Colorado Vet Debra Megonigle Sends "Technician" (?) to Treat Horse; Technician Pours Mineral Oil Into Horses Lungs and Kills It.

In this rare case that actually resulted in discipline, the following story is told in the public record documents of the Colorado Vet Board:

"[Debra Megonigle] was the registered agent of Animal Emergency Room and Medical Center, Inc., located in Pueblo, Colorado, on or about May 31 and June 1, 1999.

". . . the Animal Emergency Room and Medical Center, Inc., was contacted about a gelding horse suffering from colic. The horse and horse's owner were from California and were attending an AQHA horse show at the Colorado State Fairgrounds in Pueblo."

"[Debra Megonigle] sent Mr. "KC" (Casey) Cooper, a veterinary technician employed by Emergency Room and Medical Center, to treat the horse. Cooper administered mineral oil via a naso-gastric tube. Cooper also injected the horse with Bentamine."

"The horse ultimately died as a result of having mineral oil inserted into its lungs."

"At no time during Cooper's care of the horse was a veterinarian on premises or available to supervise his care of the horse."

"On or about June 18, 1999, [Debra Megonigle] completed a form supplied by Equine Insurance Claims Services, Inc. The form related to Cooper's treatment of the horse on May 31, 1999. In the space listing veterinarian, [Debra Megonigle] crossed out "Casey Cooper, DVM" and inserted "Debra Megonigle, DVM."


[NOTE TO READERS: Serious questions are raised by this passage.

Were the horse's owners led to believe that Cooper was a veterinarian? (This would explain why their insurance company's form would list him that way.)

Was Cooper even a licensed technician? (I doubt it, since it seems to me the document from the veterinary board would specify so if that were the case.)

In making this change, was Megonigle trying to mislead anyone into believing that she had actually been present when the incident occured?

The document continues . . . ]

"The above-described conduct constitutes violations of the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act . . . "

They go on to cite five violations of the act including sections pertaining to:

"Fraud, deception, misrepresentation, or dishonest or illegal practices in or connected with the practice of veterinary medicine" . .. .

"Incompetence, negligence, or other malpractice in the practice of veterinary medicine . . . "

"Unprofessional or unethical conduct . . . "

"An act or omission which fails to meet generally accepted standards of veterinary practice . . . "

As a result of these cited violations, the board suspended Megonigle's license for a month, placed her on probation for a year, and fined her $5,000 ($1,000 for each of 5 violations).

Although you might not think this is enough, it's more than boards usually do. I must ask however:

If the same thing had been done but the patient were a cat or dog, rather than a horse whose owners had equine insurance and were in town to attend an American Quarterhorse show, would the action have been as strong?

Can you even imagine the suffering that this horse must have gone through?

Public Record Document taken from the website of the Colorado Veterinary Board:













CASE UPDATES:

Dr. Megonigle never paid the Colorado Veterinary Board the $5,000 fine. In April, 2001, the Board sent her a letter regarding her non-payment. Later that year, without ever having paid any portion of the $5,000 fine, Debra Megonigle declared bankruptcy in Texas, and all of her debts were discharged on December 13, 2001. The Colorado Board informed her that this penalty was not dischargable in bankruptcy, but she still didn't pay it, and so faced with revocation of her license Megonigle surrendered her license in Colorado and is now practising in TEXAS.

Web searches on Dr. Megonigle seem to indicate that she was working at Island Animal Clinic in Port Aransas Texas in mid 2009.

Death of a Donor Cat in Hands of Colorado Vet Heather Steyn

On April 16, 2007, the Colorado Board of Veterinary Medicine issued a "Stipulated Letter of Admonition" to veterinarian Heather Steyn, DVM, of VCA Ft. Collins Animal Hospital. This letter says (emphasis mine):

" . . .the Board determined that the blood collection practice in this case, which resulted in the death of the donor feline, was substandard. The Board found that your substandard treatment constituted a violation of the practice act. Specifically, the Board hereby admonishes you for a violation of C.R.S. section 12-64-111(1)(l)."

So, the substandard method of blood collection from this case RESULTED IN it's death -- that is clearly stated by the Board. (Boards so rarely establish causation, that I feel that is important to point out.)

C.R.S. section 12-64-111(1) is:

"l) Unprofessional or unethical conduct or engaging in practices in
connection with the practice of veterinary medicine which that are in
violation of the standards of professional conduct generally accepted
standards of veterinary practice as defined in this article or
prescribed by the rules and regulations of the board;"


The Board fined Steyn $500 and ordered her to take 6 hours of education in remedial critical care, but considered the latter requirement satisfied by classes she had already taken. (???) They ordered her to write a three- to five-page paper on blood collection practices.

A web search on Heather Steyn's name indicates that she is actually the MEDICAL DIRECTOR of the VCA Ft. Collins in Fort Collins, Colorado. Just this month she was
offering discounted services on services including semen collection, evaluation and freezing.

So here is my question, if the MEDICAL DIRECTOR is engaging in violations of regulations against "unprofessional" or "unethical" conduct or that which is "a violation of the standards of professional conduct" then . . . what can you expect from the rest of the staff?

Poor, poor donor kitty. R.I.P.

Links:

To see the disciplinary document for yourself,

1. Go to the

Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies website;
2. Select "Division of Registrations Board/Program Action Documents;
3. Click Logon
4. In the drop-down box on the next page, select: "REG Licensing Board"
5. In the drop-down box on the next page, where is says: "State Board of" - select "Veterinary."
6. Look for unique ID 30146 and click on the hyperlinked text (as of today, this is on the last page of the results, so you will need to click through the documents to go all the way to the end).

"Cooper" Died As a Result of Colorado Vet Amy Weeden's Failure to Monitor Him

In October, 2007, the Colorado Veterinary Board issued a letter of admonition to Amy Weeden, a vet practising at Denver, Colorado's Harrison Memorial Animal Hospital.

The Board stated that:

"On June 20, 2007, your patient Cooper Bails was not properly monitored while under anesthetic, which resulted in his unexpected demise."

" . . . the Board hereby admonishes you for violation of C.R.S. 12-64-111 (bb) since the veterinarian is responsible for the animal under his or her care."

So we have a dead pet -- likely a dead beloved pet. And the Board itself has said that the vet's failure to adequately monitor Cooper, or failure to ensure that Cooper was adequately monitored, RESULTED IN his death. I think in legal terms, that is called "CAUSALITY", i.e., the actions (or inactions) of the vet LED to the death of the animal.

However, all the vet board did was "admonish" her in a letter. No fine. No suspension. No requirement to take classes in anesthetic monitoring. NOTHING. JUST A LETTER.

Dead pet. Actions of vet RESULTED IN the pets demise. Yet, nothing but a letter.

So, why in the world would Colorado's vets be careful with their patients under anesthesia when screwups or oversights that actually RESULT IN the death of pets are met with nothing more serious than a letter?