| Complaint: | Complaint 22-109 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Michelle Morrison |
| Premises: | Pet Home Euthanasia |
The complainant says that she called Morrison for an in-home euthanasia as her daughter's cat was dying. At length Morrison was able to find the apartment and the complainant assisted her in unloading her supplies. Curiously, the complainant relates that the materials included pink blankets, a stuffed teddy bear, and a pink feather stripper boa; after learning the cat was male, she replaced those with blue items, but the complainant simply asked her to stop altogether.
She relates that Morrison came into the house but seemed scattered and had difficulty explaining the euthanasia process. She explained that a sedative stronger than ketamine would be given to the cat, followed by a five-minute wait, another medication, and then a ten-minute wait. According to the complainant, Morrison claimed to be among the top 20 vets in the country, but the complainant nonetheless grew concerned at the proceedings compared to other in-home euthanasia vets. After that, Morrison shocked the complainant by telling her to get a garbage bag to protect her couch.
Morrison allegedly asked the complainant and her daughter if they'd like to leave the room as pets don't cry out during the sedation if the owners aren't present. They elected to stay. The process didn't go well, with the cat escaping and being chased around the room. The daughter had to catch and hold the cat while the sedative was administered. The sedative appared to not work, leading to concerns about an incorrect dosage, and the cat ended up actually getting three shots of sedation. The complainant relates her daughter was very upset, but as they had a sedated cat in their living room in the middle of a euthanasia, they had no other options.
We're told that the daughter also had to help hold the cat while Morrison shaved him. While attempting to insert the IV, Morrison repeatedly blew a vein, requiring three attempts; the cat appeared to be at least somewhat aware of all this going on as his ears were twitching and his back legs were pushing against her daughter. We're told that at one point Morrison was praying "please help me not blow a vein."
Her daughter requested to check the cat's heartbeat once the injection was administered, as she no longer believed in Morrison's ability to perform the euthanasia. They hurriedly helped Morrison out of the house, discovering that she had brought puppy pads the whole time; the garbage bag was unnecessary, and they grew concerned their cat was going to be tossed in the trash; they asked and were told that in the past animals went in the trash but now they go to a crematorium. Morrison also allegedly told them that nurses told her that pets can hear for ten minutes after they're dead and there was some other matters over a pawprint. Morrison also allegedly told the complainant to let her know if her daughter needed help controlling her emotions.
The complainant has videos. She also says that she's very concerned about Morrison's mental stability and the prospects of her doing this to another family.
Morrison's formal response begins with a letter from her lawyer, William Kozub. Morrison's personal statement also has the tenor of being written by an attorney. We're given her background and euthanasia certifications along with a history of the cat to be euthanized. We're also told that Morrison suggested the cat be euthanized in a clinic because of a preexisting heart problem but the family wanted in-home euthanasia anyway; the cat was also on a medication that could theoretically interfere with euthanasia medications.
Many of the events in Morrison's response are similar yet markedly different from the complainant's. Morrison's depiction portrays herself as a consummate, rational, caring professional who enjoys working with families to help their pets die peacefully at home. It's suggested the daughter was in a bad mood and didn't want to say hello. We're also told that she requested a garbage bag to prevent urine stains on the couch but that the complainant reacted with hostility to the word "garbage." We're also told that the complainant had problems with her process being different than what she was used to with their previous euthanasia.
Other portions of the writeup detail the multi-drug sequence used for euthanasia along with the results of a physical exam on the cat. we're also told that the complainant volunteered her daughter to help with the euthanasia and then left the room. The response continues up until she's leaving the apartment and finds herself shocked the complainant thinks she'd throw the cat in the trash. She also relates that she offered to find someone to talk to the complainant's daughter about grief, not about controlling her emotions.
Morrison also includes a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of the complaint. Among other notes, she says that the blankets and boas are used for some customers to create a peaceful resting place for their dead pet. She says that all but one of her customers have used the arrangement to take final photos of their pet because it's comforting.
The Investigative Committee found an "extreme difference of opinion" regarding the services rendered. They discussed that Morrison performed the euthanasia in the best way possible for a home visit and that all dosages were accurate; nonetheless, they recommended the board send Morrison a Letter of Concern (the vote was 4 to 0 but the report says five people were on the committee). The board appears to have followed through on that recommendation.
The board doesn't seem to really view euthanasia veterinarians as being worth regulating at all. Refaat Ishak has been a frequent respondent laboring under a variety of practice restrictions for going on a decade, but rather than pull his license they've crippled his career to the extent that in-home euthanasias are about all he has left. In 21-43 another in-home euthanasia vet was also said to be bonkers, took photos of a dead cat, posted them on Facebook, and then reported the complainant to the police for not euthanizing the cat sooner.
| Source: | August 8, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Michelle Morrison | Respondent |
| William Kozub | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Absent |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Melissa Thompson |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | 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.