurdmanivr.com, and deborah@thebbb.org on 11/01/04 and accepted.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
=======================================================
 
[True copy of item with Sanchez Responses]
Exhibit #110 [cover letter from the Better Business Bureau accompanying Exhibits #111 and #112].
 
October 27, 2004
 
Ginger Sanchez
637 South 159th Street
Seattle, WA  98148
 
re: Case # 22016444: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received a response from the business in the above-referenced complaint.  Please review this response to your complaint and advise us of your position in the matter by November 6, 2004.  If we do not hear back from you, the BBB will assume you are satisfied and will close your complaint. 
 
RESPONSE/QUESTION TO BBB: It would appear that I [Sanchez] am now given eight [8] days in order respond in a "timely manner", whereas the Hammond/Five Corners group has apparently been chronically given some sort of extensions - so I would like to know why that is:
10/27/04    Manually Forward Final Response to Consumer
10/27/04    Re-Open Complaint
10/13/04    Case Closed UNRESOLVED
                      Report as of 10/13/2004: Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to two or more unresolved complaints.
10/13/04    Inform Business - Case Closed UNRESOLVED
10/13/04    Inform Business - Case Closed UNRESOLVED
10/13/04    Bureau Judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED
10/13/04    No Response from Business re: Consumer Rebuttal
09/27/04    Forward Consumer Rebuttal to Business
09/27/04    Re-Open Complaint
09/22/04    Manually Forward Business response to Consumer 
09/22/04    Receive Business Response
09/15/04    NMBR-Resend Complaint to Business [*** We are waiting for the business to respond. They have until September 25, 2004 to respond to this complaint. If they do not respond the complaint will be closed and this will be reflected in their record.]                      
09/15/04    NMBR- No response to first notice to business
08/27/04    Inform Business of the Complaint [***We are waiting for the business to respond. They have until September 13, 2004 to respond to this complaint. If they do not respond the complaint will be closed and this will be reflected in their record.] 
08/27/04    Send acknowledgement to Consumer
08/27/04    Complaint Validated by BBB Operator
08/26/04    Complaint Received by BBB 
The details of the complaint (including the business' response) are included on the reverse.  Please be sure to indicate whether the business' response has resolved the complaint. 
RESPONSE/NOTE TO THE BBB: 10/30/04: TRUST ME - I AM NOT "SATISFIED". Ginger Sanchez e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
We encourage you to use our ONLINE COMPLAINT system to respond to this complaint.  The following URL (website address) will take you directly to the 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.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Jennifer Mitten
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
 
=========================================================
 
[True copy of item with Sanchez Responses]
Exhibit#111:[this item is date-stamped by the Better Business Bureau as "RECEIVED" Oct 20, 2004]
 
October 20, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
Re:    Ginger Sanchez
File:   22016444
 
We are in receipt of your notice dated October 14, 2004, stating that you have not received our response to the unresolved complaint.  Please note that our response was mailed to your office on October 11, 2004.  I have attached another copy for your review.  Our reply has probably crossed in the mail with your subsequent request.
RESPONSE/QUESTION FOR BBB: Please advise if you ever received the ORIGINAL "rebuttal" letter dated 10/11/04 and allegedly mailed, and IF SO, what the actual postmarked date on the envelope was and what date YOU actually received it.  Thank you. 
Please let us know if further information is required.
 
Sincerely
 
[signed]
Margaret K. Baty
Officer Manager [Five Corners Veterinary Hospital]
 
=======================================================

 
 
[True copy of item with Sanchez Responses]
Exhibit #112: [this item is date-stamped by the Better Business Bureau as "RECEIVED" Oct 20, 2004]
 
October 11, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
Re:    Ginger Sanchez
File:  22016444
 
We are in receipt of the rebuttal by Ms. Sanchez.  To aid in the reply, we have separated the issues presented by Ms. Sanchez and will address each individually.
 
1.  Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Lab.
 
We have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which include any conversation(s) between Dr. Murnane and Dr. Hammond.
SANCHEZ RESPONSE: Hammond/Five Corners has not been asked about medical records that I have ALREADY received which might or might not include any conversations between Dr. Murnane and Dr. Hammond.
 
Hammond/Five Corners has continuously been asked and is AGAIN asked to produce ANYTHING that would contain ALL CONTACTS OF ANY SORT, such as notes, recordings, memos, etc.
 
If there were NO CONTACTS of ANY sort/type ever made between the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group OTHER than such information already contained in the medical records that WERE provided to Sanchez, i.e. NEVER any phone calls, no correspondence, no notes of records or information of any sort provided to Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab, it should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors OR
ALTERNATIVELY, AGAIN AS BEFORE, THE MIDDLE GROUND OFFER is ONCE AGAIN: 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. 
Specifically, the only conversation between Dr. Hammond and Dr. Murnane was on May 27, 2004 regarding the release of the remains and to be sure the release is authorized. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement NOW being submitted to WA VET Board Part #9 Add-On and as Exhibit #113]: As I do not HAVE anything in writing that states, confirms and/or describes, including the date(s), times(s) and all parties involved as well as the CONTENTS of ANY conversations, between either DVM Hammond and DVM Murnane or the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group, I once AGAIN demand that such information be PRODUCED. Since Hammond/Five Corners has now ADMITTED here that such conversation(s) took place, it should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors OR
 
ALTERNATIVELY, AGAIN AS BEFORE, THE MIDDLE GROUND OFFER is ONCE AGAIN: 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. 
 
This was documented in the medical records, which has been previously provided to Ms. Sanchez. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vwt Board as Add-On #9]:  there is NOTHING other than one scribbled note in the Hammond/Five Corners "Progress Notes" [WA Vet Board Exhibit #6]  indicating ANY contact with Murname/PCL.  IF there were NEVER any phone calls, no correspondence, no notes of records or information of any sort provided to Murnane/PCL other than that outlined, it should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors OR
 
ALTERNATIVELY, AGAIN AS BEFORE, that THE MIDDLE GROUND OFFER is ONCE AGAIN: 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. 
2.    Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital.
Again, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which would include any conversation that took place. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 and Exhibit #114]: Hammond/Five Corners has not been asked about medical records that I have already received which might or might not include any conversations between the Hammond/Five Corners group and Williams/BVH.
 
Hammond/Five Corners has continuously been asked and is AGAIN asked to produce ANYTHING that would contain ALL CONTACTS OF ANY SORT, such as notes, recordings, memos, etc.
 
If there were NEVER ANY CONTACTS of ANY sort/type ever made and/or conducted between the Hammond/Five Corners group and Williams/BVH  i.e. NEVER any phone calls, no correspondence, no notes of records or information of any sort provided to Williams/BVH by the Hammond/Five Corners group, it should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors OR
 
ALTERNATIVELY, AGAIN AS BEFORE, THE MIDDLE GROUND OFFER is ONCE AGAIN: 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. 
 
Ms. Sanchez came to Five Corners Veterinary Hospital on an emergency basis advising that her dog, Romy, stopped eating and was listless. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE: When I went to Five Corners Veterinary Hospital on the emergency basis I STRONGLY ADVISED that my dog, Romy, was experiencing a MASSIVE TOXIC REACTION TO RIMADYL.  I advised that ROMI had been preseribed/dispensed RIMADYL on 4/13/04, one tablet twice a day.  That she began having problems with refusing to eat and being listless and that on 4/20/04 she'd had what appeared to be seizures/strokes, was unable to stand or walk and would not leave her crate.  I advised that I had gone on the Internet to find out about RIMADYL as there had been NO information provided to me verbally or in writing about the drug and the ONLY thing that had changed in ROMI's life was the taking of RIMADYL.  I TOLD both DVM Hammond and the 'clipboard lady' in the room that they needed to get on the Internet to VERIFY the symptoms that RIMADYL is KNOWN to cause and TOLD THEM the website of www.srdogs.com, TOLD them at that site they could get the PFIZER toll free 'emergency number' to CALL PFIZER to verify the symptoms AND get medical treatment instructions from the PFIZER vets.  DVM Hammond was very absorbed with shining a little flashlight in ROMI's eyes, but the 'clipboard lady' was real busy WRITING.  NOW, it is obvious that the "clipboard lady" was NOT writing down any of the medical information and/or where to find the treatment information that I was providing, but was instead apparently too busy figuring out how much money they needed to collect FIRST before doing anything for my dog.
 
Ms. Sanchez advised that she was a client of Burien Veterinary Hospital. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE: I was asked WHERE ROMI had gotten the RIMADYL and my response was that ROMI had gotten it prescribed/dispensed by DVM Williams at Burien Vet Hospital.  I was THEN informed that I HAD to sign an agreement form entitled Owner Information/Patient Information/Initial Treatment Authorization/Medical Consent [for CPR] and Referral Case Admission Agreement, which stated I HAD to take ROMI back to Williams/BVH during the 180 days following her release from Five Corners [WA Vet Board Exhibit #5] AND PAY $376.30 on the spot BEFORE they would treat ROMI.
 
As part of our customary emergency procedure, we faxed Burien Veterinary Hospital a Case Summary describing presenting complaint, history and emergency medical treatment.  A copy of this Case Summary was provided to Ms. Sanchez.
 
RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted as WA Vet Board Part #9 Add-On and Exhibit #114]: it is true that the Hammond/Five Corners group faxed Williams/BVH documents on 4/25/04, then again on 5/04/04 [WA Vet Board Exhibit #3] and then apparently yet AGAIN on 5/19/04 at 12:00 p.m. according to their own records [now being submitted as WA Vet Board Exhibit #114 to Part #9 Add-On] BEFORE 5/19/04 Baty's written down alleged attempts to 'call me' on a phone line that is and WAS known to them to be a dedicated Internet connection ONLY to get my "PERMISSION" to provide any more records.
 
RECORDS [and statement/response now being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On and Exhibit #114]: From the 5/29/04 packet of records produced for me to pick up that date per the telephone conversation with Baty/Five Corners in response to the Baty/Five Corners letter dated 5/22/04, postmarked 5/24/04 with THEIR postage meter requesting that I contact them because "We will need your approval to send this information" to Williams/BVH, [WA Vet Board Exhibit #13] , according to page 6 [now written on], "those" records HAD ALREADY BEEN SENT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION to Williams/BVH on 5/19/04 [now WA Vet Board Exhibit #114 to Part #9 of Add-On], allegedly WITHOUT ANY CONVERSATIONS OR OTHER CONTACT OF ANY KIND WITH WILLIAMS/BVH, WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE, WITHOUT Baty/Five Corners EVEN INFORMING ME during our phone conversation of 5/24/04 that THEY HAD ALREADY SENT THEM and I did not know what they had ALREADY DONE and Baty was then ASKING "PERMISSION" AFTER THE FACT, which I did NOT GRANT and in fact adamently told Baty that absolutely NO records or information was to be given to ANYONE EXCEPT a properly documented official investigatorn or officer working in their official capacity on behalf of the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors until or unless I provided them with written permission beforehand. [WA Vet Board Exhibit #14]. 
3.    Any and all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer.
There was no contact between Dr. Hammond and Pfizer.  While Ms. Sanchez shared that Romy was on Rimadyl for arthritis, she further advised that she stopped treating Romy with the Rimadyl and that, it was her opinion that Romy seemed to improve.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: Hammond/Five Corners and the "clip board lady" were INFORMED that ROMI had her first RIMADYL tablet given to her BY Williams/BVH on 4/13/04; that the instructions on the Williams/BVH container of 1 tablet, 2 times a day were followed until the afternoon of 4/20/04; that ROMI began having reaction symptoms on 4/20/04 and that DESPITE DVM Williams INSISTANCE that I KEEP giving ROMI the RIMADYL, I had discontinued it on the evening of 4/20/04.  I TOLD them ROMI had seemed "minimally" better on 4/21 and 4/22 after the RIMADYL was discontinued [just as I had told DVM Williams that same thing on 4/22/04], would drink a little water from a cup and eat a few bites of meat from a spoon, but that then she started getting worse again and then MUCH WORSE and that by 4/24/04 she obviously needed emergency treatment.  The entire outline of all of this information would have already been provided to the Hammond/Five Corners group by the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors, LONG before this "rebuttal" letter was concocted.
 
As Hammond/Five Corners has now apparently ADMITTED that they did NOT EVER make ANY attempt to contact PFIZER, the manufacturer of RIMADYL that ROMI was having a massive toxic reaction to, this information will be forwarded to the Washington State Vet Board [as Part #9 Add-On] to be included as part of their review of the determination of the standard of veterinarian care falling somewhere between the range of gross incompetence/negilgence to veterinarian malpractice of Hammond/Meyer/Five Corners for not having made any effort to learn FIRST-HAND and/or verify/comfirm from Pfizer's experts the known potential risks/side effects that RIMADYL can and does produce which INCLUDE the 'neurological problems' [in their records], hypothermia [in their records], seizures, lack of appetite [in their records], water refusal, listlessness [in their records], elevated liver enzymes [as shown on their lab work], the 'nystagmus' [abnormal eye movements [listed in their records], the inability to walk [in their records], the dizziness [in their records], the disorientation [listed in their records] the bladder problems [in their records], which DVMs Hammond and Meyer blithly and incorrectly insisted were due to "a possible brain tumor", despite my having repeatedly told them it was a massive toxic RIMADYL reaction, and their collective incorrect diagnosis was eventually 'debunked' by the necropsy report after it was TOO LATE [WA Vet Exhibit #4].  According to Pfizer's own information on Rimadyl [WA Vet Exhibits #24, #31, #32, #33, #35, #36. #38, #40, #41] those dogs who do experience what the FDA/CVM refers to as an "ADE" or adverse drug reaction to Rimadyl usually recover with proper treatment.
 
4.    An itemized billing of the $1,100.00 necropsy charges.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital charged Ms. Sanchez $990.00 for the necropsy.  The actual invoice was $1,100.00 less a senior discount of $110.00.  Ms. Sanchez has advised that she was originally advised that she was originally advised by Dr. Meyer that the charge for this service would be around $500.00 but would need to contact the laboratory to determine the exact price. 
 
RESPONSE: the above is true.
 
The following morning our office contacted the laboratory to determine the exact price and was advised of the specific necropsy fee. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: There WAS "NO FOLLOWING MORNING" UNLESS Hammond/Five Corners is NOW stating that on Monday, 4/26/04, they contacted the lab and found out what the LAB was going to CHARGE THEM.  I have not been 'privy' to that information but it SHOULD HAVE BEEN ITEMIZED on the necropsy bill that's been repeatedly requested/demanded, but never produced, when it was learned and NOTHING was 'itemized' other than the charge of $1100.00 less the 10% senior discount of $110.00, and the $990.00 balance PAID IN FULL THAT SAME DAY, 4/25/04 at 8:07 a.m. per the Master Card records receipt information previously provided here.
 
Our office contacted Ms. Sanchez and advised her of the $1,100.00 fee and Ms. Sanchez authorized us to proceed. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted to the WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: The "clip board lady" 'contacted' me when I had stepped outside to compose myself just after ROMI was put to sleep on 4/25/04 around 8:00 a.m., and it was the 'clip board lady' who informed me that BEFORE she would make the call to the laboratory and officially arrange for the necropsy, I was to pay the full amount of the $1100 on the spot, which I did, [less the 10% senior discount which was THEN applied], via Master Card records receipt authorizing payment 4/25/04 at 8:07 a.m.
 
Please note that this is not a service that Five Corners Veterinary Hospital commonly provides,
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  It's truly incredible that the Hammond/Five Corners group represents its self as an EMERGENCY FACILITY that's open and staffed 24/7 and yet NOW claims that it has NOT had sufficient experience with animals that are dying and/or that later die and/or owners who request necropsies to be able to handle this in an appropriate manner apparently, but it is still no excuse to refuse to provide itemized charges.
 
therefore, we had to contact the laboratory directly for an actual quote.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: I have no way of knowing what the Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory group INITIALLY charged or were GOING to charge for the necropsy and report of same to be done.  When I asked the 'clipboard lady' why "I" was going to be charged $1100 for the estimated $500 COST, the 'clip board lady's response was that the $500 was 'about right' for the necropsy and report and the additional amount ($600 charge) was necessary to cover the costs of a special laboratory transport/pick up (if it could be arranged because it was a Sunday), adequately refrigerating ROMI until her body was picked up by the lab and that since Five Corners did NOT have a sufficiently large enough refrigeration unit to accomodate ROMI's body, it was going to 'require a whole lot of ice'.
 
When I had NOT gotten ANY satisfaction regarding ANY records or ANY information, including the itemized necropsy billing, being provided by Hammond/Five Corners per my fax demand letter sent to Hammond/Five Corners on 5/24/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #12], I faxed a copy of that letter along with a cover letter to Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab on 5/19/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #17] stating that I would be calling Phoenix Central Lab on 6/01/04 and for DVM Murnane to either be available to speak to me or to instruct his office personnel to provide me with an contact e-mail address for him and for them to not hang up the phone on me again as they had previously done.
 
On 6/01/04, I called the toll free number for Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab [which had been provided on the necropsy report as part of their letterhead] and spoke to a woman who identified herself as "Linda Jewett" and she further stated that she was the "marketing person" and "in charge of everything" at Phoenix Central Lab, that she was the person who had received my fax letter and that she was the ONLY person that I could talk to.  "Linda Jewett" and I spent approximately two HOURS on that phone call, the details of which are outlined in the Washington Vet Board, Part #3, dated 6/10/04 which ADDS the Hammond/Five Corners group to the complaint [WA Vet Board Exhibit #49], which Hammond/Five Corners would have received a copy of from the WA Vet Board.  Amongst many other areas of discussion in the phone conversation with "Linda Jewett", [such as her refusal to provide me with an e-mail contact address for DVM Murnane, her refusal to allow me to speak to Dr. Murnane, etc.], "Linda Jewett" stated that she was "SHOCKED" that I had been charged $1100 (less 10% senior citizen discount) for the necropsy but she did NOT and WOULD not provide any information as to WHAT their usual rates were OR what the Hammond/Five Corners group had been charges and/or paid by Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab because she stated that the Phoenix Central Lab ONLY did work FOR veterinarians and NOT for pet owners.
 
There has STILL NOT BEEN ANY ITEMIZED NECROPSY BILL or STATEMENT PROVIDED TO ME by the Hammond/Five Corners group.  I STILL have NO information on ANY 'breakdown' OTHER than the 10% senior citizen discount.  There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors or as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that 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.  
 
5.    All of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties.
We have provided Ms. Sanchez all copies of medical and laboratory records.  This included the names of all the drugs used in Romy's treatment.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: It is true that to the best of MY knowledge the Hammond/Five Corners group has provided copies of all medical records, all laboratory records, the names of the drugs used in ROMI's treatment, but they have STILL NOT provided any comprehensive x-ray reports.  I was charged for and paid for on 4/24/04 as part of the first payment in the amount of $375.30 items "first two views x-rays" - $135.00; "Radiological consultation" - $35.00 and what I have to 'SHOW' for it is a copy of a 2-page form faxed multiple times to Williams/BVH that states ONLY: "Radiographs: VD/lateral chest radiographs show mildly enlarged heart silhouette, slightly increased bronchial pattern (consistent with age) [WA Vet Board Exhibit #3].
6.    The current status of all of my dog's bits and pieces as previously demanded.
Ms. Sanchez would need to work directly with Phoenix Central Laboratory regarding this request.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: This is a totally inappropriate and absurd response, an OBSCENE situation that's been CREATED botween Hammond/Five Corners and Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab where my dog's "bits and pieces/frozen carcass" continue to be HELD HOSTAGE and can only be viewed now as intentional stonewalling for the purpose(s) of covering up the EVIDENCE of the RIMADYL reaction, and a refusal of the Hammond/Five Corners group to accept any responsibility for WHATEVER arrangements and/or agreements between the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group existed at the time the Hammond/Five Corners CONTRACTED with the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group OR possibly whatever has developed since my continuing to pursue the matter.  As previously outlined above, Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory group will NOT work with me because they did not have any sort of CONTRACT or AGREEMENT with ME.  They DID have a contract/agreement with the Hammond/Five Corners group regarding my dead dog and "Linda Jewett", in addition to refusing to provide me with any e-mail address contact for DVM Murname, or to allow me to speak to him, or allow me to arrange for a time when he would be available to speak to me, additionally informed me that they NEVER deal directly with pet owners, but ONLY work WITH and/or FOR VETERINARIANS.  This information IS and WAS within the total control of Hammond/Five Corners, unless of course there's been a 'falling out' between/amongst the two parties, and/or other subsequent 'arrangements' and or 'deals' between/amongst them, and it WAS and STILL IS the duty and obligation of the Hammond/Five Corners group to provide me with this information and it is totally inexcuseable to continue to avoid responsibility just because the Hammond/Baty/Five Corners group stated that "they did not want to be in the middle of this", and "were opting out".
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors or as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that 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.   
7.    A full refund of monies paid to Five Corners.
Ms. Sanchez was presented an initial estimate for medical treatment for Romy, which she approved with her signature.  Subsequent medical treatment and associated costs was discussed with the owner who approved over the telephone by authorizing payment on her credit card.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  It is true that during the entire time that I was at Five Corners, I was continuously being handed estimates of anticipated treatment charge printouts by "the clipboard lady".  It is also true that every set of charges that was presented to me was paid in full by me.  The issue here is not whether anticipated charges were presented and the issue here is not whether those charges were paid; the issue that is STILL HERE is the ongoing failure/refusal of the Hammond/Five Corners group to have kept to their OWN original ESTIMATED charges for services for the initial emergency treatment [WA Vet Board Exhibit #5] which stated:  "Initial Emergency Treatment Authorization, initial emergency stabilization costs may range from $200-#350.  This may include initial critical tests and treatments (IV catheters, IV fluids, pain medications/other medications, initial bloodwork and radiographs): YES, I authorize these initial expenses for further care [Sanchez initials]; Medical Consent, cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR): YES, I authorize CPR for my pet (additional estimated cost of $100-$200) [Sanchez initials]
 
AND to provide an ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN of the necropsy charge of $1100.00 (irrespective of the 10% senior discount).  It would appear from the "rebuttal statement" that the Hammond/Five Corners' failure/refusal to have stuck with their original estimated charges, not withstanding the continuous activities of the "clipboard lady", AND to provide an itemized breakdown of the necropsy charge is due to their apparent inability to JUSTIFY those charges and as long as they do NOT have to JUSTIFY those charges, it is apparently their belief and/or position that they can continue to KEEP monies they are or may NOT be ENTITLED to.
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that 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.   
 
8.    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.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital does not provide replacement animals. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  As it is beginning to appear more and more apparent. with additional information being provided to WA Vet Board and from Pfizer, the manufacturer of the drug RIMADYL, that my dog had an massive adverse reaction to the RIMADYL, there are very serious issues here regarding the Hammond/Five Corners group with respect to their failure/refusal to get the proper and necessary information to be able to properly treat my dog's condition,WHEN THEY WERE NOT ONLY PROVIDED WITH THE CORRECT DIAGNOSIS BY ME, BUT WERE ALSO GIVEN THE INTERNET WEBSITE [www.srdogs.com] INFORMATION to be able to CONTACT PFIZER at the toll free phone number PFIZER has for just that purpose.  Responsible/competent veterinarians have a DUTY to make a CORRECT diagnosis so that they CAN provide appropriate and adequate treatment, PARTICULARLY when they are GIVEN ALL of the CORRECT information to BEGIN WITH. Having failed miserably to correctly diagnose to be able to provide appropriate treatment, they are now being given the opportunity to mitigate the damages that ensued via a 'replacement animal of like quality/training', and while they certainly can not be forced to do so, continuing to refuse to accept any responsibility for their failures merely shows the 'ethics challenges' involved in the situation.
 
In reference explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory, this information would need to be provided by Phoenix.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: The Hammond/Five Corners group has been asked to provide information of what THEY KNEW about Phoenix Central Laboratory ONLY and as such their response is not responsive but merely EVASIVE and stonewalling.
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that 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.   
9.    Why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer of[or] IF they did, when they did and for what purpose.
According to Dr. Hammond, there was no request to contact Pfizer nor was there evidence of any medical connection between Romy's symptoms presented to Five Corners being related to Rimadyl administration.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  Dr. Hammond/Five Corners group WAS TOLD [NOT requested] to contact Pfizer; was TOLD Pfizer had a 1/800 number specifically for veterinarians to use for verifying the symptoms of RIMADYL toxicity and for getting the necessary treatment information in order to give sufficient appropriate medical care for a dog's survival.  Even IF I HAD NOT provided that information to Hammond and the "clip board lady" [which I DID PROVIDE], COMMON SENSE would dictate that such information SHOULD BE OBTAINED from Pfizer in order for the Hammond/Five Corners to verify the symptoms, make a CORRECT diagnosis and from there to be able to provide the appropriate treatment and to be AWARE of what they were dealing with as to ROMI's condition.  THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT DONE.  Although I DID SO, it is NOT the pet owners "responsibility" to PROVIDE the CORRECT diagnosis AND to provide the information on how the Hammond/Five Corners group could VERIFY the symptoms and GET the proper treatment information.  An ETHICAL veterinarian would accept responsibility for having totally 'missed the boat' on an incorrect diagnosis, PARTICULARLY when they WERE GIVEN all of the information from the beginning and were continuously given that information, as they WERE and as reflected in THEIR OWN RECORDS.
10.    Upon what basis Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the credentials of said laboratory.
At the request of Ms. Sanchez, Dr. Meyer of Five Corners Veterinary Hospital arranged for a necropsy
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  It is true that I asked Dr. Meyer to arrange for a necropsy.
 
to be completed by Phoenix Central Laboratory. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE  [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: It is NOT true that "I" asked for Phoenix Central Laboratory or any SPECIFIC laboratory by NAME.  I had NO INFORMATION about ANY laboratories and it was the CHOICE MADE by the Hammond/Five Corners.
 
Phoenix Central Laboratory can provide their credentials.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vwt Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  While it is true that Phoenix Central Laboratory can provide their own credentials, that is NOT the ISSUE here.  The issue is that the Hammond/Five Corners group CHOSE Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory to provide the necropsy and report of the necropsy, and the QUESTION(s) at issue are:
UPON WHAT BASIS WAS THAT CHOICE MADE by the Hammond/Five Corners group? 
 
WHAT INFORMATION about Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab did the Hammond/Five Corners group HAVE as to the "qualifications" and/or "credentials" of Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab when THEY made that decision? 
 
And FURTHER, WHAT was the AGREEMENT reached between the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group to perform a necropsy and provide a necropsy report and the CHARGES between THEM as well as what agreement/arragement was made between them for my dog's body AFTER the necropsy was completed ?
 
WHAT was the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group PAID BY the Hammond/Five Corners group to perform a necropsy and provide a necropsy report?
 
WHAT steps, in what order and at what time(s) were the alleged REFRIGERATION activities done/performed BY the Hammond/Five Corners group?
 
WHAT 'instructions' [or LACK of same] were given BY the Hammond/Five Corners group with respect to the 'bits and pieces/frozen carcass' of my dog's body for AFTER the necropsy had been completed?
 
WHEN the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group REFUSED to give me any information what-so-ever, EXACTLY WHAT alleged instructions/information was given to the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group BY the Hammond/Five Corners group?
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that 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.   
11.    Whether Ms. Jewett is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory.
This should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  In the Hammond/Five Corners group's response to the Sanchez complaint, dated 9/08/04, on page 2, second from the last paragraph, last sentence of same, signed by DVM Hammond, the statement is made by Hammond: ". . . Ms. Sanchez was provided with contact information for Ms. Linda Jewett at Phoenix Labs regarding "Romy's" necropsy and the release of the remains". 
 
I was NEVER given the name of "Linda Jewett" until I called the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab on 6/01/04 aat their toll free phone number [which I obtained from the necropsy report letterhead which does NOT list "Linda Jewett"] and spoke to a woman who identified herself as "Linda Jewett", who claimed that she was "the marketing person, in charge of everything" and had stated that she had received my faxed demand that included the faxed demand letter sent to the Hammond/Five Corners group on 5/25/04 and that it was "her territory and/or area of responsibility".
 
GIVEN the statement above made by Hammond/Five Corners, what alleged knowledge of "Linda Jewett" did the Hammond/Five Corners group have?
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that 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. 
12.    What authority Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington.
Again, this question should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vwt Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  GIVEN that the Hammond/Five Corners group CHOSE to contract the services of the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group to perform the necropsy and provide the necropsy report, and GIVEN that the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group claims, per "Linda Jewett", that they do all business exclusively with veterinarians and not pet owners, the question/issue here is: 
WHAT information, if any, did the Hammond/Five Corners group have as to whether the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab is authorized to do business in the State of Washington?
 
WHAT information, if any, did the Hammond/Five Corners group have as to the "credentials" of the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab to DO necropsies?
And ONCE AGAIN, there is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that 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. 
As listed above, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with copies of all medical records, laboratory reports, necropsy report from Phoenix Central Laboratory and all invoices related to this case.  Additionally, we have advised Ms. Sanchez that she should contact Phoenix Central Laboratory directly regarding obtaining access to Romy and any questions regarding the services they provided.
 
    SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: Rather than to literally continue to "beat a dead dog to death", the above self-serving paragraph has been responded to specifically in each of the previous sections. 
 
    SANCHEZ RESPONSE: OTHER 'issues' not contained in the Hammond/Five Corners "rebuttal" here, but were contained in the Hammond/Five Corners group response to the complaint dated 9/08/04 [WA Vet Board Exhibit #78] are addressed below:
 
1.    "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."
SANCHEZ RESPONSE(s)
 
A.  Per WA Vet Board Exhibit #3 from Hammond/Five Corners group: "Presenting Complaint: not eating/drinking, won't get out of her crate."
 
B.  Per WA Vet Board Exhibit #113 from Hammond/Five Corners group: "4/24/04, 2:50 p.m. On 4/03 went to BVH.  They put dog on Rimadyl for arthritis. 0 (client) says after a couple days dog stopped eating and was lethargic.  0(client) took dog off of Rimadyl, seemed to improve.  In last 36 hours, per 0(client) dog won't eat/drink 0(client) doesn't think dog can stand, won't leave crate. (R) eye red & w/discharge."
 
C.  Per WA Vwt Board Exhibit #5 from Hammond/Five Corners group records, hand written by Sanchez on 4/24/04:  "Reason for visit: RIMADYL REACTION"
 
 2.  "She had severe neurologic symptoms, was hypothermic, had conjunctivitis, and a urinary tract infection.  Routine blood chemistries showed that she had elevated liver enzymes."
SANCHEZ RESPONSE(s)
 
A.    WA Vet Board Exhibit #3: from Hammond/Five Corners group records: "Assessment:  Open diagnosis. Neurologic disease (rule out neoplasic, vestibular syndrome), hepatophy (age related?) medication related?), conjunctivitis.  Other: Gave owner guarded prognosis.  Advised owner that even if the heptopathy responds to supportive care there is still a neurologic process going on which may or may not be treatable.  Advised owner that it is highly unlikely that this condition is solely because of the Rimadyl therapy.  Admitted for supportive care.  Advised owner if there is no improvement (especially neurologically) within 24 hours that either a neurology consult or euthanasia will need to be considered."
 
B.  WA Vet Board Exhibit #4 from Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab preliminary necropsy report: "The cause of death was euthanasia.  Grossly there was no obvious described CNS [central nervous system] signs."
 
C.  WA Vet Board Exhibit #24, from Pfizer:  "RIMADYL, like other drugs, may cause some side effects.  Serious but rare side effects have been reported in dogs taking NSAIDS, including RIMADYL.  Serious side effects can occur with or without warning and in rare situations result in death."
 
D.  WA Vet Board Exhibit #___, from Pfizer:  Rimadyl, like other drugs of its class, is not free from adverse reactions. Owners should be advised of the potential for adverse reactions and be informed of the clinical signs associated with drug intolerance. Adverse reactions may include decreased appetite, vomiting, diarrhea, dark or tarry stools, increased water consumption, increased urination, pale gums due to anemia, yellowing of gums, skin or white of the eye due to jaundice, lethargy, incoordination, seizure, or behavioral changes. . . . For more information about Rimadyl, call 800-720-DOGS (3647) or consult your veterinarian.  To report a suspected adverse reaction, call Pfizer Animal Health at 1-800-366-5288. . . . Signs of Rimadyl intolerance may include appetite loss, vomiting and diarrhea, which could indicate rare but serious side effects involving the digestive tract, liver or kidneys. If these signs occur, discontinue Rimadyl therapy and contact your veterinarian.
3.    "Ms. Sanchez was given a summary of initial exam findings and was offered a referral to a board certified veterinary neurologist, which she declined. 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE(s)
 
A.    WA Vet Exhibit #3 from Hammond/Five Corners records: "Other: . . . Advised owner that if there is no improvement (especially neurological) within 24 hours that either a neurology consult or euthanasia will need to be considered." [NOTE: The Hammond/Five Corners group in their BBB response to the Sanchez complaint, dated 9/08/04 [WA Vet Board Exhibit #78] makes the statement "Ms. Sanchez . . . was offered referral to a board certified veterinary neurologist, which she declined."will need to be considered . . . within 24 hours" is NOT the same as "offered referral" and is yet another prime example of self-serving and contradictory statements made by the Hammond/Five Corners group.  ROMI was not given 24 hours; ROMI was admitted 4/24/04 just before 4:00 p.m. and euthanized approximately 16 hours later, on 4/25/04 before 8:00 a.m. and ON THE BASIS CLAIMED BY DVM MEYER that the CORRECT DIAGNOSIS was most likely "A BRAIN TUMOR" or other very severe "neurological problem". NOTE: this report was faxed to Williams/BVH on 4/25/04, then again on 5/04/04 [WA Vet Board Exhibit #3] and then apparently yet AGAIN on 5/19/04 at 12:00 p.m. according to their own records [now being submitted as WA Vet Board Part #9 Add-On].  The very FIRST time I saw this referred to record was on 5/08/04 where it had been included in the records packet I had requested and picked up on that date.
4.    "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.  Despite assurances by myself and later by Dr. Rachel Meyer, that Rimadyl toxicity does not cause neurologic signs, Ms. Sanchez was unwilling to hear our professional opinions."
SANCHEZ RESPONSE(s) [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:   
A.  From their own letter to the BBB dated 9/08/04 the Hammond/Five Corners group now ADMITS that I repeatedly TOLD them that ROMI's condition was caused by RIMADYL toxicity. From that same letter the Hammond/Five Corners group now ADMITS they kept ON DENYING that RIMADYL can cause neurologic signs.
 
B.  [WA Vet Board Exhibit #86]: On 9/14/04 I received an e-mail from Pfizer's Dr. Tina Wahlstrom which stated: ". . . 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." GIVEN that Williams/BVH never SAW much less examined ROMI after the one visit to him on 4/13/04 in which he prescribed/dispensed the RIMADYL and that he continued to DENY that RIMADYL was involved with and/or related to her symptoms [WA Vet Board Exhibits #1 and #2] on 4/20/04 and again on 4/22/04, HOW would Williams/BVH then be ABLE to have any FIRST HAND information to FILE an ADE RIMADYL report with Pfizer on 7/12/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #86] BUT from the MANY fax copies of ROMI's records provided to Williams/BVH sent FROM the Hammond/Five Corners group WHILE the Hammond/Five Corners group CONTINUES to DENY a RIMADYL reaction to this very date?  While this entire scenario definitely flies in the face of REASON, it does show a complete and total REFUSAL of the Hammond/Five Corners group to LISTEN to anything from ANYONE [not from me, not from Pfizer, not from the FDA/CVM, not from Williams/BVH] or to accept any sort of responsibility for the role they played in my dog's unnecessary, needless, horrific death and the apparent current status of all of her 'bits and pieces/frozen carcass' have been HELD HOSTAGE this past 6 MONTHS.
 
C.  [WA Vwt Board Exhibit #80]:  "Carprofen [RIMADYL] FDA/CVM Adverse Drug Reactions . . . neurological disorder, vestibular disorder, CNS disorder, nystagmus [abnormal eye movements, both rotary and lateral], eye disorder, eye puritis [infection], conjunctivitis, eye discharge, hyperthermia, anorexia [not eating], nausea, ataxia [lack of coordination], staggering, depression/lethargy [listlessness], confusion, liver enzymes high, anemia, platelets low, convulsions, WBC high, BUN high, bilirubin high, creatinine high, abnormal urine color, abnormal urine odor, polyuria, urinary incontinence, cystitis, urine casts, body fever, grinding of teeth, liver disorder, kidney failure, kidney lesions, weakness, trembling, vomiting, G.I. ulcers, G.I. perforation, gastroenteritis, colitis, pancreatitis, pancreas lesions, bile acids high, liver lesions, collapse, palor of mucus membranes, heart disorder, heart lesions. . .".
Sincerely,
 
[signed]
Melanie W. Caviness, D.V.M.
Medical Director
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
    and
[signed]
Margaret K. Baty
Operations Manager
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
Provided to the Better Business Bureau via e-mail at: deborah@thebbb.org and dupont.bbb@hurdmanivr.com as the website apparently could not accept/handle it for entering into the box provided, most likely due to its length as well as other technical difficulties such as the spacing, underlining, 'red' writing, etc., on 11/01/04.
 
Ginger Sanchez
 
========================================================
 
11/03/04
 
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, VETERINARY BOARD OF GOVERNORS
 
SECOND DOCUMENT LISTING - Provided by Ginger Sanchez
 
RE: Case #2004-04-0008 VT
 Lawrence Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital
 Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab
 
76. Better Business Bureau complaint filed against Hammond/Five Corners by      Sanchez on 8/26/04 online
 
77. Better Business Bureau cover letter dated 9/22/04, postmarked 9/24/04
 
78. Hammond/Five Corners response to Sanchez complaint, dated 9/08/04, stamped  ‘received’ by Better Business Bureau 9/13/04
 
79. Sanchez e-mail letter response to Hammond/Five Corners, sent to BBB 9/25/04
 
80. “ADVERSE DRUG EXPERIENCES FDA/CVM 1997 CVM Annual” Summary [from  http://www.Fda.gov/CVM/index/ade/ann97.pdf] - pages 1,2,3, “Carprofen- Dogs” pages 8,9,10 and 11 - provides listing of known RIMADYL symptoms
 
81. AVMA “Minimizing the risk factors associated with veterinary NSAIDs”,  4/15/04 at amva.org/onlnews/javma/apr04/040415g.asp
 
82 FDA Veterinarian: “Adverse Drug Experience Reports Lead to Label Changes,  Other Actions for Safer Animal Drugs“, issue March/April 2004
 
83. “Veterinarians Prescribing Rimadyl: Don’t Know v. Don’t Tell” from  valleypetnews.com/pet_health_news_vi.htm
 
84. “Pfizer Repackages ‘RIMADYL’ Arthritis Drug to Educate Dog Owners of Risks”  from ValleyPetNews, 4/13/04 at valleypetnews.com/pet_health_news_iv.htm
 
85. AMVA “Emerging Issues Regarding Informed Consent”, 01/15/04 from  www.amva.org/onlnews/javma/jan04/040115f.asp
 
86. E-mail from PFIZER, Dr. Tina Wahlstrom dated 9/14/04 stating Williams/BVH  filed ADE report with Pfizer on 7/12/04
 
87. E-mail from Pfizer, “Hank McKinnell” dated 9/11/04 in response to Sanchez  inquiry re any ADE filing sent on 9/10/04
88. E-mails/responses with Pfizer/Sanchez: “undeliverable” notices
 
89. E-mails/responses with Pfizer/Sanchez: “undeliverable“ notices
 
90. E-mails/responses with Pfizer/Sanchez: “undeliverable“ notices
 
91. E-mails/responses with Pfizer/Sanchez: “undeliverable“ notices
 
92. Letter from Pfizer (in response to Sanchez phone call) dated 9/21/04,  postmarked 9/20/04, received by Sanchez on 9/24/04 from Dr. Wahlstrom  advising that Williams/BVH ADE report information only available by subpoena
 
93. MEMO: informational websites for reference on (1) Pfizer and (2) FDA’s  Compliance Policy Guide
 
94. “Pfizer Reaches Agreement To Settle Rezulin Lawsuit in Illinois”, 7/02/04 at  www.aolsvc.com/business/article.adp?id=20040702141709990004
 
95. “FDA lawyer collaborated with drug firms[Pfizer}-lawmaker”, 7/13/04, at  aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040713212309990003
 
96. “FDA is Placing Corporations Above Public”, printed 9/26/04, from  www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/fda.shtml
 
97. “Major FDA Warning?”, printed 6/15/04, from  www,thomasjmoore.com/pages/drug_fda.html
 
98. “Pfizer Lawsuits”, printed 9/26/04 from www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/26a.html
 
99. E-mail print out of FDA/CVM response to RIMADYL packaging/dispensing inquiry  stating that Williams/BVH method of “. . . informed consent and dispensing [as  described] is not what either FDA or the company [Pfizer] endorses in the  labeling.”, dated 4/29/04.
 
100. Letter re: Pfizer expert, dated 8/26/04 from internet (site not printed)
 
101. Pfizer Lawsuit re: RIMADYL settled, press release, printed 9/26/04 from  http://hometown.aol.com/sn1154/RIM2.html/
 
102. “Vets May Not Warn You About Potentially Deadly Pet Drugs”, printed 9/26/04  from www.kpho.com/Global/story.asp?S=2343141&nav=DIH7RGXh
 
103. “Pfizer Inc in the McSpotlight”, printed 9/26/04 from  www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/pfizer.html
 
104. Envelope Packet containing Sanchez doghealth2 ADE Survey Responses done  between 8/12/04 and 8/24/04
 
105. “CVM Update [re: RIMADYL/ADE reports]”, dated 12/04/99, printed 6/03/04  from www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/rimadyl2.hyml
 
106.
and
107. Add-On #7 of Sanchez sent to WA Vet Board 10/17/04 providing Exhibits  #106 and #107 to Vet Board complaint
 
108. E-Mail between Sanchez/Mecca of WA Pharmacy board [copied to WA Vet  Board] re: inquiry re rules/laws etc. regarding veterinarian  prescribing/dispensing of RIMADYL
 
109. E-Mail Sanchez to WA Vet Board & Dr. Mecca/WA Pharmacy Board of  10/22/04 with WA Vet Board Exhibit #109 e-Mail of MLarkins/FDA/CVM  response of 10/18/04 to Sanchez inquiry regarding rules/laws covering  RIMADYL dispensing of 7/20/04
 
110. BBB cover letter to Sanchez dated 10/27/04 re: Hammond/Five Corners
 
111. BBB copy provided to Sanchez of Hammond/Five Corners cover letter dated  10/20/04
 
112. BBB copy provided to Sanchez of Hammond/Five Corners’ response to Sanchez  rebuttal dated 10/11/04, stamped 10/20/04
 
113. Hammond/Five Corners “Progress Notes” with BLANK page 6, provided to  Sanchez 5/08/04
 
114. Hammond/Five Corners “Progress Notes” with completed page 6, provided to  Sanchez on 5/29/04 in response to Sanchez demand fax letter
 
115. HAMMOND/FIVE CORNERS WA Health Professions CREDENTIAL LOOK UP
 License Current 4/27/04-6/03/05
 
116. MEYER/FIVE CORNERS - WA Health Professions CREDENTIAL LOOK UP
 License POSSIBLY NOT CURRENT was 4/25/03, last renewal date 2/13/04  says EXPIRATION DATE: N/A ???
 
117. MURNANE/PHOENIX CENTRAL LAB - WA Health Professions CREDENTIAL  LOOK UP -”ACTION TAKEN”
 
ALL OF THE ABOVE-LISTED DOCUMENTS, #76 THROUGH #117, WERE PROVIDED AND/OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR COPYING TO INVESTIGATOR LEE ZAVALA FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, VETERINARY BOARD OF GOVERNORS BY  GINGER SANCHEZ as the SECOND DOCUMENT LISTING - Provided by Ginger Sanchez
 
RE: Case #2004-04-0008 VT
 Lawrence Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital
 Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab
 
On this ______ day of _____________, 2004
 

________________________________   ____________________
Lee Zavala, Investigator                    Ginger Sanchez
 
END OF E-MAIL TO STATE OF WASHINGTON,
VETERINARY BOARD OF GOVERNORS
sent 11/03/04
 
you may click here to continue to page 2 of the filed WA Vet Board complaint: http://rimadyldeath.com/WAVetBoard2.html
 

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.

This Website Built and Hosted for Free at
Bravenet.com