| Complaint: | Complaint 21-03 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Michelle Erney |
| Premises: | VetMed |
The complainant says she brought her 19 year old cat to VetMed as her regular veterinarian was unavailable. She spoke with Erney, who allegedly told her to hospitalize the cat, perform tests, give IV fluids, and run x-rays and an ultrasound. She says that Ermey put her on hold to speak to a staff member about the estimate but never heard back; she eventually hung up and drove home to wait for a call. When she didn't get one in two hours she called back and learned they had already done tests and her cat was coming out of sedation. At this point she became very concerned that Ermey and VetMed were just doing stuff to her cat without permission and came to get the cat; she was presented with a $1200 bill that she didn't agree to. The cat deteriorated further at home and was euthanized at the family veterinarian. The complainant wonders if it was ethical for Erney and VetMed to put a dying cat through so many tests, particularly as she says she did not give permission.
Erney says that regarding the issue of consent to treatment, the complainant did consent; there's apparently an attestation from a staff member, Annie Lahr, submitted with the response that we don't get to see, along with correspondence between the complainant and hospital directory, Stephanie Foote. Erney points out that the complainant has no concerns about the quality of care provided at VetMed, going on to note that the cat was on her way out and subsequently euthanized. Erney says that she presented the complainant with a treatment plan and was verbally authorized; she also states that a subsequent treatment plan was sent via Docusign and verbally approved by the complainant to Lahr. She states that there's a letter from the complainant to Foote saying that she agreed to the care in question but was not informed of the costs; to Erney, this shows the complainant is basically lying regarding the complaint. It wraps up with boilerplate language about loss and "strong emotional bonds" that appear in several responses across different veterinary clinics (perhaps it's boilerplate that sneaks in from Stoll's law firm?).
The Investigative Committee yet again chalks it all up to miscommunication. They state that the complainant didn't want the cat to suffer but didn't suggest euthanasia, so Erney wasn't aware that euthanasia might be an option. The Committee did state they had concerns with the timeline presented by VetMed and suspect that the information documented may not pertain to the complainant's cat. (That seems like a big deal if true.) They also said they had concerns about the cat being sedated without authorization, also noting that the complainant told them she didn't consent to most of what was done to the cat. The Committee seemed to narrow all concerns down to the lack of any authorization for sedation; they then helpfully decide the law only pertains to written authorization for anesthesia, not sedation, so Erney walks on that as well.
We were able to follow up with the complainant in this case. She relates her horror at the treatment that VetMed performed on her elderly cat as well as the bill she had to pay for. She describes it as an abuse of power and money that helps prop up the for-profit VetMed hospital.
She says that she called VetMed about the cat's symptoms (lethargy and unable to stand) and was told that the hospital was operating on a first-come, first-served basis. After waiting for two and a half hours they came for the cat without having her sign any consent forms nor explain what was going to be done ot the cat. She didn't hear back for hours and when she called back later that day, she learned that the cat had been scanned. She was quite furious as she was looking for professional advice on the cat's quality of life versus euthanasia. When she went to pick the cat up she was a bit perkier, perhaps from the IV fluids, but she still declined quickly and was euthanized a week later in a peaceful setting at a general practice veterinary clinic.
She also mentioned her $2000 bill for the provision of services that she didn't ask for. At that time she came to the conclusion that the matter needed to be reported to the veterinary board, particularly as she questions the ethics of performing so much on an old cat with neither her presence nor her approval. She also states that the secretary lied about contacting her to consult.
| Source: | November 11, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Michelle Erney | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| 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.