| Complaint: | Complaint 21-46 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Nicolette Meredith |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Mesa |
| Related: | 21-45, 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 Meredith is mentioned as one of the two veterinarians who treated the dog in question while at 1st Pet; much of this information has particular relevance in conjunction with 21-45.
The complainants have several concerns with Meredith. They note that on the dog's initial admission she suggested the dog could be seen by internal medicine or critical care at 1st Pet if needed; they relate that none of these specialists were ever available at 1st Pet when it was subsequently determined they were needed.. They also note that they requested Meredith to consult with internal medicine or critical care when euthanasia was being considered but that she ignored their request. They also have the same concerns regarding lack of monitoring of the dog, lack of updates when the dog appeared to deteriorate in their care, and inconsistent descriptions of the dog's state in his final day (nonresponsive but somehow able to chew pills). They also claim that they contacted AVECCC to see about a transfer at some point but were informed by AVECCC that 1st Pet would have to initiate the transfer; Meredith allegedly said that the dog would not benefit from the transfer and then said she would speak with their criticalist, which the complainants say never happened. They state that on the drive home for euthanasia the dog seemed to have at least some low level awareness of his surroundings and was easily comfortable on a portable oxygen tank, contrary to Meredith's claims the dog was essentially a vegetable who could not be moved. They also believe that Meredith selectively filtered information from her calls to the dog's internal medicine specialist, effectively nudging them further into euthanasia.
Meredith's response notes that she was the first veterinarian to see the dog for this particular problem (the dog had been seen weekly at 1st Pet for rehab appointments prior). She notes that the dog had episodes of collapse that day and was brought to 1st Pet; she examined the dog, noted his conditino, and placed him in oxygen, which seemed to help. She ran diagnostics that she felt were concerning for agglutination and suggestive of secondary hemolytic anemia. She claims that she stated overall concerns for the dog's history of myriad health issues (again, 1st Pet appears to have been seeing this dog for months for rehab and not had a concern) and quality of life. She also states concerns for pulmonary thromboembolism. She also says they continued supportive care for the dog (no mention about specialists other than the complainants planning to take the dog to their specialist); she also says the dog seemed to do better in oxygen but also became worse in oxygen as he was agitated being in the oxygen kennel. We're told that she handed off care to Deer, came back, and the dog was later discharged.
She saw the dog again later that week when he presented after a seizure-like event; she also relates the dog was breathing with great difficulty, flopped over, and obtunded. She also relates that the complainant told her to expect calls from the dog's specialists to discuss the case. According to Meredith, the dog was unable to swallow, contradicting the complainants' own reports and other notes. She relates that she did speak with Schnier and said that even if they could get the dog through this he expected the dog's recovery to be very rough. Yeamans apparently indicated that if the dog didn't recover in 24 hours he never would. She relates that the complainant was considering euthanasia but was also interested in having another facility evaluate the dog; she relates the dog was too sick to move (rather different than the dog's condition when the complainants took him home for euthanasia the next day, it seems). She says that she was planning to contact their criticalist for information but that she never did because the complainants elected to euthanize before she got around to it. She also relates that the dog was not able to take his oral medications so none were given (this appears to contradict what the complainants were told that the dog was taking medications if placed in the back of his mouth).
The Investigative Committee (including Sidaway, with significant ties to 1st Pet as noted in 21-45) said that Meredith's care was exemplary. They applauded her for talking to both the dog's internal medicine specialist and the dog's neurologist, but don't appear to note that Meredith apparently failed to involve 1st Pet's (nonexistent?) internal medicine and critical care specialists on at least two separate occasions. The Committee was particularly proud they were all able to coordinate with different veterinarians given their different schedules.
| Source: | April 4, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Nicolette Meredith | Respondent |
| 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: | Jessica Creager |
| 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.