VALLEY CENTER - A woman suing the county Department of Animal Services for injuries suffered during an attack by two boxer dogs more than a year ago will submit a revised lawsuit to county counsel this week, her lawyer said.

The civil suit, first filed at the Vista courthouse in November, alleges that county animal officials knew the dogs had bitten two people previously and didn't take appropriate action to prevent them from attacking again.

Nancy Matthews, an equine veterinarian, is seeking unspecified damages from Animal Services, according to the amended complaint dated Feb. 1. Matthews' attorney, Tomas Shpall, provided a copy of the complaint to the North County Times.

The revision was allowed by a judge after county counsel moved to dismiss the first lawsuit in November. County counsel had argued that the department wasn't negligent or legally responsible for the dogs' actions.

Amended complaints are often allowed in cases against government to give plaintiffs a second chance, county counsel George Brewster said.

Shpall says the new complaint clarifies the original allegations.

In an interview Friday, Brewster said he hadn't received it yet, but planned to ask the judge once again to dismiss it.

"It was a terrible situation, but the fundamental question is: Who should be responsible for the dogs' behavior?" said Brewster, who will have 30 days to review the amended complaint. "Of course, the owner of the dogs should be."

In November 2006, Matthews, a 47-year-old Valley Center resident, was attacked by two dogs while she was walking with her young sons several blocks from their home. Her children were not injured. The dogs were later euthanized at the owners' request.

Matthews said she spent six days in the hospital, which left her with bites and scars over most of her body. In an interview last week, Matthews said she hasn't been able to work since the attack because she suffers from chronic pain and has a "paralyzing" fear of dogs on horse farms.

In December, a Vista Superior Court judge sentenced the dogs' owner, Pedro Balerio Torres Sr., to 90 days in county jail and four years on probation after he pleaded guilty in October to one felony charge of failing to protect the public from his dogs.

The judge also ordered Torres, a Valley Center landscaper, to pay Matthews' $123,000 medical bills. Because of his finances, Torres is allowed to make minimum payments of $100 a month, Deputy District Attorney Cal Logan said.

Shpall said last week that Matthews' medical bills have now surpassed $150,000.

Meanwhile, John Carlson, a regional director for Animal Services, said last week that despite the "tragic circumstances" of the attack on Matthews, he was confident his department followed the law, which requires the agency to equally protect dog owners' rights and the public's safety.

Shpall argues in the lawsuit that animal services officers actually increased the chance the dogs would attack again. The suit alleges, for example, that an officer who physically resembles Matthews incited the dogs by pepper spraying them during an investigation into a 2004 attack on a visitor to the Torres' home. The action made the dogs more "aggressive and dangerous" toward Matthews, the suit states.

The suit also alleges that Animal Services became liable for the dogs' actions by failing to make sure they were neutered and kept behind a locked fence, two recommendations made after the 2004 attack.

Carlson said the department didn't have enough evidence to enforce those actions.

According to the law, Animal Services has the option of holding a dangerous-dog hearing when a dog has bitten or attacked someone twice in four years or has caused serious injury in a first attack, said Lt. Harold Holmes, head of the department's dangerous-dog task force.

If that requirement is met, the department can proceed with a dangerous-dog hearing at an officer's discretion, Holmes said.

If the dog owner and the victim or witnesses are present, and there is enough evidence, such as photos of the injuries or medical records, the hearing officer can decide to euthanize the dog or allow the it to remain at home with restrictions.

Restrictions include neutering, fenced enclosures, muzzling in public places and requiring the owner to buy at least $100,000 in liability insurance to compensate victims.

But between the hearing officer's decision and its implementation, the owner is allowed to appeal up the judicial chain, beginning with the Superior Court, Holmes said.

"Unless I know I can (legally) take action, I won't threaten owners with it, and that's where some discretion comes in," he said.

In Matthews' case, a hearing was never held because the department couldn't locate one of the two previous victims, Carlson said.

Contact staff writer Darryn Bennett at (760) 740-5420 or dmbennett@nctimes.com. Comment at nctimes.com.