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.

South Carolina Vet Robert Moorhead: " . . . engaged in incompetent or negligent conduct"; does surgery on dog's leg without taking x-rays first

I find it interesting that "bad vets" tend to maintain licenses in multiple states. Usually, these states are contiguous or near each other. But Robert M. Moorhead, DVM, had licenses in Colorado and South Carolina in recent years.

I also find it interesting how many "bad vets" either are involved, or get involved, in the horse business, after a history of violations on smaller companion animals.

In early Fall 2001, a pet owner brought his dog to Moorhead's clinic, after the dog had been struck by a car.

Moorhead did not have an x-ray machine at his clinic. But that didn't stop Moorhead from diagnosing the dog's injuries and proceeding with surgery, which he did the next day. According to the board document, Moorhead "performed an open reduction in which he inserted a pin into the femur and wrapped the break with wire mesh inside the leg."

Subsequently, the pin Moorhead had placed in the dog's leg started to come out. Moorhead then "removed the pin" (?? did that involve another surgery??) and "placed the dog's leg in a soft cast." The following month, the dog started to develop an open sore. The owner took his dog back to Moorhead, and Moorhead did ANOTHER surgery. According to the Board document, this time Moorhead:

"removed bone chips from the leg and inserted two pins from the stifle joint and into the femur."

Two months later (December), Moorhead examined the dog and sent him for x-rays at another clinic. The document does not say what these x-rays showed. It does not say what Moorhead saw on them, or if he even ever reviewed them.

Subsequently, on Christmas Eve, the owner ended up taking his dog to the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary Emergency clinic. On January 4, the dog's leg had to be amputated,

"because the leg had never healed, the hip joint had been broken, and the knee joint had been destroyed by the pinning procedure."

So, I'm sure that many of the same questions that come to my mind are in yours right now, such as:

"Was the dog's hip broken from the original accident, and Moorhead missed it and failed to do anything about it? If so, is this because he had no x-ray equipment and decided he could simply diagnose all the dog's injuries on exam alone? Or, did the dog's hip subsequently break because of stress from walking with a broken, improperly or inadequately pinned leg?"

"Was incompetent treatment on the part of Moorhead responsible for, or a contributing factor to, the dog ultimately having to have his leg amputated? Had he received more competent treatment, would he have been able to keep his leg??

The South Carolina Board found that Moorhead had failed to keep adequate records when he saw the dog in September and October. They go into some detail about the recordkeeping violations in their decision, including Moorhead's failure to document the type and amount of anesthesia given the dog.

Interestingly, they slip another citation into the document, referencing only the code violated. But unlike the recordkeeping violation, the South Carolina Vet Board doesn't bother to tell the reader what that section of code pertains to. Of this violation, the document says only:

"The Respondent has violated S.C. Code Ann. 40-69-140(1) (2001) in that the Respondent violated regulations of the Board, specifically, Regulation 120-6.1."

Hmm, what in the heck is 120-6.1?

Why do they gloss over that, without quoting what that violation is about, whereas -- by contrast -- they go into detail about the meaning of the recordkeeping violations?

This is supposed to be a public record. Yet, I believe, the way the Board has drafted this (and other) findings of fact, is a deliberate attempt to protect the offending vet, and a deliberate attempt to "hide in plain sight" the worst violations. To hide this from the public, specifically the pet owning public. To keep them from having this information as the basis of making decisions about Moorhead as a vet.

They know that most readers won't spend the time it takes (which can be SIGNIFICANT) to search through the South Carolina Code, find this section, and reference it so that they can interpret what it means.

But, this sneaky little citation is the most important one. And thanks to the Colorado Veterinary Board -- where Moorhead was also licensed -- we know what this violation means.

In 2004, the Colorado Vet Board disciplined Moorhead as a result of his South Carolina violation. Their order states:

"The South Carolina Board also found that the respondent . . . engaged in incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of veterinary medicine by failing to take preliminary radiographs to determine the best method of fracture repair in order to facilitate a complete return of function of the patient's leg."

Well, thanks, Colorado Vet Board: If it weren't for you, we might never have known the SC Board found him incompetent or negligent.

Just goes to prove that public records aren't always all that accessible to the public in all senses of the word.

However, we can't thank either the South Carolina Board OR the Colorado Board for taking anything like serious action in this case.

The South Carolina Vet Board suspended Moorhead's license to practice, but IMMEDIATELY stayed the suspension. "Stayed" means that not even one day of the suspension was enforced.

They put Moorhead on probation for 2 years with terms that include providing "quarterly reports of four cases" (presumably of his own choosing) to the Board, including one surgical case and four medical cases.

They also required him to retroactively RE-CREATE records for this case.

In other words, after finding him to have been negligent or incompetent, they are disciplining him by ordering him to do another surgery and submitting information about that.

They did, at least, order him to get an x-ray machine before doing this (or any other) surgery and to take 10 hours of continuing education in orthopedics and anesthesia, respectively.

And after finding him in violation of recordkeeping in this case, they are not merely inviting him, but ordering him, to retroactively create records for this patient nearly 2 years after-the-fact.

Gee, wonder how factual truthful, and accurate those records will be????

They fined him $500 and the costs of the investigation.

Colorado also suspended his license and immediately stayed the suspension, enforcing not one day of it.

They put him on probation for a little over a year or until the South Carolina order's provisions were met.

Oh, about that horse thing:

A websearch of Robert M. Moorhead finds this:

Robert Moorhead listed at Carolina Sport horses

Gee sport horses? I bet they have their share of orthopedic injuries. I'd be concerned about their care.

Links:

South Carolina Board Order

Other:

Colorado Orders:

Colorado Vet Matthew Aaronian: Misdiagnosis; Unnecessary Procedure; and Refusal to Release Animal to Owner Due to an Unpaid Bill, and Maybe Worse

Colorado is one of those states where the veterinary board says lots of nothing in its written decisions. They give very little indication of what happened to the animal as a result of the actions described. But reading between the lines, the "Stipulated Letter of Admonition" issued to Colorado Springs vet Matthew Aaronian raises HUGE RED FLAGS. Let me tell you what is in this document and how I interpret it.

This document, dated March 26, 2007, says:

". . . the Board determined . . . [that] you failed to meet the generally accepted standards of the practice when you misdiagnosed a condition and performed a procedure that was medically unnecessary . . . . The Board also found that you violated C.R.S. sections 12-64-120(1) and (2) when you withheld records from the animals owner because the owner had an outstanding bill. Finally, the Board found that your policy of deeming an animal abandoned if a bill remains upaid for seven days violates C.R.S. section 12-64-115, and that you failed to give proper notice of your intent to deem the animal abandoned as required by C.R.S. section 12-64-115. The Board found that these facts comprised evidence of violations of the practice act . . . the Board hereby admonishes you . . . "

The Board hereby admonishes you????? Is that IT?

Oh, not quite. They ordered him to "complete six hours of POVMR approved continuing education in radiographs, specifically in acute abdomen diagnosis and treatment . . . "

Uh oh. Let's do some reading between the lines, shall we?

We have a reference to a misdiagnosis.

We have a reference to an "unnecessary procedure" -- probably surgery.

We have an order to take training in acute abdomen diagnosis and treatment and radiographs (x-rays).

Reading between the lines, I'm betting that this vet opened up the pet's abdomen based on a misdiagnosis and that it had something to do either misinterpreting x-rays or not taking them at all.

Then, we have reference to an unpaid bill. (Probably for the UNNECESSARY "PROCEDURE").

The Board also says that the vet deemed the "animal abandoned" because the bill (which included charges for the UNNECESSARY SURGERY, I'm betting) went unpaid seven days. It also says that Aaronian failed to give the owners [proper] notice that he was going to consider their animal abandoned, and that he refused to release the records.

Not a good sign, folks.

With respect to abandoned animals, the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act says:

"(1) Any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding, or other care which is unclaimed by its owner or his agent for a period of more than ten days after written notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, is given to the addressee only at his last known address shall bedeemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society or animal shelter or disposed of as such custodian may deem proper."

Dispose of, folks, I'm thinking means KILL.

But you see, it seems this animal wasn't abandoned at all. The vet never gave "proper" notice to the owner that he was going to consider the animal abandoned because of the unpaid bill or portion thereof which seemingly included costs for an UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE (presumably, surgery).

So, I'm betting that what happened in this story is that this veterinarian euthanized this animal after having performed unnecessary surgery on it . . . because he was PUNISHING the owners for not paying their bill or for not paying it in its entirety including costs for UNNECESSARY SURGERY RESULTING FROM HIS MISDIAGNOSIS -- that's my conjecture. Reading between the lines, that is what I am led to conclude. If you know different, you just let me know.

This is what I mean about having to read between the lines of these documents, and I always assume the worst.

Links:

Click to go to Colorado Regulatory Agency Website

Better yet, read for yourself right here:





UPDATE! ALERT!!!

Since I doubt there are two Matthew Aaronian vets (although it could be possible), I am pretty sure this is a picture of him. He's on the left.

Here is another, probably earlier one.

If you are living in CALIFORNIA, memorize that face, and if you see him, I'm advising you to take your pet and run fast and far in the opposite direction. These vets who get disciplined in one state seem to have a habit of moving to another, and it seems Aaronian is no different: There is now a Matthew Aaronian practising in Atascadero, CA.

He also seems to have applied for (and been granted) a license to work as a vet supporting the Iditarod in Alaska in 2007. Stellar event that was to be associated with. During that race, one of the "mushers" (Ramy Brooks) was disqualified for hitting his dogs with stakes. One of that man's dogs died and two other dogs died. (Just FYI, three dogs also died in the 2008 Iditarod.

Well, Aaronian affiliating himself with that event is not surprising, is it?

For more on the Iditarod, visit www.helpsleddogs.org.

Unless of course, there is more than 1 veterinarian named Matthew Aaronian. Nah . . . how likely is that?

-- Stefani Olsen

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?