The complainant's cat was losing weight and pulling out fur so the cat was taken to
BluePearl and Blackman placed a feeding tube. She says she had to force food into the tube
and the cat truly hated it, sometimes throwing up large quantities of phlegm; she often had
to hold him down to get him to cooperate. She tells us that her cat actually deteriorated
markedly since the feeding tube was placed at BluePearl; she ended up having to take the cat
back for hospitalization. They found sepsis, pneumonia, and drew brownish-pink fluid from
the chest that the complainant says looked just like her cat's food. The cat was subsequently
euthanized. A necropsy showed that the feeding tube wasn't placed at all correctly; the
esophagus wasn't even cut into. The necropsy also identified 250 milliliters of "amorphous
pasty material" in the thoracic cavity where the tube had been misplaced. The complainant
says that her cat was part of her family, that she spent $8000 to try and save him, and that
she would never jump to euthanizing an animal. She says that she'll always have to live
with the fact that with every squirt of food she was unknowingly torturing and killing her
cat because of Blackman and BluePearl's incompetence.
Blackman appears to have lawyered up even more than the usual; even her response is on
legal letterhead from Jones, Skelton, and Hochuli (the same firm that represented April
Talkington in the 20-30 euthanasia complaint). It says that Blackman
is truly very sad about the cat dying. We're also told that Blackman loves animals so much
that she pursued a career in veterinary medicine and that she works at both Banfield and
BluePearl (both of which are owned by Mars Petcare). She details the events leading up to
putting the tube in and says that recovery from the procedure was uneventful. She was
assisted in the procedure by Kathryn McAdam (accused in 20-73
of lying to a complainant about the availability of a surgeon at BluePearl). When the cat
was brought back to BluePearl by the complainant, veterinarian Sandy Landry (named in
complaints 20-08, 20-75, and
20-95) diagnosed the cat with pneumonia but examined x-rays and
said the tube was properly placed. We're told the cat "passed away" rather than euthanized.
We're treated to a quote of the necropsy report that says that "there is no food within
the stomach" and "suspected food material within soft tissue of the left lateral neck suggests
inappropriate placement of the esophageal tube into the thoracic cavity." Blackman or her
attorney then go on to suggest that as the cat tested positive for FIV the cat was more
susceptible to infection; she argues that the cat likely died because of the food causing an
infection, but that the cat's infection happened because of FIV and not because of the
feeding tube she misplaced. She also reminds us, as she did at the beginning, that "three
Veterinarian physicians" and a radiologist thought the tube was in correctly, so we can't
really blame Blackman for anything. (Perhaps that makes Blackman look better, or perhaps
that just makes her colleagues look bad?)
The Investigative Committee's discussion is truly disturbing. They said that even they
could read the x-rays and determine the tube was placed incorrectly; they state that if a
radiologist had reviewed the films maybe it could have been avoided. They also noted that
Blackman had only done this procedure six times in her entire career. They then said that
"mistakes are made" and "appreciated [Blackman's] honesty," stating that they hoped this
incident wouldn't dissuade her from placing more feeding tubes in the future. All four
investigators, three of whom run their own veterinary practices (Rai at Sugarloaf, Dow
at Prescott, and Sidaway at Desert Ark), voted to dismiss with no violation! The Board
disagreed with letting Blackman walk and found her guilty of medical incompetence; they
required her to take three hours of continuing education in how to place tubes. (It
doesn't appear there was any broader discussion or investigation into the entire premises
given that this was apparently such an obvious mistake.)
A.R.S. ยง 32-2232 (22) Medical incompetence for improper placement of the esophageal tube.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (3 hours in esophageal tube placement)
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.