| Complaint: | Complaint 21-45 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Courtney Deer |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Mesa |
| Related: | 21-46, 21-47, 21-48 |
Disclosure: This complaint is one of four reported by the website founder and directly led to the creation of this site.
This complaint is one of several relating to a particular set of events (see related cases). In this particular complaint Deer is mentioned as one of the two veterinarians who treated the dog while at 1st Pet.
The complainants state that their dog had a variety of health issues (notably seizures related to a stroke as well as some disc disease, with drug interactions causing many mobility issues on top of the disc disease). The dog had been undergoing physical therapy with 1st Pet staff for months. The dog began experiencing issues of collapse and was taken to 1st Pet for exam. Deer assisted in the initial care of the dog including placing the dog in oxygen and running tests for suspected hemolytic anemia. The dog was discharged and collapsed again within several hours and brought back to 1st Pet where Deer examined the dog again; she recommended an internal medicine followup as Meredith offered on the initial visit, but said that none of 1st Pet's internal medicine specialists were available because it was Father's Day. The complainants informed her they had an appoinment with Schnier the following day (21-47) and took the dog home as he could not be reached on Sunday.
The dog was seen elsewhere and experienced a sudden seizure-like event shortly after Schnier discharged the dog from BluePearl Avondale a week later. They took the dog to 1st Pet where Deer admitted the dog; the complainants relayed Schnier's instructions that if anything happened to the dog he should be taken to emergency and then called. Deer stated that she would attempt to reach him but might have issues giving the dog his medications in the post-seizure state. Deer was very concerned regarding the dog's status but the complainants informed her both Schnier (BluePearl internal medicine) and Matthews (VetMed cardiologist) felt the dog's prognosis was reasonable; he had just been given a large dose of diazepam to treat the presumed seizure. They relate that the last time they saw the dog that night he was panting but awake but was a vegetable the next morning; they were never called to inform them of the change in status and the dog was subsequently euthanized. This also leads to concerns about poor monitoring of a seizure-prone dog.
The complainants also state some serious concerns with Deer's conduct as a veterinarian. They state that they did not know Deer had been advocating for euthanasia at the time of the first visit; they only learned this when reviewing BluePearl's log of her initial phone call and discovered she was lobbying Schnier's office for euthanasia before he had been able to even examine the dog. They find this attitude peculiar as 1st Pet had been taking thousands of dollars of their money for months to give the dog physical therapy, yet Deer seemed to believe the dog was not worth saving because of episodes of collapse. They relate that if they had known 1st Pet had written the dog off they would have made different decisions for his subsequent care in that final week.
They also note that while Deer mentioned that she would not be able to give the dog his medications during the final admission, they believed this was a comment regarding his initial presentation after a diazepam dose. It instead appears that most of the dog's medications had been withheld for many hours until Meredith came in. It also appears Deer changed one of the drugs, omeprazole, to a different medication not known to have the same neurological benefits; when a neurologist, Knowles, had tried to discontinue this same medication it set off cluster seizures that lasted for days. They also have concerns that the dog was portrayed as a nonresponsive vegetable but later that day was said to be able to chew his own medicines when put in the back of his mouth.
Deer's response begins with a list of the dog's health problems going back for years, many of which appear to be largely exaggerated relative to the complainants' description (again, this was also a dog the same facility had felt was an excellent candidate for their rehab program despite his infirmities). She mentions she took over care from Meredith during the first visit, notes the initial suspicion of IMHA from blood cell clumping tests, and relates a conversation with the complainants regarding their fear that interactions with zonisamide and phenobarbital could have triggered the IMHA. She also claims she mentioned euthanasia as a possibility (the complainants deny this). She notes that while IMHA was not confirmed the test results were partially consistent; the dog was discharged by Meredith and presented back to 1st Pet. She examined the dog again and reported that none of their specialists (Eberhardt or Greene) would be available on Father's Day; she claims she called AVECC and discovered Church (one of their specialists) was out of town, then called VetMed and was told that as the dog had no obvious signs of cardiac problems the dog would not be eligible to be seen by their cardiologist on Sunday.
Deer then relates the final visit of the dog when he presented after an apparent seizure. She says the complainants relayed the dog had been seen by VetMed cardiology and found to have low to moderate pulmonary hypertension and given sildenafil; they also relayed the dog had been seen by Schnier several times and had just been discharged from BluePearl after a transfusion. It also appears Yeamans (41-48) had been contacted and concurred with discontinuing one of the dog's medications out of concerns it had triggered the anemia. Deer relates that she had a "frank discussion" with the owners regarding "quality of life" but that the owners approved overnight hospitalization. She relays that she did not expect the dog to survive the night; she relates the dog did in fact stay alive and that her colleague, Meredith, contacted Schnier and Yeamans who appeared to be favoring euthanasia. She concludes by saying they did a really good job and were forthright and honest in their dealings with the complainants.
The Investigative Committee stated that Deer's comments were not unprofessional; they said that the comments recommending euthanasia were relayed to another veterinarian who was also treating the pet. (The complainants' concerns that they were not informed of Deer's opinion yet continued to entrust her with their dog's care are not discussed other than perhaps a mention that "people communicate and receive communications differently.") They also said that Deer and her staff monitored the dog well and there was no need for a jingle collar or other alarm mechanisms because the dog was always being watched. (The complainants' worries about how the dog deteriorated so much overnight but they were never called to tell them does not get discussed either.) The Committee concludes by stating the complainants had unrealistic expectations. (As mentioned in other complaints, investigators Rai, Dow, and Sidaway all have their own practices; one wonders if they're comfortable with this behavior under their own roof as well.)
Sidaway, one of the investigators here, has significant ties to 1st Pet and appears likely to have done outcall surgeries there through his mobile specialist surgery service. He also has ties to Eberhardt, one of the internal medicine specialists at 1st Pet that was advertised but never around.
One of the complainants was accused of having Munchausen-by-proxy by James Loughead, the Chair of the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board, during the May 19, 2021 Board Meeting. The complainant had previously filed the public records request that led to the creation of this website and believed it may have been a retaliatory action by the Board. It was subsequently reported and Loughead is currently under investigation by the Arizona State Ombudsman.
A couple of Google reviews also negatively mention Deer by name at this facility. "AZ Semper Fi" writes "Dr. Deer is the worst veterinarian I have ever encountered. In all my sixty years of being blessed with pets of all types and requiring necessary emergency veterinary services it is only Dr. Deer who egregiously stands out for intentionally and concertedly taking the utmost efforts at being the worst in every possible way." Google reviewer "Judee Leehmann" writes of an instance where Deer apparently tried and failed to control a dog's seizures until suspected brain damage occurred and the dog had to be euthanized elsewhere, while "Karlie" writes of a time that Deer dissuaded her from getting a second opinion and then called to tell her the dog had bled out through his spleen.
| Source: | April 4, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Courtney Deer | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | May 5, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| 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.