Official Allegations by the TSBVME investigators

Suki's Patient Chart

Suki's Lab Work, March 22, 1999

Suki's Lab Work, April 19, 1999

Suki's treatment and lab work from hospital where she received humane and proper care

Letter of dismissal to complainant 

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners Case No. 00-061, 2000
Disciplinary Committee Meeting Held August 17, 2000

Second Investigation (regarding release of records):

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners Case No. 02003, 2001 (Dismissed without conference)

Dr. Edward J. Nichols, San Antonio, Texas, has been under two separate investigations by the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners in Austin, in 2000 and 2001. Both complaints were dismissed despite considerable written and documented evidence of violations of the Professional Standard of Humane Treatment, and violations in Recordkeeping. In the first complaint, which required Nichols' to attend an "informal conference" to face the official allegations, his patient chart, lab work, invoices, and his own written statements to investigators proved the following:

 

• the induction of anesthesia on a very dehydrated cat in renal failure, during a state of collapse, anemia, and hypokalemia with no presurgical labwork or pre-anesthetic evaluation performed to assess Suki's condition, and no evidence of any PE (physical exam) except the symptom "v. dehydrated" that Nichols wrote on patient chart, with no IV fluids administered before, during, or after surgery.

• surgery done on my cat without my consent or even informing me of the procedure before, during, or after it happened. Nichols recorded "SX," "extraction," and anesthesia on patient chart and billed for anesthesia on the invoice, but claimed to the disciplinary committee that it really wasn't surgery, it really wasn't an extraction, and it really wasn't anesthesia. He bragged to the committee, "I didn't even charge her for the tooth extraction." When Suki was admitted to a local hospital the next day to receive proper care, she had a fractured jaw, which ultimately hung from her head during the last days of her life. 
• No proof of consent for surgery.  Nichols' claimed that I, Suki's guardian, told his mother (his receptionist) that they could do whatever they "felt was necessary" to Suki. This is how he justified the anesthesia/surgery/large dose of dexamethasone and the deprivation of standard treatment at the same time, hiding behind his claim that I told his mother that that they were do to whatever they "felt" was necessary. Nichols "felt" that anesthesia, surgery, steroids, and leaving her in a cage to die were necessary, but also "felt" that IV fluids, pre-surgical labwork, pre-anesthetic evaluation, potassium supplementation, Winstrol, and Epogen were not. In addition, Nichols' own written statement indicates that this "consent" took place before Nichols even examined Suki, meaning that I would have to have given consent to surgery and anesthesia prior to any physical examination of Suki. No proof of any owner "consent" was required of Nichols at any time. All he had to do was throw his mother in front of him to absolve himself of any accountability for not getting consent. I found out that vets in Texas are not required to produce proof of consent, leaving them unaccountable to companion animal guardians for any procedure they wish to perform on people's pets. Nichols attempted to turn everything into a he said/she said situation every chance he got, but the records prove that on April 19 he continued to deprive Suki of humane treatments while claiming he had my consent (via his mother) to do surgery under anesthesia and pump her full of dexamethasone -- an insane and ludicrous explanation for his heinous actions as a "doctor."

 
• no presurgical labwork to assess Suki's condition prior to the induction of anesthesia and the performance of surgery. Nichols took Suki's blood after the surgery and put a lab rush on it while he put her in a cage to lay dying of dehydration, anemia, hypokalemia, and CRF. The results were returned hours after the surgery (date and time stamp on lab work), after Suki had been pumped full of dexamethasone. The lab results were deliberately withheld from me; I had previously always received copies of lab work. Nichols wrote "multiple organ shutdown" on the chart entry dated April 19, 1999, and circled it, while withholding information from me  regarding Suki's true condition. This is provable by Nichols' own sequence of events in his written statement to investigators. 

 
• deliberate injection of a whole milligram of dexamethasone into Suki after the surgery -- who was in organ shutdown, with a crashed liver, failing kidneys, anemic, and hypokalemic -- with no weight recorded for four weeks. This dose of dexamethasone - a powerful steroid that would easily  mask symptoms -  was five times Suki's usual dose. This decision to inject dexamethasone was made solely by Nichols while continuing to deliberately, consciously, and maliciously deprive Suki of all other standard treatments. In conference, then-board secretary Dr. Martin Garcia -- the only person on the committee authorized to find a vet in violation -- noted that this was an unusually large amount of dex, but ignored this blatant evidence of wrongdoing along with all other documented evidence of violations. 

 
• deliberate dehydration through withholding of IV fluids before during and after surgery. Suki was never, at any time, administered IV fluids by Nichols, even when she needed them the most. On April 19, the day of unauthorized surgery, Suki's creatinine was 9.0. Nichols wrote "v. dehydrated" on patient chart, and yet deliberately withheld IV fluids, claiming I had refused them. However, his written response came back to haunt him again: In order to fake "consent," Nichols claimed that I had told his mother that he was to do "whatever [Nichols] felt was necessary." Nichols' written use of the word "felt" was transparent, deliberate, and self-serving. The fact was that Nichols did whatever he wanted in complete opposition to the Professional Standard of Humane Treatment, as proven by four second opinion vets who administered all the treatments Nichols had deliberately withheld not only on April 19 but for four weeks prior. The actions of the four second opinion vets prove that Nichols did indeed violate Rule 573.22, Professional Standard of Humane Treatment - same cat, same condition, and same city. On April 19, Nichols was simply continuing to deprive Suki of the same treatments he had been withholding for four weeks (IV fluids, Winstrol, Epogen, potassium, lab work) while giving himself consent to operate on her under anesthesia. All Nichols did in conference was switch his two biggest (but not only) lies: During the four weeks he withheld and manipulated treatment, he told the committee the lie that I had refused treatment. But when questioned about specific consent for surgery and anesthesia on April 19, he switched back to a fabricated scene in which I had told his mother -- conveniently taking himself out of any consent scenario -- that he could do whatever he "felt" was necessary. The fact is that Nichols had been doing whatever he wanted all along; he only changed his stories when he got caught -- first blaming me for Suki's four weeks of undertreatment from March 22-April 19, and then claiming "consent" for surgery and anesthesia on April 19 while hiding behind his mother in the place of any actual owner consent to specific procedures. In short, Nichols had it both ways, and Martin Garcia and the committee let him. 

 
• deliberate underprescription of home subQ fluids, with no record of any subQ prescription on patient chart at any time. Nichols prescribed a maintenance schedule of 100 ccs of home subqs on March 24, based on Suki's creatinine of 6.6. No IV fluids were ever at any time recommended or given to Suki, and Nichols repeatedly instructed me not to give her more than 100 ccs every third day. This slowly and systematically dehydrated Suki over a period of four weeks, elevating her creatinine from 6.6 to 9.0. He began the deliberate dehydration on March 22 himself, when he reduced Suki's usual 100cc, which she had been getting every few months, to 60cc (patient chart entry). I was later told at the hospital that Suki should have been getting IV fluids on a regular basis and definitely should have had them the day before, when she was lying in a cage, dying, at Nichols' clinic. The hospital vets had no explanation as to why Suki did not receive IV fluids at any time, especially before, during, or after a surgery that they also could not explain. They also had no explanation for the obvious underprescription of 100 ccs every third day. Nichols' records provide the proof that he knew what he was doing: At no time was ANY prescription for home subQs recorded on Suki's chart, even though Nichols saw her four times in four weeks. It was no accident he left that Rx off of her chart -- it proved he used me to dehydrate my own cat, knowing that I would never suspect that the prescription he gave me was not enough for a cat in her condition. He deliberately shut Suki's kidneys down slowly and maliciously over a period of four weeks, knowing all along that she was dying of thirst and dehydration. It was all part of his perverted and twisted definition of the word "natural." 

 
• deliberate depletion of potassium for four weeks, taking her from a reading of 3.5 to 2.9, and resulting, along with other documented untreated conditions, in collapse and twisting of Suki's front paws and back legs. On March 24, Nichols instructed me to stop giving Suki Tumil-K after he saw the first lab work (potassium 3.5) . No further lab work was done until AFTER the surgery on April 19, so her potassium count was never monitored along with her anemia or renal failure. On April 19, after a surgery I never knew about or authorized, when I asked Nichols why Suki's paws were twisted and facing upwards, and her back legs were twisted, he replied, "Her potassium is shot," but never administered potassium that day -- before, during, or after the unauthorized surgery. There is no indication on the chart when Suki was prescribed Tumil-K or the dosage, nor when he discontinued it, and no form of potassium was given at any time to Suki on April 19 when Nichols claimed "her potassium is shot." Yet another example of Nichols' leaving crucial information off of Suki's chart so that he could fill in the gaps later should he be required to give an explanation. 

 
• the withholding of necessary medications for anemia. One shot of Winstrol was given on March 24, and Nichols never administered another one. No Epogen was recommended or administered at any time. The patient chart entry of April 7 shows vitamin B12, but no dosage is recorded. Suki never received Winstrol or Epogen until she was taken to a local hospital on April 20, where she received proper treatment for anemia.  Nichols had deliberately left it untreated, knowing I would have no way of knowing what he was doing or what Suki really needed. 
• the injection of steroid doses in larger amounts (first Depo Medrol and then dexamethasone) on April 7 and April 19 respectively to mask symptoms and create the illusion of wellness when Suki was, in fact, slowly dying. This was a documented and provable pattern of Nichols destroying Suki internally while making her look better externally. Steroids on both occasions were administered in the absence of all other standard treatment, with Nichols claiming to the committee that I had refused treatment, but okayed the steroids to keep her going. That explanation bordered on insane: Laypeople in Texas do not have any authority to prescribe or diagnose, nor approve or disapprove the administration of a steroid to create the illusion of wellness in a dying animal, and yet Nichols blamed me for the injection of steroids (He had screamed at me in a phone call, "You agreed!" in order to try and make me believe that I knew what he was doing to my cat all along. He made the same absurd statement in his written response - that I was aware of what he was doing to Suki and was okay with it.) When questioned by the committee, he maintained that he and I had had "many, many discussions" about how "we had decided not to treat Suki" and the steroids he was using (switching and increasing them) were "all about the comfort of the pussycat," and "we were just trying to keep the kittycat comfortable." When asked why standard treatment was withheld but steroids were increased, switched, and administered, Nichols would only answer vaguely, "We had many, many discussions." When Nichols was asked if there was any record of those "discussions," any notes of so-called repeated client refusal of standard treatments, any details of what was said, he said no. When it became clear from the records that I was not refusing treatment, that Suki was indeed being treated, but only in limited ways, he changed his story to say that I hadn't withheld all treatment, just the ones that "we" together had decided to keep from Suki. He took every opportunity to make me an accomplice in Suki's destruction, when he alone was controlling the type, amount, and frequency of all treatments since a layperson would have no idea what he was really doing.  There was no record of ANY recommendations or consent/refusals for any treatment at any time; for three years, Nichols' medical records contained no symptoms on or observations about Suki until April 19, 1999, the last day he saw her.  He claimed in his written response that I had refused his recommendation to perform a renal biopsy. NO such recommendation was ever made nor is it noted anywhere in her records.  A vet I later contacted had no explanation for why any vet would be recommending a renal biopsy on a 20-year-old cat with CRF. Nichols' broken-record explanation of his decision to use steroids while withholding standard treatment was that "we" had decided together not to treat Suki except in ways that only HE felt was necessary. And with the board secretary refusing to properly evaluate the evidence that proved Nichols was lying, the committee accepted his convoluted, ever-changing, and ludicrous "explanations" that I had taken Suki four times in four weeks to a vet so we could do nothing but have discussions about how she "wasn't" going to be treated and then inject her with steroids. 

 
• failure to monitor Suki's condition by not doing labwork for four consecutive weeks  from the first lab work done on March 22, 1999, to Suki's collapse and unauthorized surgery on April 19. On March 24, Nichols had instructed me to bring Suki back in two weeks, on April 7, to do lab work. Upon doing so, I was told by Nichols that he had "changed" his mind and no lab work needed to be done. When I questioned it, he stalled again, but wanted to see her in yet another two weeks to get a "red blood cell count." On the recheck form, however, Nichols wrote "3" weeks, which was the first time in Suki's entire time with him that he had ever put a recheck date in writing. Nichols stalled lab work because he knew full well that I always got copies. Nichols told the committee that I had refused lab work, then later changed his story that he and the guardian had decided together not to do lab work. On April 7, after still stalling much-needed lab work to assess Suki's condition, he switched Suki from her usual .2 dexamethasone to .5 of Depo Medrol -- a longer acting steroid in the largest dose she had ever received while STILL withholding all other treatments and reassuring me that "everything" was being done. Not knowing what "everything" was, I believed him because I had no reason to suspect a vet would destroy someone's pet rather than see her treated in ways he didn't approve of. Nichols knew Suki's medical history from her previous records, knew what kind of owner I was, and knew the care that had been taken of her, including an 11-day stay at A&M for hyperthyroidism and a year of intense treatment for vestibular syndrome and CNS disorder (which incidentally, made her ineligible for any amount or type of anesthesia as her previous vet confirmed). Twelve days after injecting .5 Depo Medrol into Suki and sending us on our way with no other treatment except a written recheck note to come back in three weeks, Suki collapsed. Upon seeing Suki still alive, Nichols proceeded to accelerate her suffering and death by administering anesthesia and performing a surgical tooth extraction, unknown to me.   

 

• numerous recordkeeping violations including repeated failures to record symptoms, diagnoses, weight, temperature, prescription drugs, dosages, type, amount and frequency of subQ fluids, or any results of any PE (physical examination) at any time. At no time does Nichols record a single symptom except "v. dehydrated," on April 19, at the height of his prolonged abuse of Suki and the day of the worst torture. That is the first time in three years that he makes any notation as to the appearance or condition of my cat. There is ample evidence of Nichols' violations of Rule 573.52, Patient Record Keeping. When questioned by the committee about the numerous gaps in his records, Nichols replied, "I inherited that recordkeeping system." He was allowed to blame the vet he bought Crestway Animal Clinic from five years earlier, and was never required to explain all the gaps, omissions, and errors in Suki's patient chart. His attitude was that his records were not his responsibility, and once again the board secretary accepted that explanation. 

Suki died on April 26, 1999, after a week in the hospital being treated properly - but too late - by four second opinion vets. The hospital vets had immediately and correctly administered IV fluids, potassium supplementation, Winstrol, Epogen, provided proper monitoring through lab work, and did, as one of them described, "standard frontline defense for chronic renal failure." Throughout the week that Suki was in their care,  they spoke to me off the record, indicating that Nichols' "treatment" was indeed substandard and highly questionable but, according to a reliable source, "did not want to get involved in that Nichols thing." Medically, the hospital doctors did everything they could, and Suki responded positively to all treatments that Nichols had deliberately withheld. Same cat, same condition, same city -- even the same lab work -- all the requirements needed to prove violations of the Professional Standard of Humane Treatment according to the language of the statute itself,  and all ignored by the board secretary and enforcement committee in Austin. 

On August 17, 2000, Edward James Nichols, DVM, was required to attend a disciplinary conference in Austin, Texas. Despite all documented evidence, all allegations against Nichols were dismissed by then-board secretary Martin Garcia, DVM, who is a resident and major landowner in the Rio Grande Valley (Willacy County), where Ed Nichols claimed he owns considerable property and announced that information during that meeting. Garcia made sure that the evidence was never seen by the rest of the board. He prefaced his dismissal of all allegations with three words: "Given her age..." 

Given Suki's age, apparently, Nichols COULD do whatever he "felt" like, no matter how it differed from the standard of care as proven by what four other vets did. Garcia did not hold Nichols responsible for a single one of his actions as a doctor. He did, however, ask me, "Do you know the average lifespan of a cat?" He also asked me what I had been feeding Suki. The unauthorized anesthesia and unnecessary surgery on a dying, collapsed, anemic, hypokalemic CRF cat in "multiple organ shutdown" (patient chart entry), the deliberate lack of presurgical labwork, the administration of only one shot of Winstrol and no more, the deliberate withholding of potassium, the deliberate deprivation of treatment for anemia, the deliberate dehydration through deprivation of IV fluids before, during, and after surgery on a "v. dehydrated" cat (patient chart), the deliberate use of powerful steroids in the absence of all other treatment to create the illusion of wellness to a guardian who had no idea that a veterinarian could be capable of such cruelty, plus the completely disgraceful state of Nichols' shoddy, incomplete, and erroneous patient records that contained no notes of any PE ever being performed in three years -- Garcia claimed that Ed Nichols was not responsible for any of the above that happened to Suki, "given her age." 

According to written confirmation from the attorney general's counsel, a patient's age has nothing to do with record keeping statutes. By law, every patient is entitled to a complete and accurate patient chart. But Nichols was allowed to absolve himself of all accountability for Suki's records as well. He blamed the vet he bought Crestway Animal Clinic from, saying "I inherited that record keeping system."  Martin Garcia allowed him to do so without any objection from the "enforcement" committee that consists of the executive director of the board; the chief enforcement officer; the attorney general counsel; and one investigator -- none of whom are doctors and therefore must abide by a board secretary's deliberate and repeated decisions to ignore all evidence.

Despite my repeated petitions for the past 3 1/2 years to reopen this case based on fully documented written proof of Nichols' actions, including new evidence contained in his own written statement, the new evidence regarding the manipulation of steroids while simultaneously withholding all other standard treatments, the written confirmation by AG counsel to me that a patient's age has no bearing on their entitlement to complete and accurate records, the board staff in Austin refuses to reopen this case. 

Four days after the conference, on August 21, 2000, I was informed by one of the committee members that I did not have to accept Garcia's decision, and that the board staff could request that another vet on the board review the evidence. The request was made in writing, again outlining all of the documentation that supported a re-opening of this case. It was refused by the executive director (not a vet), stating that while "Dr. Nichols' records could have been more complete,"  Garcia had found nothing wrong with Nichols' treatment of Suki. The same committee member who had supplied me with that information claimed that he did not know where I got any such information that another board vet could review the evidence, claiming they never do that because it wouldn't be right.  

From that kind of misleading and deceptive practice of the board staff, to the blatant misconduct in the handling of Suki's case, to the repeated refusals to reopen this investigation despite new evidence, it is clear that the board staff's job is to protect the decision of Martin Garcia, DVM, who in turn chose to protect Ed Nichols, and closed the case.  

There is no official record of disciplinary conferences; those meetings are held behind closed doors. The complainant is not allowed to have an attorney (or anyone else) present, while the vet can bring his if he chooses and the committee and board secretary are fully protected by the AG counsel in his capacity as attorney for the board. At one point, I was made to leave the room so that Martin Garcia and the committee could meet privately with Ed Nichols. When I was allowed to re-enter the room, Garcia announced his decision to dismiss all allegations against Nichols "given [Suki's] age," with no other explanation for her treatment. Conference procedure requires that the board secretary explain the reason for dismissal. Garcia cited only Suki's age as the reason, because there was no way he could explain what Nichols had done to her. Neither has any other vet who has seen the evidence. In an unconscionable attempt to shield a colleague from accountability, there are certain vets in San Antonio claiming to have seen all the evidence in this case and that Ed Nichols did nothing wrong. Their determination to protect a vet who would do this to an innocent animal is putting people's pets at risk every day. 

In 2001, Ed Nichols was under a second board investigation for failure to release Suki's complete patient record to me upon request, as required by state statute. Nichols' mother instructed my representative that Suki's records were no longer on site and could only be obtained from her son's lawyer. The case was closed after Nichols' lawyer sent me the records. Once again, Nichols escaped all accountability for flagrantly violating statutes. Animal guardians in Texas are entitled to complete copies of medical records by requesting them of the vet -- NOT their lawyers. Animal guardians should not have to go through a lawyer to get patient records. 

Ed Nichols continues to be fully protected by the board staff, board members Martin Garcia, DVM, and Lynn Lawhon, DVM -- both of whom are still on the vet board despite their terms having expired in August 2003 [** See Update below**] -- and selected veterinarians in San Antonio who have directly and indirectly protected him for years in spite of a history of alleged professional problems and previous complaints at his former place of employment. He is currently practicing at Crestway Animal Clinic in San Antonio without any official record of statute violations despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

Note: While Suki was fighting for her life the week of April 20-26 in a real hospital where competent vets were trying to save her life, Nichols instructed me over the phone to remember the word "natural." When required to face the disciplinary committee in Austin and face the evidence of what he had done to Suki over a four-week period, Nichols did not, of course, expound on his philosophy of natural death. He simply blamed me for everything that happened -- even for things that occurred in his own operating room when I wasn't even present -- and then-board secretary Martin Garcia, DVM, protected him every step of the way. Ed Nichols walked scot-free out of that conference room in Austin, having attained the ultimate in having it both ways: He enjoyed his victory and control over me by stealing from me my most precious companion, creating and implementing Suki's "natural" death through seven different methods of medical cruelty, never expecting her to live long enough to be seen by four other vets. The employer of those vets, by the way, was reportedly contacted by Nichols to after he (Nichols) discovered that state investigators had contacted them. Any potential second opinion problems were taken care of with a phone call to the person who signs those vets' paychecks. Nichols also admitted his actions to me (phone conversation, April 22, 1999) so that I would always know that he won and mostly to defend his definition of "natural" death. In Austin he enjoyed the complete exoneration and protection by the authorities, claiming that I had taken Suki to him over a four-week period so that she could NOT be treated -- an insane explanation under any circumstances, but especially one in which I got Suki to a hospital where she received every proper treatment. He claimed I had given consent -- via his mother, not to him at any time -- that he was to do what he "felt" was necessary. Here's what this "doctor" felt it his right to do:  He "felt" it necessary to administer inhumane treatments while he "felt" it necessary to withhold humane treatments. He did both on the same day, April 19, 1999, as he put my dying cat in renal failure in a box,  gassed her, and operated on her without benefit of any proper protocol or evaluation of any kind.  And Martin Garcia, board secretary, allowed it. Ed Nichols had gotten his way. Both ways. Again. 

--Julie Catalano

See Texas Residents, What You Need to Know

**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 as well as having the documented evidence that proves it. 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.