Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2014-0633
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 1267098
Nom du titulaire (nom légal complet, aucune abbréviation): McLaughlin Gormley King Company
Adresse: 8810 Tenth Ave North
Ville: Minneapolis
État: MN
Pays: USA
Code postal /Zip: 55427-4319
Incident chez un animal domestique
Pays: UNITED STATES
État: ARKANSAS
Inconnu
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. 1021-1599-506
Nom du produit: TAT F/T Killer
Liquide
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
Propriétaire de l'animal
Cat / Chat
Domestic shorthair
1
Homme
3
3.00
lbs
Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
Système
Persisted until death
Non
Non
Inconnu
Mort
Other / Autre
préciser Defined point of exposure not evident or witnessed. Exposure based on speculation.
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
10/18/2013 Caller applied product to baseboards of the home on 10/17/2013. That cat has had no known exposure or contact with the baseboards however, the caller's cat started to develop difficulty breathing the evening of 10/17/2013t. Caller also mentioned that the cat was hit by a car 4 or 5 days ago. The can has not been taken to a veterinarian. Follow-up completed on 10/23/2013. The original caller was not available, but the answering party states that the cat died. The cat was never seen by a DVM.
Mort
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 cat is unexpected. Furthermore, this animal was never properly evaluated and treated by a veterinarian, despite having been hit by a car 4 days prior to the onset of illness.