New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2014-0634
Registrant Reference Number: 1274223
Registrant Name (Full Legal Name no abbreviations): McLaughlin Gormley King Company
Address: 8810 Tenth Ave North
City: Minneapolis
Prov / State: MN
Country: USA
Postal Code: 55427-4319
Domestic Animal
Country: UNITED STATES
Prov / State: SOUTH CAROLINA
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. 1021-1698-3487
Product Name: Eagles 7 Spray Kill
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. Unknown
Product Name: Raid Bomb
Liquid
Yes
Unknown
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
Animal's Owner
Dog / Chien
Jack Russell Terrier
1
Female
1.50
5.00
lbs
Unknown
<=15 min / <=15 min
>3 days <=1 wk / >3 jours <=1 sem
System
Persisted until death
No
No
Unknown
Died
Other / Autre
specify Defined point of exposure not evident or witnessed. Exposure based on speculation.
(eg. description of the frequency and severity of the symptoms
10/30/2013 Caller states the product was used in her home on 10/21/13 and her dog was kept out of the area and in a different room for 3 days. The caller states she did not witness any exposure but is concerned the dog may have ingested a roach that was affected by the product. The caller states the dog became anorexic on 10/27/13. The dog developed vomiting and blood from the rectum on 10/28/13. Caller spoke to the veterinarian over the phone who believed the dog may have had Parvo, but she did not bring the dog in for evaluation due to financial concerns. Caller administered Pedialyte and milk at home. The dog passed away yesterday morning. The dog had been previously vaccinated for Parvo. The caller states there was a 'Raid Bomb' used in the home as well, but the dog was not in the area when the product was set off. She does not have identifying information for this Raid brand product.
Death
The information contained in this report is based on self-reported statements provided to the registrant during telephone Interview(s). These self-reported descriptions of an incident have not been independently verified to be factually correct or complete descriptions of the incident. For that reason, information contained in this report does not and can not form the basis for a determination of whether the reported clinical effects are causally related to exposure to the product identified in the telephone interviews. Any relationship between the use of this product and the development of the complications reported in this case is inconceivable and lacks biological plausibility. Secondly, the product use history is extremely vague and lacks any description of a known or defined point of direct exposure to this product. Even had casual or incidental contact with a surface treated with this pesticide occurred, such serious illness as reported in this dog is unexpected. Furthermore, this animal was never properly evaluated and treated by a veterinarian, nor had it received proper preventive care in the form of vaccines and anti-parasite treatment prior to the occurrence of this incident.