| Complaint: | Complaint 20-125 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Nicole Underhill |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Chandler |
The complainant tells us of her dog, a very good boy originally taken from a reservation and brought into the animal shelter system. She relates that he was passed around from rescue to rescue and ended up on a euthanasia list at least twice. She says he was always a little afraid but came around. The day before he died he had blood coming from his mouth, so she took him to the regular veterinarian. The dog's platelets and blood counts were very low so he was sent home with steroids. The dog did worse at home so she took her dog to 1st Pet in Chandler (where she had brought other dogs including to be euthanized). She was not allowed into the clinic because of coronavirus protocols and required to sign a $700 estimate no-questions-asked before they would look at the dog. Underhill called about 15 minutes later and apparently suggested the dog had been poisoned; she relates that Underhill's "tone was very rude and accusatory." Underhill reran many of the same tests as the family veterinarian. The complainant says she asked Underhill if an infusion (transfusion?) would help but was told that you get platelets from steroids, not from a transfusion. Underhill said they could give the dog steroids but the dog would need to be hospitalized for 10 days with their specialist at a cost of $1600 a night. The complainant was left with no choice but euthanasia. She was invited in and asked to have scissors to get part of her dog's hair; she was not allowed scissors but was told someone would do that for her. The dog was brought in and Underhill performed the euthanasia; the complainant said the dog's eyes burst wide open, "as bright and open as he could be with pupils fully dilated" and described his end as "a violent, brutal, immediate awakening to hell!!" She was also never given a clipping of her dog's fur as requested; 1st Pet allegedly told her they would call the crematorium to see if they could get a clipping. She also compared the euthanasia protocol at another veterinarian with Underhill's and believes that Underhill forgot to administer one of the necessary drugs; 1st Pet told her that no veterinarian would do that. It also appears based on a follow-up email that the dog's collar went missing after the euthanasia.
Underhill tells us that the protocol for critical patients is to get money up front for initial care and determine if the client wants the dog treated or euthanized on arrival. If the client declines the "white sheet" the dog can be taken back for a catheter and potentially painkillers while someone talks to the client. She says that once the complainant signed on the dotted line she went to work with an intern from Midwestern, concluding the dog would need a variety of treatments and specialist referrals. She says that she gave the appropriate three injections for the subsequent euthanasia, but as she tries to be "discrete" [sic] the complainant may not have noticed. Once the dog was dead she says that she relayed the request for a pair of scissors, but there's no discussion of why that didn't happen. She tells us that 1st Pet prefers Beuthanasia when putting down pets and that's she's totally sure all the drugs were used correctly; she also says that according to the AVMA it is acceptable even if she forgot the first drug. The euthanasia was therefore humane no matter what, and it's "very unfortunate" the complainant assumed her dog's wide eyes while dying indicated any sign of suffering.
The Investigative Committee agreed with Underhill. They said that since the medical records say she administered propofol it means she administered propofol; even if she hadn't administered propofol it would be humane according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. They conclude that the euthanasia was "atypical" so the complainant jumped to the conclusion there was some wrongdoing.
| Source: | November 11, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Nicole Underhill | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Recused |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| Sarah Heinrich | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
The primary source for the above summary was obtained as a public record from the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. You are welcome to review the original records and board meeting minutes by clicking the relevant links. While we endeavor to provide an accurate summary of the complaint, response, investigative reports and board actions, we encourage you to review the primary sources and come to your own conclusions. In some cases we have also been able to reach out to individuals with knowledge of specific complaints, and where possible that information will be included here.