New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2016-3091
Registrant Reference Number: 1755254
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: KENTUCKY
Unknown
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. 1021-2569
Product Name: Bedlam Plus
Yes
Unknown
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
Other
Dog / Chien
Unknown
1
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
System
Persisted until death
Yes
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
1/15/2016 Caller is a pest control officer calling on behalf of a pet owner. The product, along with non-company product Phantom, was applied to the owner's home around 2 to 3 hours ago, and were diluted prior to application. The dog is now having trouble breathing, and is currently at the veterinarian for care. 1/19/2016 Call back to the original caller for follow up information. About 1 hour after the initial call the veterinarian called reporting that the dog started seizing and died at the clinic. The veterinarian did not say what treatments were performed, but she did say that she was not sure what caused the dog's symptoms and death.
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 insidious 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 this product occurred, such illness would be unexpected and is not consistent with the toxicological profile of this product.