On 3/15/04 Rajah, age 7, was diagnosed as having bladder stones after her guardians notice blood in her urine.  On that same day she was given the DA2LPCPV vaccination (a combo vaccination for distemper, adenovirus type 2, parainfluenza, parvo etc.).  Rajah also received an xray and was given amoxicillan 100 mg tabs (an antibiotic)

An invoice dated 4/1/04 states Rajah was given a pre-surgical exam and screen, a heartworm lyme snap test and cehalexin 250 mg capsules.  A Cystotomy was scheduled be performed that day to remove the stones.  Rajah was prepped and given anesthesia but the procedure was cancelled because her red blood count was low (18).  When Rajah was picked up later that day, she had bruising on her belly (petechiae) which was explained as blood cells acting as a bandage effect.  The guardian was told to watch her gums for changes in color, told not to give Rajah any food that night and only a little water

On 4/2/04 Rajah was rushed to Met Vet because she had collapsed, her platelets were now 9.  Rajah's guardian retrieved the medical records from West Liberty Animal Hospital for Met Vet to review - the records stated Rajah's platelets were 18 when released the day before and that her chart read thrombocytopenia due to vaccination. (Thrombocytopenia refers to an abnormally low-blood concentration of platelets, which are blood cells that promote blood).

Rajah received 3 blood transfusions, was hospitalized off and on and many medications for the next 4 months but died on 7/5/04.

The post surgical discharge instructions from Dr. Dorn showed that Rajah was given Cephalexin 250mg capsules to be given 2x daily for 14 days.  She had been given sevoflurane, penicillin/glycopyrolate as part of the anesthesia.  No food to be given that evening but small amounts of water may be offered every few hours starting around 8pm that evening.

Met Vet blood work results done the day after the cancelled surgery showed platelets (PLT) of 18, a normal low is 120.

Rajah should not have been released to her guardian - if anything the guardians should have been advised to take Rajah to an emergency facility.

On 4/7/04 Rajah's guardians filed a complaint with the State Veterinarian's office regarding Dr. Dorn (File # 04-57-03785).  Upon review, no action was taken against Dr. Dorn because the review found insufficient evidence of a violation of the applicable licensing law.  The review further states that Dr. Dorn did not deviate from the standards of acceptable and prevailing veterinary medical practice.  It went onto say that the information would be entered into an informational database so that it can be used to determine if there is a pattern of problems with the physician.  The date of the results of the review was 9/15/06 (2 years, 5months and 8 days later).

On 7/14/04 a civil complaint was filed with the Allegheny County, Docket # CV-0000230-04  The magistrate was Blaise P. Laratonda.  on 8/26/04 the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.  Rajah's guardians testified and did not bring with them any experts to dispute Dr. Dorn's testimony.

Rajah's guardians hired a lawyer on 11/30/05 to represent them.  On 1/13/06, the lawyer replied that she had spoken with Dr. Dorn's lawyer briefly and would send a written update to her clients.

On 4/3/06 the lawyer stated a Writ for summons would be filed the next afternoon...that this tolls the statute of limitations and allows for the filing of the complaint at a later date.  The lawyer also stated that Dr. Dorn's lawyer stated his client would initiate a slander and libel and possible defamation case against the guardians.  Their lawyers response was that this was a bully tactic, and they could call Dr. Dorn's bluff but that that was up to her client.

On 4/4/06 the lawyer spoke with the consult and stated he would not provide a certificate of merit for the case as it was unknown as to why Rajah's levels were so low and that Dr. Dorn could not have known that when he returned Rajah to her guardians (Comment:  the blood work from Dr. Dorn's office states platelets of 18 and the dog was under the doctors care 1 month prior to the anesthesia).  The lawyer went onto state that she could not file a complaint without the certificate of merit and based on the above info the consult could not write a favorable narrative for their case.  That if she did file the complaint it would be dismissed without the consults certificate.

Rajah's lawyer went onto state that she was extremely disappointed with not only her consultant but could not understand how malpractice was not seen.  Her argument being "if a doctor knows a dog is in very ill condition and they never mention that to an owner and just let them pick them up and carry on like nothing is wrong, and yet the dog is in near fatal condition, how is that not malpractice?  The lawyer went onto state that without the certificate (or written narrative) the system would not allow a court case.  "It bothers me as it just shows the system is protecting veterinarians and not the patients, the animals, who need to be protected".

On 4/18/06 the lawyer conferred with another consultant in an effort to continue getting the certificate of merit.  On 7/14/06 the lawyer stated she had a concern that Dr. Dorn's attorney would raise estoppel as the claim as raised before.  The lawyer had included deceit and bad business practices but since it all stems from Veterinary Malpractice it will be very hard to continue.  On 9/18/06 the lawyer stated that because of various personal, business and other court cases that she has not given this case its much do time. (Rajah's guardians are now trying to get the retainer money back from this lawyer, and for that reason, this lawyers name is not mentioned in this casefile until this legal matter is resolved) She further stated that Rajah's guardians should appeal the state veterinary boards decision. (This is not possible to do unless you can show new evidence in the case).

Rajah's guardians also consulted the Animal Law Committee on 9/28/06 but did not know at the time that Dr. Dorn's wife (Lisa Borelli) was a member of that committee - the result - no case against Dr. Dorn.

Case # GD-06-008966 filed on 4/13/06 was dismissed on 10/24/06 because the lawyer was unable to get another veterinarian to file a certificate of merit (required as the law is written for PA).

Dr. Dorn's notes of 3/15 and 4/1/04 on Rajah

Dr. Dorn's invoice on Rajah 3/15/04

Dr. Dorn's invoice on Rajah 4/1/04

Rajah's hematology report

Dr. Dorn's discharge of Rajah on 4/1/04

Magistrates letter dismissing case on 9/15/06

References:

Pennsylvania court records

Governor's office of General Counsel record

rajah2004.com