In memory and honor of one very special cat.. how Edward J. Nichols, DVM, Crestway Animal Clinic, San Antonio, Texas, treated Suki.
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://www.eff.org/br/br.gif)
AND
See also
Allegations Against Ed Nichols, DVM, and Correspondence from the TSBVME
A STATE OF DISGRACE:
Is
the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners really protecting the
public?
"Do you know the average lifespan of a cat?"
"What were you feeding her?"
Questions from Martin E.
Garcia, DVM, to Julie Catalano, August 17, 2000, at Edward J. Nichols, DVM,
informal conference, Austin, Texas
and one more statement...
"This
is an old cat."
This last one, as
callous and unprofessional (not to mention irrelevant) as it is, is EXACTLY what
then- board secretary Dr. Martin E. Garcia, DVM, said about Suki during the
informal conference of the allegations against Edward J. Nichols, DVM, Crestway
Animal Clinic, San Antonio, Texas.
It is my
understanding that the board secretary at the TSBVME ultimately makes the final
decision on the outcome of a complaint at the informal conference stage.
When I attended the informal conference, the board secretary was the only
member of the TSBVME all other attendees were employees of the TSBVME.
The position of
board secretary in Texas is an all-powerful one. As the ONLY member of the
enforcement committee who decides then and there how a complaint should be
resolved -- without benefit of ANY other medical input or even the requirement
to evaluate the evidence in front of him -- the Texas Vet Board secretary has
complete and absolute authority to decide the disposition of a complaint.
Recent
Sunset recommendations may change that if the Texas legislature
passes the rules to allow the enforcement committee more power, along with the
addition of a second vet AND a public member in all enforcement conferences, but
Suki and I had no such luck. [UPDATE! Sunset recommendations pass - As of
September 1, 2005, informal conference is now required to have TWO BOARD VETS
and a PUBLIC MEMBER present, AS OPPOSED TO THE ONE-VET-SYSTEM THAT DISMISSED
SUKI'S COMPLAINT] ONLY Martin Garcia had the absolute power to find
violations or ignore evidence of them. As one committee member told me
afterwards, "The problem is, we're not doctors." He indicated that
they have to abide by the decision of the Board Secretary, who remains
completely unaccountable for his arbitrary decisions no matter what.
Garcia was in
COMPLETE CONTROL to decide Ed Nichols' fate. And in that room on August 17,
2000, he knew it. He was looking at an "old cat's" records and a woman
who had all her ducks in a row, with records, timeline, patient chart, invoices,
hospital records of standard treatment by competent vets who tried to save her,
Suki's entire 19+ year history of a protected and well-cared-for life, medical
questions, medical information from other vets who had helped me interpret what
Nichols had really done to Suki -- and Garcia's attitude told me he didn't like
it one bit. With all of the evidence, I more than met the burden of proof as is
required by law in a closed door, off-the-record conference where everyone there
is entitled to an attorney EXCEPT the complainant. Garcia had the power to shut
me down and he used it. There is no appeal process in place for
complainants who have to sit and watch a board secretary protect a fellow vet.
WHAT
DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE DID MARTIN GARCIA, DVM, IGNORE?
-- GARCIA IGNORED
EVIDENCE of the alleged consistent and repeated violations of the PROFESSIONAL
STANDARD OF HUMANE TREATMENT for period of March 22 - April 19, 1999,
along with alleged repeated
violations of RECORDKEEPING committed by Edward J. Nichols, DVM,
Crestway Animal Clinic, San Antonio
GARCIA IGNORED
NICHOLS' FAILURE TO MONITOR
- GARCIA IGNORED EVIDENCE of failure to monitor the condition of a CRF cat for four consecutive weeks from March 22 - April 19, 1999. Other than the lab work performed on March 22 and April 19, NO lab work or tests of ANY KIND were administered to Suki during the four intervening weeks, (including prior to an UNAUTHORIZED dental surgery that Nichols subjected her to on April 19). This was a cat who had received everything she ever needed her whole life -- blood work, tests, xrays, annual teeth cleanings, hospitalization -- and was being deprived of same by Nichols who claimed I, the owner, didn't want anything done and so he didn't do it. (And yet I somehow "wanted" anesthesia and surgery done while Suki was dying, without any evidence of consent or ANY evidence of DISCUSSIONS with me at any time about ANY SUBJECT WHATSOEVER...) Garcia ignored the pattern and mountain of records of the previous 19+ years BEFORE Nichols, and the hospital records that showed humane treatment AFTER Nichols, and chose to believe Ed Nichols' version that I had refused all regular treatment for Suki but had somehow inexplicably managed to authorize surgery under anesthesia for her via his mother. Somehow, in some mysterious and inexplicable way, I had refused humane treatment but okayed inhumane treatment.
Insanity.
- GARCIA IGNORED EVIDENCE of the use of corticosteroids including a SWITCH in steroid use (from short term to long term and back to short term, and in unprecedented doses for Suki) on April 7 while Nichols continued to WITHHOLD STANDARD OF HUMANE TREATMENT including IV fluids, potassium supplementation, phosphorous binder, Winstrol, Epogen, and monitoring of any kind. Garcia saw on the records that Nichols had administered ONLY steroids on April 7, no other treatment, fluids, lab work, or recommendations for any standard of care with regard to any of Suki's diagnoses, none of which were recorded anywhere anyway.
Suki collapsed 12 days later, on April 19. Prior to that, I had requested lab work because i was concerned that her blood levels were not being monitored. Nichols repeatedly stalled it (he knew I always got copies of it). Nichols said, in his defense of using different steroids at different times while not administering the usual treatments for CRF: "It was all about the comfort of the pussycat." His versions, which changed often, consisted mostly of his claims that I had known what he was doing all along and according to him, I was okay with it.
More insanity.
GARCIA IGNORED
NICHOLS' FAILURE TO OBTAIN INFORMED CONSENT FROM OWNER FOR SURGERY
- GARCIA IGNORED EVIDENCE of complete absence of owner consent to perform an unauthorized and unnecessary dental surgery on Suki while she lay dying. Nichols wrote "multiple organ shutdown" on April 19. He performed dental surgery on Suki under anesthesia without notifying me or getting any form of permission to do ANYTHING. He took out a tooth and performed a teeth cleaning (patient chart and invoice). Yes, Nichols is cleaning Suki's teeth without my consent OR ANY PRIOR DISCUSSION WITH ME ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE, while she lay dying and dehydrated with no IV fluids and inadequate potassium supplementation to address her hypokalemia. Nichols claimed that his mother had told him that I, the owner, said they (Nichols) could do whatever they "felt" was necessary, and Garcia accepted that ridiculous dodge as "informed consent." IT IS A VIOLATION OF BOARD STATUTES TO PERFORM AN UNNECESSARY OR UNAUTHORIZED PROCEDURE, and Garcia allowed Nichols to hide behind his mother. At NO TIME WOULD I HAVE EVER GIVEN CONSENT TO ANY VETERINARIAN TO PERFORM DENTAL SURGERY ON SUKI. She had a history of CNS disorder and vestibular syndrome (noted on Nichols' chart) which precluded the use of anesthesia at any time for any reason. Nichols ignored Suki's collapsed state (claimed that the words "not mobile" were not his handwriting), ignored what he had to know would have been my objections to surgery (no presurgical labwork), and went ahead and cleaned her teeth and performed an extraction while she lay dying, dehydrated, and suffering. When I finally saw her post-surgically and post-anesthetically, after being told on the phone by one of Nichols' minions that Suki was "fine!" and I could come and get her -- Nichols never, at any time, came to the phone when I called to try to find out what was happening.
When I finally saw Suki, her paws were twisted, facing upwards, and her back legs were entwined like rope. Garcia ignored everything I told him regarding this, and I was told later that vets in Texas don't have to prove consent for anything. The owner has to prove they DIDN'T give it. This allows vets like Nichols to do whatever they want and then hide behind their mothers.
The insanity
continued.
GARCIA IGNORED
NICHOLS' FAILURE TO PROVIDE PRE-SURGICAL TESTING OR PRE-ANESTHETIC EVALUATION
- GARCIA IGNORED
EVIDENCE of a complete lack of pre- and post-surgical protocol by Ed Nichols on
a CRF cat who was collapsed, anemic, hypokalemic, with a crashed liver, and
PLACED UNDER ANESTHESIA WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PRE-SURGICAL LABWORK OR PRE-ANESTHETIC
EVALUATION. I repeatedly told Garcia, "He didn't do lab. Nichols didn't do
lab," and he ignored me. Suki received NO IV FLUIDS despite a chart entry
of "v. dehydrated" made by Nichols himself, who stuck her in an
induction box and cranked up the anesthesia, unknown to me. He didn't
even record the amount, so who in HELL knows how much he gave her? Apparently
whatever he wanted. Lab work was done POST
SURGICALLY. There was NO POTASSIUM SUPPLEMENTATION despite a count of 2.9, NO
WINSTROL OR EPOGEN ADMINISTERED despite lab proof of anemia, and a phosphorous
count of 17 which another vet told me would indicate physical suffering. Nichols
did whatever he wanted -- including surgery under anesthesia -- to a dying cat, and Garcia IGNORED ALL EVIDENCE of repeated and blatant
violations of the standard emergency protocol for a cat who had collapsed from
CRF.
-
GARCIA IGNORED EVIDENCE of hospital records where Suki was treated correctly and
humanely and in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the methods repeatedly used by Edward
Nichols over four weeks when Suki desperately needed treatment for renal
failure, hypokalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and anemia. Nichols HAD WITHHELD
CRUCIAL TREATMENTS, apparently to fit his
philosophy and definition of "natural" death no matter how long it
took. He knew I would do anything for Suki, a choice he apparently did NOT want me to
have, based on his actions and what he told me afterwards as Suki fought her for
her life in another facility. Nichols had
instructed me the day of the surgery, when he sent Suki home to die, "Don't
put her in a hospital. It's cold and impersonal and you don't want it to happen
that way." Garcia saw before him a pet owner with a documented
history of everything being done for Suki her whole life, and chose instead to
believe an insane version perpetuated by a "doctor" who said I had
refused Suki treatment, but had somehow managed to authorize a dangerous and
unnecessary surgery by way of his mother. I thought the
hospital records PROVED violation of the standard of care (same cat, same
condition, same community), and Garcia ignored
all of them.
GARCIA IGNORED
NICHOLS' FAILURE TO MEET THE STANDARD OF CARE AS PROVEN BY THE ACTIONS OF FOUR
SECOND OPINION DOCTORS
--
GARCIA IGNORED EVIDENCE of the actions of FOUR SECOND OPINION VETS THAT WERE IN
DIRECT CONTRAST TO NICHOLS' TREATMENT AND WHICH I BELIEVED CONSTITUTED PROOF THAT NICHOLS HAD
VIOLATED STATUES OF STANDARD OF CARE. Garcia ignored everything that four vets
did to try to help Suki -- in an amazing coincidence, they had administered
EVERY treatment that Nichols had withheld. Same cat, same condition, same city,
same owner -- all the necessary ingredients to prove standard of care violations
and HE IGNORED THEM ALL. He also ignored evidence of her incredible
comeback in the hospital, where virtually all lab values were in reversal as
four vets administered the correct and humane treatments -- potassium, IV
fluids, Winstrol, Epogen -- allowing Suki, who was an extraordinarily strong cat,
to respond positively to everything that was done for her, but too late. On
April 24, it was noted on Suki’s hospital records that she had a fractured jaw
after Nichols had performed his unauthorized and atrocious dental "SX"
on her five days before. You decide if that's yet another amazing coincidence.
GARCIA IGNORED
NICHOLS' USING HIGH DOSE OF A STEROID POST-SURGICALLY IN PLACE OF
STANDARD OF CARE
- GARCIA IGNORED NEW EVIDENCE THAT HE HIMSELF DISCOVERED IN CONFERENCE THAT PROVED NICHOLS’ INCOMPETENCE WITH SUKI ALL ALONG. This had to do with STEROIDS. At one point, Garcia noticed that Suki was administered 1 mg of dexamethasone post-surgically. There was, of course, no weight recorded nor had there been for those last crucial four weeks, along with no IV fluids or other standard treatments. Referring to the dexamethasone administered on April 19, Garcia stated, "it would usually be half that amount." He then looked up at Nichols across the table from him. Nichols said nothing, just looked back as they exchanged a rather long look. Nichols remained silent. Garcia looked down and then proceeded, completely ignoring what he had just found and what I had alleged in my original complaint -- that Nichols had misused and switched types and dosages of two steroids on two separate dates (April 7 and April 19). Was the use of steroids part of Suki's "natural" death? Repeating his ridiculous mantra that it was "all about the comfort of the pussycat," Nichols apparently wanted Garcia to see that steroids provide "comfort." Never mind the adverse effects of corticosteroids on the failing kidneys of a dying cat. So injecting a powerful steroid into a cat in MULTIPLE ORGAN SHUTDOWN was perfectly okay with Ed Nichols, and he uses the warm and fuzzy term "comfort" to distract from what was really going on -- the HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE USE OF STEROIDS IN A CAT DYING OF RENAL FAILURE. I believe that a competent board vet would have seen right through what was really going on here, but instead, yet again, Nichols was allowed to blather on about "comfort." Sounds good, doesn't it?
I can understand clueless, loyal, and trusting clients eating up
whatever crap Ed Nichols hocks up, but a BOARD VET buying this garbage?
Insane.
The entire case
was about Nichols’ treatment philosophy – to treat a geriatric pet’s
symptoms to make it comfortable until the natural events of age runs its course
and the animal dies. A treatment
philosophy that I did not consent to. And why would I not consent to it? BECAUSE
AS TREATMENT PHILOSOPHIES GO, IT SUCKS. I WOULD HAVE NEVER UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWED SUKI TO BE TOUCHED BY NICHOLS HAD I KNOWN HIS SO-CALLED
PHILOSOPHY. This could explain why there are NO notations of any so-called
"discussions" with me about ANYTHING, because had I known Nichols'
treatment philosophy, I would never have permitted him anywhere near Suki. (And
never mind that there are no SYMPTOMS recorded on the chart to indicate exactly
WHAT symptom this steroid was designed to provide "comfort" for.) The Depo on April 7 was the first step,
with no other treatment except a promise to me of more Winstrol in two weeks,
which she never got and which Nichols probably thought she would never live to
see. (Note:
Depo Medrol is a controlled substance, and board statutes also say that the use
of a controlled substance must contain an attendant diagnosis when prescribed.
What diagnosis or symptom was Depo Medrol addressing when Nichols injected Suki
with it on April 7? There is nothing on the chart to indicate this. Something
else that Garcia ignored.)
By the April 19
collapse, there was only one thing left to do: After performing an unauthorized
surgery under anesthesia with no IV or other supportive treatments,
Nichols injected Suki with enough powerful, quick-acting steroid to keep her
going before releasing her home to me ("release home tonight" chart
entry in Nichols' handwriting). The dexamethasone administered post-surgically created the illusion of a much
stronger cat who was in fact, dying.
The illusion was complete: On April 19, after surgery I knew nothing about and would have never authorized, I watched Suki pulling herself across Nichols' waiting room floor on her front legs, with her useless hind legs dragging behind her -- dehydrated, reeling from anesthesia, in renal failure, hypokalemic, hyperphosphotemic, and anemic. But by the end of the visit, and approximately one hour after Nichols' injection of what Garcia himself implied was TWICE the usual dose of steroid, Suki was sitting up and looking better. Nichols sent her home with me, full of that one mg of dex that would, in fact, make her look "strong" enough while her internal organs were shutting down. NICHOLS APPARENTLY SAW NO PROBLEM IN INJECTING MY CAT WITH STEROIDS WHILE SHE WAS IN MULTIPLE ORGAN SHUTDOWN, AND GARCIA HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT EITHER.
This was
sheer insanity -- NO VET ANYWHERE has been able to explain the use of steroids
in this amount injected into a cat in this condition.
GARCIA IGNORED
NICHOLS' FAILURE TO INFORM OWNER OF ANIMAL'S TRUE CONDITION
The post-surgical lab work--which Nichols withheld from me on the day it came back, and did not provide it to me until I demanded it from his mother the next day--proved Suki was dying. Only Suki's sheer force of will kept her alive long enough to get her to real vets the next day, where she was in bad shape after the artificial "pumping up" by the steroid Nichols used. Not to mention a potassium count of 2.9 after Nichols had instructed me on March 24 to stop giving her her Tumil-K. April 19, 1999, was the culmination of four weeks' of incompetent care that included the lack of IV fluids, inadequate potassium, lack of treatment for hyperphosphotemia, inadequate subQ fluids (Nichols had instructed me to administer 100cc every third day but there is no notation on the patient chart of this prescription including ANY type, frequency, or amount). FOUR WEEKS of a cat who desperately needed standard frontline defense treatments for renal failure and I was too busy following Nichols' instructions to restrict her subQ fluids. (Again, absolutely NO record of the prescription for subQ fluids either). I was told to bring her back for lab work on April 7, at which time he said he "changed his mind" but to bring her back in ANOTHER two weeks -- instructions that just HAPPEN to not be recorded ANYWHERE on Suki's records. Nichols gave those instructions to me verbally but did NOT RECORD THEM ANYWHERE. WHY????
Then, on April 19, 1999, pumping Suki full of dex WHILE SHE LAY DYING, coupled with the continued absence of STANDARD OF CARE treatment THAT MIRRORED THE PREVIOUS FOUR WEEKS:
No IV fluids during four weeks/no IV fluids during dehydration on April 19
No potassium supplementation during four weeks/no potassium supplementation on April 19
No monitoring labwork during four weeks/no pre-surgical labwork on April 19
Steroid injections without attendant diagnoses; steroid injection on April 19 without attendant diagnosis AND during renal failure and multiple organ shutdown).
This was all I
needed as proof
of Nichols' mistreatment of Suki. AND
GARCIA CAUGHT IT, HE CAUGHT THE DEX, QUESTIONED THE AMOUNT OF STEROID AT A
TIME LIKE THAT, LOOKED TO NICHOLS FOR AN EXPLANATION, AND WHEN NONE WAS GIVEN,
IGNORED IT AND MOVED ON.
- GARCIA IGNORED
THE TIMELINE. Garcia allowed
Nichols to blame EVERYONE and EVERYTHING for what happened to Suki -- changing
versions throughout the meeting at will -- and never at any time held Ed
Nichols, a licensee of the state, accountable for a SINGLE ONE OF HIS ACTIONS OR
WRITTEN STATEMENTS regarding Suki's mistreatment.
Garcia's
protection of Nichols extended even to the following, to make sure that NO
DISCIPLINARY ACTION would be taken against Nichols with regard to any aspect of
this case. Look how far Garcia went to make sure that Nichols' official record
stayed clean from every angle:
GARCIA IGNORED
NICHOLS' FAILURE TO MEET RECORDKEEPING STANDARDS - weight, temperature,
symptoms, diagnoses, Rx names and dosages, amount and frequency of sub-Q fluids,
recommendations to owner, follow- up -- ALL were left off of chart over
three-year period.
GARCIA IGNORED THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO NOTATIONS OF ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNER REGARDING TREATMENT PLAN, DIAGNOSES, PROGNOSES, OR ANY DISCUSSIONS OF ANY KIND. Nichols was allowed to blather on about "many, many discussions" with the owner WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO SHOW ANY KIND OF PROOF OR EVEN ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH DISCUSSIONS EVER TOOK PLACE.
- GARCIA IGNORED EVIDENCE of REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF RECORDKEEPING STATUTES. Check out the breakdown here of Nichols' shoddy, shabby disgraceful records which OMITTED CORRECT DATES, WEIGHT, TEMPERATURE, SYMPTOMS OF DISEASE OR DISORDER, NO DIAGNOSES OF CRF, ANEMIA, HYPERPHOSPHOTEMIA, AND HYPOKALEMIA, RESULTS OF LAB WORK, NAMES OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, DOSAGES OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, RECHECK DATES, and RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT.
And most of all, the OMISSION of the crucial prescription for home subQ fluids which are essential in the care of a CRF cat who has an owner who will do EVERYTHING. Nichols instructed me to give her no more than 100 ccs every THIRD day but left ALL notes of ANY Rx of types, amounts, and frequency of subQs off the patient chart for four weeks.
When
Garcia asked him in conference how many fluids were prescribed to Suki, Nichols
replied that he depends on his clients to judge: "If the cat needs
fluids every day, they should get fluids every day." To hear his RIDICULOUS
blathering, it apparently was not his
responsibility to prescribe or record the prescription for fluids; it was the owner's to guess how
much the cat needed on a daily basis. Since subQ fluids are a PRESCRIPTION, he
was essentially saying that he depends on his clients to judge the amount of a
PRESCRIPTION. This obvious evasion of this very
important issue SHOULD HAVE RED-FLAGGED a competent board secretary who should
have been focused on medical FACTS and medical EVIDENCE that proved that Nichols
had committed acts of medical negligence by underprescribing subQ fluids and
then leaving that information off the chart for four consecutive weeks, thereby
also resulting in recordkeeping violations by leaving off absolutely crucial medical
information.
Nichols' neglect
of Suki had extended far beyond those last four weeks; the state of
his records proved a vet who is --at the very best--careless, lazy, sloppy, and stupid.
And Garcia allowed all
omissions, errors, and gaps in Nichols' records to go unaccounted for.
So... what about those records? And what did Suki's age have to do with them?
Ed Nichols' records SUCKED, and Suki's age had NOTHING to do with her records.
According to Lee
Mathews, counsel for the Attorney General's office, the age of a patient is
"irrelevant" when it comes to recordkeeping statutes. A patient's age
has absolutely no bearing when it comes to whether or not a doctor must keep
complete and accurate records. He must abide by the statutes. Period. In
fact, disciplinary records show that numerous Texas vets have been slapped
with disciplinary action for doing far less than what Nichols did.
At one point in
the conference, Nichols smiled and nodded, telling Garcia about the 60 acres of
land he owned, referring to the same area where Garcia owns a considerable
amount of land, which is common knowledge and the subject of an extensive
magazine article. I have no idea why Nichols brought up his land in
that conference or why he needed Garcia to know that he was practically a
neighbor, and said the same in my testimony to the Sunset Commission in May.
In the end, Martin E. Garcia, DVM, dismissed all
allegations against Edward J. Nichols, DVM, with three words: "Given her
age..."
Even though it
states in writing in the Board procedures (section 575.27: "If the board
secretary determines that a violation has not occurred, he/she will dismiss the
case, and will advise all parties of his/her decision and will explain the
reasons why the complaint was dismissed") AT NO TIME did Garcia explain
anything, stating only that "given her age," Nichols had done nothing
wrong.
There was only one...little...problem:
IN THE END, GARCIA
HAD NO EXPLANATION FOR SUKI'S MEDICAL TREATMENT. Imagine that! The medical
records show what Nichols had done, but Garcia's only concern was Suki's age,
not the actions of this vet that were in complete contradiction of what
"any other vet in the same or similar community" would have done --
and in fact did do -- for Suki.
Garcia used the words, "Given her age..." So what am I to conclude from that?
"Given her
age..." apparently Suki was not entitled to any presurgical labwork or
pre-anesthetic evaluation prior to a dangerous, unauthorized surgery while
she was suffering from renal failure, anemia, and hypokalemia as PROVEN by her
lab work?
"Given her
age..." apparently Suki was not entitled to have her guardian give consent
to surgery, as the surgery under anesthesia was performed without the owner
even knowing what was happening.
"Given her
age..." apparently Suki was not entitled to IV fluids to alleviate her
"v. dehydrated" state noted by her "doctor," Ed Nichols,
at any time, not even before, during or after a dangerous, unauthorized surgery
on April 19 in which her phosphorous count was 17.1, indicating considerable physical
suffering.
"Given her
age..." apparently Suki was not entitled to Winstrol or Epogen to treat her
anemia, not even before, during, or after a dangerous, unauthorized surgery,
as PROVEN by her patient chart and lab work?
"Given her
age..." apparently Suki was not entitled to potassium supplementation,
not even before, during, or after a dangerous, unauthorized surgery when her
count was 2.9 and Nichols performed dental surgery to remove a tooth and perform
a teeth cleaning while she was collapsed from CRF, as PROVEN by her patient
chart and lab work.
"Given her
age..." apparently Suki was not entitled to proper monitoring methods for a
four week period while she was suffering from CRF, anemia, hyperphosphatemia, and hypokalemia
despite having an owner with 19+ years of records PROVING that this was a
cat who got everything she ever needed, including lab work and any tests that
were ever recommended by any vet at any time.
"Given her
age..." apparently Suki was not entitled to the Professional Standard of
Humane Treatment by Ed Nichols as administered to her by four other vets in the
same community. Same cat, same condition, same city -- everything needed to
PROVE VIOLATIONS of the standard. Hospital records PROVE Suki's comeback as a
strong cat capable of responding to treatment that Nichols decided she
would not get from him, as PROVEN by his records on her and what happened on
April 19?
"Given her
age.." apparently Suki could be pumped full of dexamethasone after a
dangerous, unauthorized surgery in which OTHER standard treatments for
CRF were withheld and while she was in a state of "multiple organ
shutdown" (Nichols' chart entry), as PROVEN by her patient chart and lab
work?
"Given her
age.." apparently Suki was not entitled to a complete and accurate medical
record despite the law saying the patient's age is irrelevant when it comes to
records. Nichols could leave off weight, temperature, symptoms,
diagnoses, evidence of any PE, names and dosages of prescription drugs,
amount/type/frequency of sub-Q fluids, recommendations for treatment, and
recheck dates. SUKI'S RECORDS PROVE A CONSISTENT PATTERN OF NEGLECT AND
OMISSION OF CRUCIAL MEDICAL INFORMATION OVER A THREE-YEAR PERIOD?
"Given her
age.." apparently Ed Nichols could administer whatever he
"felt" was necessary (written response to investigators, January,
2000), and withhold whatever he "felt" was necessary to withhold, no matter
how many ways it violated the Standard of Care, as PROVEN in his own words in
his written statement as required by state board investigators.
"Given her
age..." apparently Martin Garcia, DVM, then-Board secretary, ex-board
member, present licensee of the state, and keeper of public trust, could ignore
all evidence of negligence by Nichols because Suki was nothing more than
"an old cat." The fact that Nichols walked without being held
accountable for a single one of the above actions leads me to believe that this is a case of
a veterinarian protecting another veterinarian.
So why did Martin Garcia let Ed Nichols walk after
all of the above? Why ignore all tangible evidence of repeated recordkeeping
violations when that was the easiest thing to prove in Suki's case and the age
of the pet is irrelevant when it comes to records? Even if he cared nothing
about Nichols’ incompetence in treating "an old cat" with a
treatment philosophy that says to inject steroids into a suffering and dying cat
without addressing the underlying problems of CRF, dehydration, anemia,
hypokalemia, and hyperphosphotemia, why give Nichols a free pass on his
patently incomplete and shoddy records when anyone -- even ignorant, uneducated
laypeople like me -- can
see
with their own eyes how many times Nichols violated clear standards
of recordkeeping that are governed by law? Why did Garcia look the other
way with ALL THE EVIDENCE here? Was it a board secretary
protecting a crony? A neighbor? A fellow vet? Did he not like a layperson having
the quantity and quality of proof that could put a colleague's license at risk,
making him determined to protect that colleague at all costs? Or was it just plain
incompetence, arrogance, apathy, and a sense of entitlement that says if you are a
veterinarian, you are accountable to no one?
You decide.
NOTE:
In August 2003, I
sent a complaint against Martin E. Garcia, DVM, to the Texas State Board of
Veterinary Medical Examiners for Garcia's actions in connection with what I
considered, based on the evidence and my firsthand eyewitness knowledge of the
enforcement committee meeting, to be a gross mishandling of Suki's case in the
complaint review process. The complaint was, of course, dismissed.
UPDATE: In
October 2004, Garcia was finally replaced on the Texas State Board of
Veterinary Medical Examiners FOURTEEN MONTHS after his term expired. Thanks to
all of you who wrote to the governor's office to help make this happen. However,
even though he is no longer on the board, his actions during his tenure as Board
Secretary described here STILL STAND as a testimony to how flawed the present
system is, and the need for reform so that NO OTHER SITTING BOARD VET can
blatantly ignore a mountain of evidence and allow their colleagues to escape
accountability. Veterinarians are licensees of the state, in a position of
PUBLIC TRUST, and as such are held to a higher standard. Their actions are
subject to scrutiny by citizens, and their actions can be reported on by
eyewitnesses under the FIRST AMENDMENT. I personally witnessed Garcia saying
and doing everything reported here, and stand by every word. The people of Texas
are entitled to know what goes on behind closed doors in secret meetings that
determine public safety, and any licensee of the state who attempts to squash or
control consumer information should be exposed for doing so.
Garcia is not
publicity-shy by any means and has no problem with his name being out there as
long as it's flattering. Read more about this wealthy cattle
rancher/hunter/vet/jetsetter in the puff piece published by the corporate
magazine of the Magic Valley Electric Company:
Texas
Co-op Power, March 2004 "[Garcia's] current share of the family
legacy is 5,000 acres on which he raises cattle and horses. The family gave up
farming last year, but continues ranching and hunting operations....The Garcias
are sophisticated world travelers, but they still prefer the cactus and muted
browns of their ancestral brush country to castles in the Alps or Italian
villas."
Through my
experience four years ago, I saw firsthand how inept, incompetent, and corrupt
the Texas Veterinary Board system can be. It is why I am committed to doing
everything I can to expose it, and I am not alone.
Because the Texas
Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners refuses to reopen Suki's case and properly
investigate the monster Edward J. Nichols, Crestway Animal Clinic, San Antonio, we have no choice but to do their job by presenting
FACTS and PROOF on this site to expose this vet -- along with any and all vets
protecting him -- and in doing so protect the people and pets of Texas. -
J.C.
AND
See also
Allegations Against Ed Nichols, DVM, and Correspondence from the TSBVME
Nichols Files Lawsuit Against Me in an Attempt to Silence Me
On July 21, 2005, Edward J. Nichols, DVM, Crestway Animal Clinic, San Antonio, Texas, filed a lawsuit against the owner of this site, seeking a permanent injunction to dismantle vetabusenetwork.com and enjoin me from expressing my opinions about him and his treatment of Suki.
ichols FAILED to get an injunction against me or this site (see order denying injunction here)
Ed Nichols FAILED AGAIN on appeal (see 4th Circuit COA decision here)
After 2 1/2 years of litigation, this matter was set for trial on March 10, 2008.
A settlement announcement was made in Bexar County District Court, and
THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST ME WAS DISMISSED WITH FINALITY ON MARCH 10, 2008.
Copyright 2008 Julie
Catalano. Original text and photographs may not be reproduced, reposted, or
distributed without permission.
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](martin32.gif){kind=small}
