| Complaint: | Complaint 21-47 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Jonathan Schnier |
| Premises: | BluePearl Avondale |
| Related: | 21-45, 21-46, 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 Schnier is mentioned as the dog's internal medicine specialist at BluePearl Avondale. He had been following up with the dog for over a year and saw the dog between the visits to 1st Pet (21-44 and 21-45).
The complainants tell us that they had made an emergency appointment with BluePearl Avondale to see Schnier, their dog's internal medicine specialist, when the dog began having episodes of collapse. The dog was initially seen on emergency by 1st Pet Mesa and then seen by Schnier several times during the following week. On the first visit Schnier ran a comprehensive set of tests and made some medication changes. He also recommended seeing a cardiologist at VetMed. They relate that upon mentioning Schnier's name VetMed found a slot for the dog to see Matthews, a VetMed cardiologist; it appears Matthews examined the dog and found only mild cardiac enlargement and mild pulmonary hypertension that he did not believe would be a fatal problem. The dog subsequently had a recheck two days later with Schnier. Schnier informed them that an occult stool test came back as a likely false positive as it would not have explained the dog's health concerns; a test for hemolytic anemia also came back negative but he believed it could be a false negative as a result of the dog's continued steroid treatments. He also spoke with Yeamans (21-48) who confirmed the complainants' prior concerns the dog's hemolytic anemia could have been triggered by zonisamide and recommended stopping it.
Schnier again adjusted the dog's medications, performed a transfusion, and contrary to the complainants' prior conversations with him, elected to discharge the dog to them that evening. The complainants relate they specifically stated their concerns about the dog receiving adequate follow-up care in the event of an emergency and claim Schnier confirmed he would be reachable in the event of a problem given the complexity of the case. Around an hour after the dog was discharged he had a serious seizure-like event and was administered diazepam; the dog was then taken to 1st Pet Mesa. They note that the last time they saw their dog that evening at 1st Pet he seemed no different than after another seizure and diazepam dose. Schnier was unreachable that night and through the next morning; the complainant relates that he eventually reached a staff member at BluePearl Avondale who allegedly said that Schnier gets up around 8:00 AM, then giggled and said not to ask how she knew that. The complainant was eventually able to speak with Schnier later that morning and explained that 1st Pet was telling him his dog was basically a lost cause; Schnier said that the records he had seen did not suggest this but that he was very busy and might find time later to call 1st Pet and speak with them. (In fairness to Schnier, it does appear per the Findings of Fact that he relayed several suggestions on further care to 1st Pet that were never relayed to the complainants by either 1st Pet or by Schnier himself.) They relate that Schnier never spoke with them about the dog again until several days later when his office was informed the dog had been discharged and euthanized.
Schnier's response states that the complainants have gone far beyond what most people would do for a pet, then states he has also gone far beyond what most veterinarians would do for a pet. He lists a 20-point problem list portraying the dog as very ill, though some of these include bad knees, a history of high blood pressure, and a bent front leg the dog had since he was adopted. He also mentions the dog had been seen by many other veterinary facilities including AMSC (Yeamans), 1st Pet Mesa (he also incorrectly states Chandler as a location), and his primary veterinarian at Little Critters; he also states the dog had been seen 27 times at 1st Pet while neglecting to mention the dog was in weekly or twice-weekly physical rehab for those visits. Much of the remainder of the response is copied from the dog's medical records, noting that some of the dog's apparent existing problems were starting to improve as the dog was weaned off of his many prescribed medications; we're also left with the impression Schnier had no idea what was really wrong with the dog and proceeded with empirical treatment for IMHA as he had no better ideas.
He also proceeded with a blood transfusion and then discharged the dog. He claims that he told the complainants that the hospital would be open 24 hours a day but that he never claimed he would be available, directly contradicting what the complainants say; he also admits that he can typically be contacted 24/7 by BluePearl when needed. He also lists literally a page and a half of medications that the dog had been put on by various veterinarians, including himself. He also claims that when the complainants called and left messages, the medical records say the BluePearl staff did not know how to get in touch with him. However, he says BluePearl's own medical records are in error as he can be contacted after hours; rather, he says that it would be unprofessional of him to intervene when the dog is at another medical facility. He also relates that when he spoke with the complainant he told the complainant transferring the dog to him would likely not be beneficial. He also says that he spoke with Meredith at 1st Pet and recommended some additional options though he was concerned for the dog's quality of life; he claims Meredeith said she would update the complainants and he felt it was best that future communication came from 1st Pet rather than himself. He says the complainant subsequently canceled a follow-up visit and heard nothing more about the dog for several days; he finally contacted 1st Pet and learned the dog had been taken home for euthanasia. Schnier concludes by stating he went beyond what most veterinarians would have done.
The Investigative Committee said that it should not be expected for a veterinarian to be available 24 hours a day; they point out that there are emergency services available (this appears to ignore most of the complainants' underlying concerns). They said what Schnier did was more than professionally acceptable. (Any questions about whether the dog should have been discharged in such an allegedly-precarious state, whether the dog should have been directed at the beginning of the illness to a better-equipped facility, or his alleged 18-hour delay in following up regarding the dog are left undiscussed.)
Cameron Dow, one of the Committee members, was serving on the Arizona Veterinary Medical Association's Board of Directors alongside Schnier's wife, Lisa Schnier, at the time this complaint was handled. Dow ended up being Secretary/Treasurer of the organization and would serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. Dow, a man later replaced by his own father on this same Investigative Committee, doesn't seem concern to himself with appearances like that; in 21-57 he voted to find Rachel McKinney, the then-current AzVMA Secretary/Treasurer, guilty of gross negligence before getting elected to do her job when her term expired.
| Source: | April 4, 2021 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Jonathan Schnier | 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.