The complainant tells us her dog suffered from abuse and cancer in his life. He apparently
came from Mexico where he had acid thrown in his face; he later developed a transmissible
venereal tumor that was considered untreatable by his normal veterinarians in Mexico and
brought to Minnesota for treatment. She relates that in her dog's life he had three main
health problems: bad reactions to anesthesia (he almost died at one point), mast cell tumors,
and annoying hair on the ears. The complainant worked with the University of Minnesota
veterinary hospital and local veterinarians in Minnesota to give the dog a good quality of
life, and she took the dog with her to teach children about pets and responsibility and bring
hope to human cancer survivors. She later moved to Arizona and needed another mast cell tumor
removal; surgery had always worked well in the past so she elected surgery again at Sunrise Pet
Hospital. However, the dog nearly succumbed to the anesthesia; Arizona veterinarian Rademaker
and Tucson-area oncologist Klein apparently didn't get a good cut on this tumor and didn't give
the dog long to live at all. They wanted to cut off the dog's entire leg, so the complainant
drove the dog all the way back to Minnesota; after conversations there she elected to stop
treating the dog given his age and health status.
Returning to Arizona she needed a local veterinarian and went to Catalina Pet Hospital on the
advice of a friend. Cohen saw the dog. She says that she told Cohen about the dog's reactions
to anesthesia but he dismissed her; he allegedly said he used those all the time and they were
fine. She also relates that despite bringing the dog in for bowel problems Cohen enjoyed hard
squeezes on the dog's mast cell tumors; it appears you're not supposed to do that for fear of
releasing harmful chemicals from the tumors themselves, but Cohen allegedly said those tumors
were nothing and he'd seen tumors a lot bigger than those. She also says Cohen kept pressuring
her to treat the tumors medically and the complainant said she didn't want to keep putting the
dog through that; she also alleges Cohen laughed at the dog's bowel issues. On a subsequent
visit for the dog's ear problems she says that Cohen kept pressuring her to agree to anesthesia
to take care of the dog's ear hair problems; she says that he basically found it funny and also
appeared to be checking out her body in a sexual manner. A receptionist allegedly said that Cohen
was known to be "abrasive" and suggested seeing a different vet.
Before the complainant could find a different vet the dog's health status declined suddenly, being
unable to walk, having constant diarrhea, and having labored breathing and projectile vomiting.
Cohen allegedly started injecting the dog with antinausea and antibiotic medications without her
approval and also took a fine needle aspirate of a suspected mast cell in the dog; the complainant
said that she had already decided it was no longer right to treat, but Cohen continued to pressure
her to send the aspirate off for a biopsy at her expense because he wanted to know if it really was
a mast cell tumor or not. She also says that she asked Cohen to prescribe drugs for palliative care
while she tried to decide when the time was right to end her dog's life, but Cohen acted like the
matter was somewhat of a joke and a burden to him; he continued to suggest medications that the dog
had allegedly had problems with before, then gave the dog gabapentin that she suspects made the
dog even weaker and sicker on his way out. The dog's leg also swelled up significantly in a reaction
she attributes to the needle stab for the fine needle aspirate. She was also told by the clinic that
they could always fit a dog in for euthanasia, but when she decided to try, she was told they couldn't
do it; she had to call around and find another veterinarian. She tried to take up her concerns with
Cohen but that apparently didn't go well.
Cohen's response says that on the first visit the complainant was only concerned about the dog's
bowel problems and "completely dominated the conversation." He says that she wasn't interested in
his advice about the dog's mast cell disease at all, and if he seemed angry or hostile, it was only
"due to total frustration from being told what I could or could not do." He said that prednisone
therapy is the accepted treatment for the disease but she just wouldn't listen. We're also told
they always had an "adversarial relationship." He tells us that on the dog's last visit he went
ahead and gave the dog Cerenia and Unasyn along with the fine needle aspirate; he claims that both
he and Anneleise Michl agreed that they were mast cells but offered to send the biopsy off to
convince the complainant they were mast cells. He says that she didn't disagree with his
treatments at the time but disagreed later, so he went ahead and gave her a refuned for some of
the services.
The Investigative Committee sides with Cohen and basically concludes the complainant was just too
difficult of a person to deal with. They basically use the exact same phrasing in their discussion
as Cohen did in his response; they said that it "can be difficult to deal with a client that does
not want to pursue any treatment recommendations" and that "Complainant did not voice what she wanted,
only what she did not want Respondent to do." It's pretty much quoted verbatim from Cohen. They also
note that Cohen did, in fact, inject the dog with stuff and suck out an aspirate from the dog without
getting authorization; they also point out that aspirating the mast cell could in theory cause
degranulation and make it worse. On the other hand, they don't have a problem with any of it; at
most, it appears some Committee members said Cohen was setting himself up for trouble by taking the
woman on as a client in the first place. The Board disagreed and found Cohen in violation for not
providing the complainant with an estimate for services; he had to take four hours of continuing
education in medical record keeping.
A.R.S. ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (C) for failure to provide the pet owner an estimate for veterinary services provided to the dog.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (4 hours in medical record keeping)
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.