| Complaint: | Complaint 22-86 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Scott Meyer |
| Premises: | Desert Mountain Equine |
The complainant says her horse arrived at Meyer's clinic for a prepurchase exam. Her agent was present. The buyer requested additional radiographs over concern about possible lameness, but she denied payment after the buyer had attempted to lower the price on the horse. Her agent left the horse there to attend the local AQHA show but apparently assumed the additional x-ray would be done (maybe a typo?).
The buyer called him several hours later and reported the horse had been nerve blocked and showed lameness in both front limbs; the complainant states the buyer had tried various gambits to lower the horse's selling price and ended the discussion. She had concerns about her horse being nerve-blocked without her permission, stating that to do so would be a violation of American Association of Equine Practioners ethical standards. She attempted to call Meyer to discuss the matter but never heard back despite multiple attempts. She also includes a paper on prepurchase examinations to support her case.
Meyer states that he did examine the horse and the animal was overall health. He refers to another individual, the buyer, as his client, and he claims she told him that the trainer said to do "whatever is needed but the owner will not pay for diagnostics." The buyer paid for the diagnostic procedure including nerve block, and as his client was the buyer, not the complainant, he has no legal obligation to share any information with the complainant whatsoever. He says that the complainant only filed this complaint in order to attempt to obtain a copy of the horse's medical records. He appears to be blaming the agent in this case as misrepresenting the complainant's wishes.
The Investigative Committee had no concerns at all, and in fact didn't bother to ask Meyer a single question despite being available for questioning. The committee said that the complainant had designated an agent, that there were conflicting accounts from the buyer and complainant, and that the client-patient relationship was with the buyer, not the complainant.
| Source: | June 6, 2022 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Scott Meyer | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Gregg Maura | Aye |
| Justin McCormick | Absent |
| Steven Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| 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 | Aye |
| 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.