Edward J. Nichols, DVM, Crestway Animal Clinic, San Antonio, Texas

Who did This to Suki? How Edward J. Nichols, DVM, San Antonio, Texas, "treated" Suki to death  -- and got away with it

FOR TEXAS RESIDENTS

Are all licensing boards alike? No. Read how the Texas vet board protects its own.

For purposes of this web site, and to illustrate the corruption, apathy, and unethical conduct exhibited in the egregious mishandling of Suki's case, the documented, written proof provided by Suki's guardian is indicated in red here. Nichols' response to the disciplinary committee is indicated following each allegation, which was read aloud in the disciplinary conference for him to reply to. His responses are not part of the official allegations, but took place orally in conference on August 17, 2000.  At no time was Nichols required to explain any aspect of his medical treatment of Suki, nor the disgraceful state of his records, except to blame his mother, his staff, the vet he bought the clinic from, Suki's guardian, and Suki herself. At one point he referred to the state of "our society" for what happened to Suki. His repeated cowardice in refusing to accept any personal accountability for any part of Suki's treatment - including actions that occurred under his unilateral rule in his own operating room - was rewarded by his colleague and neighbor Martin Garcia, DVM, who dismissed every allegation based only on Suki's age -- including outrageous recordkeeping violations which  have no relevance to the pet's age according to attorney general counsel Lee Mathews. Garcia ignored board agency protocol as well by refusing to provide any explanation at any time to Suki's guardian for what was done to her, and not done for her, including Nichols' blatant use and switching of powerful steroids to create the illusion of wellness in a dying cat while simultaneously withholding proper treatment. Garcia also believed Nichols' assessment that presurgical labwork was not necessary before cleaning the teeth of a dying cat in renal failure -- a barbaric and tortuous procedure carried out without the guardian's consent or knowledge. Garcia's singlemindedness in protecting a fellow doctor overrode all ethical obligation and responsibility to the public. Dr. Ed Nichols continues to practice at his own facility, Crestway Animal Clinic, 6636 Crestway Road, San Antonio, Texas. 

In my opinion and based on the overwhelming written evidence in the form of patient chart, lab work, invoices, Suki's hospital records which indicate proper treatment by second opinion vets, Ed Nichols' own written statement to the investigators which proves he was fully aware of his substandard treatment of Suki and was comfortable with it, and medical opinions obtained by me in private consultations with the second opinion vets and her previous vet, it is my firm belief that Dr. Ed Nichols presents a real and continuing threat to the health and safety of companion animals. By his own actions, patient records, and written statements, he displayed malicious determination to control patient outcome using the dangerous administration of steroids in the absence of all humane standard of care, the deliberate lack of monitoring, testing, and diagnosing to assess patient condition, the arrogant refusal to be held responsible for his own records by blaming his clinic's previous owner, and the use of unauthorized and dangerous surgery/anesthesia to "help" a viable animal proven to be capable of responding to treatment achieve this vet's own personal and hidden agenda of "natural" death while misrepresenting his efforts in order to control the guardian's decisions.  These allegations and the attendant proof speak for themselves. -- J.C.

ALLEGATIONS

1. In July 1996 Julie Catalano of San Antonio, Texas first presented her cat "Suki", age 17, to Edward J. Nichols, D.V.M. of the Crestway Animal Clinic, San Antonio, Texas. "Suki" had a history of CNS disorder (vestibular syndrome with nystagmus) [Nichols' patient chart entry from previous vet's records. He denied ever receiving previous vet's records despite his own patient chart entry in his handwriting to "see records for Rx" In additon, White-Out was used on her original chart to obscure an entry that he altered and refused to explain what it was.] which made the cat intolerant to anesthesia in any form [previous vet's name provided to investigators to confirm intolerance to anesthesia from Suki's medical history and records.]. Ms. Catalano requested that Dr. Nichols do blood work on the cat, but he declined to do so until October, 1996. No additional blood work was done until June, 1998 [no lab work done between October 1996 and June 1998].

[Nichols' response to the above allegation: "I disagree."]

2. In December, 1998, during an office visit, Dr. Nichols referred to "Suki" as a kidney patient for the first time. The cat's weight was down, she was very thirsty, drinking water heavily and urinating frequently [none of the above symptoms recorded anywhere on Suki's chart at any time in three years - weight was consistently omitted from chart and was not recorded for the last four weeks of her "treatment." See below for list of omissions, gaps, and errors in Suki's patient chart and further proof of recordkeeping violations] but he declined to do blood work at that time. Dr. Nichols assured Ms. Catalano that the cat's kidneys were functioning properly.

[Nichols' response to the above allegation: "I disagree."]

3. During an office visit in January, 1999, Dr. Nichols removed a tooth from "Suki" [Nichols' patient chart entry: "pulled tooth" without indication of which tooth, why, or any symptoms, treatment, or recommendations] and again Ms. Catalano requested that laboratory work be done, but Dr. Nichols declined to do so. [Suki had been taken to a local ER five days earlier on December 31, 1998, and no record of that visit is indicated anywhere on Nichols' chart despite a fax being sent by the ER outlining Suki's exam and the results of her PE that night. He denied ever receiving records despite their confirmation that a fax was sent. No lab work was done as a follow up to the ER.]

[Nichols's response to the above allegation: "I disagree."]

4. During an office visit on March 22, 1999, Ms. Catalano asked Dr. Nichols about the possibility that "Suki" had CRF (chronic renal failure) but Dr. Nichols declined to discuss the cat's kidneys or CRF [no diagnosis of CRF or any indications, symptoms, treatment plan, recommendations for treatment, outcome of PE, or recheck dates are recorded anywhere on Suki's chart at any time]. Dr. Nichols assured Ms. Catalano that the cat was doing fine. Blood work was done, and on March 23 Dr. Nichols informed Ms. Catalano that "Suki" was appreciably worse [no specific diagnosis was ever given at any time nor is any diagnosis recorded on chart except "arthritis"]. The cat was diagnosed as having nonregenerative anemia [no diagnosis of anemia is recorded anywhere on chart at any time]. Dr. Nichols began treating the kidneys with subQs and Winstrol [ underprescription of 100 cc's of home subQs every third day was given, but no record of type, amount, or frequency of this prescription is recorded anywhere on Suki's chart at any time, along with no diagnoses, symptoms, or any results of any PE at any time. One shot of Winstrol was given and no more at any time (patient chart entry). Suki's chart contained no PE for three years or remarks on her appearance or condition.]

[Nichols' response to above allegation: "I disagree."]

5. On April 19, 1999, without any prior authorization from Ms. Catalano, Dr. Nichols administered anesthesia and removed an abscessed tooth from "Suki", [He also cleaned her teeth -- invoice entry -- and bragged to the committee about not charging the guardian for the surgery ("SX" in his handwriting on patient chart). Vets in Texas are not required to produce proof of consent for surgery. They can perform any procedure they wish without consent. Nichols' written response to investigators stated that Suki's guardian authorized - via Nichols' mother/receptionist - whatever treatment he wanted to administer prior to any examination of Suki, thereby exonerating himself of the need to provide any informed consent of any kind at any time] despite the cat's probably intolerance to anesthesia [Suki was three months' short of her 20th birthday, collapsed, in renal failure (creatinine 9.0), hypokalemic (2.9), anemic, phosphorous count of 17, and was put under anesthesia WITHOUT ANY OF the following: pre-surgical lab work, pre-anesthetic evaluation; IV fluids despite his written note "v. dehydrated," Winstrol, Epogen, and potassium supplementation. Nichols' held good to his written rationalization that he could, in fact, do whatever he wanted or didn't want to Suki because his mother had said that he could] . The surgery resulted in a fractured jaw [second opinion confirmed that Suki was admitted to their hospital with a fractured jaw and noted that they knew that dental surgery had been done the previous day by Nichols].

[Nichols' response to the above allegation: "I disagree."]

6. On April 20, 1999 Ms. Catalano presented "Suki" to another veterinarian, Dr. [X] for a second opinion on the cat's condition. Dr. X advised that the cat's anemia was most likely due to chronic renal disease. The standard approach to anemia, according to Dr. [X], would be to treat the underlying cause (the renal disease) and promote the production of red blood cells. Despite the efforts of Dr. [X], "Suki" died on April 26, 1999 [hospital records of seven days, plus second opinion's written response to investigators, confirmed that EVERY treatment withheld from Suki over a four week period from March 22 to April 19 was administered by four second opinion vets, and Suki was responding favorably to proper treatment in accordance with standard frontline defense for CRF. The actions of the four second opinion vets proved that Nichols had violated the professional standard of humane care.]

[Nichols' response to above allegation: "I disagree."]

7. During the period in which Dr. Nichols was seeing the cat, despite questions and urging from Ms. Catalano, Dr. Nichols failed to properly diagnose the cat's kidney condition, failed to administer proper IV fluids, failed to prescribe sufficient subQs, depleted the cat of potassium, only administered one shot of Winstrol over a four week period, failed to discuss possible alternate therapy, misrepresented his efforts to treat "Suki", and in short, did not do everything possible to save "Suki". [Nichols also switched and increased types and dosages of steroids, particularly the injection of a whole milligram of dexamethasone postsurgically while withholding all humane treatment.The proof of the above is contained in Nichols' sloppy, shabby, patient records on Suki that prove a pattern of negligence in monitoring her condition, doing proper lab work, recording recommendations for treatment, or indicating recheck visits. Further, not a single symptom is recorded by Nichols at any time in three years until "v. dehydrated" on April 19, 1999. There was no diagnoses recorded except "arthritis," no recommendations or administration of IV fluids at any time, no notations of recommendations for treatment, no recheck dates, omission of prescription drugs and dosages, weight/temperature consistently omitted, consistently incorrect exam dates, no evidence of any PE for three years, no notes of behavior, appearance, or any notes from owner (o) at any time, despite guardian's supplying of notes and significant records of Suki's previous medical history, including an 11-day stay at A&M for hyperthyroidism, and a year of treatment for vestibular syndrome by previous vet. Not a single notation of the "many conversations" Nichols' claimed in writing to the investigators that he had with Suki's guardian regarding his withholding of treatment while he simultaneously injected her with different types and dosages of steroids. Nichols' written statement to the investigators stated that the guardian was aware of the type of treatment he was administering/not administering, and that the guardian agreed with the use of steroids to substitute for treatment because, in his words, "it was all about the comfort of the pussycat." His version -- backed up by not a single shred of proof of any kind -- was that the guardian did not want Suki treated and knew that he, Nichols, was not treating her and approved of his decision to let her proceed with the "normal" aging process -- a nice euphemism for our mutual decision to let Suki die untreated. This "natural" death presumably extended to the guardian's responsibility for his own decision to not follow any type of pre- or post-surgical protocol for Suki on April 19, including the large amount of dex he pumped into her (patient chart entry) that kept her going while he wrote "multiple organ shutdown" on her chart. According to Ed Nichols' written statement, nothing he did or didn't do was his fault in any way.]

[Nichols' response to the above allegation: "I disagree."]

9. The acts and/or failures to act alleged in paragraphs 1 through 7, and more specifically, the failure to accurately diagnose and treat the cat, and the administration of anesthesia despite its danger to a cat with CNS disorder, and the breaking of the cat's jaw during surgery, do not constitute the exercise of the same degree of humane care, skill and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession in good standing in San Antonio, Texas or similar communities.

10. Based on paragraphs 1 through 7 and 9, Dr. Nichols has violated Rule 573.22 - Professional Standard of Humane Treatment, of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

11. Based on paragraph 5, Dr. Nichols has violated Section 801.402 (12) of the Veterinary Licensing Act, Texas Occupations Code, and is subject to disciplinary action by the Board:

801.402. GENERAL GROUNDS FOR LICENSE DENIAL OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION. A person is subject to denial of a license or to disciplinary action under Section 801.401 if the person:

(12) performs or prescribes unnecessary or unauthorized treatment.

12. Based on paragraph 8, Dr. Nichols has violated Rule 573.52 - Patient Record Keeping, of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

13. Based on paragraphs 1 through 4 and 6 through 10, Dr. Nichols has violated Section 801.402 (6) of the Veterinary Licensing Act, Texas Occupations Code, and is subject to discipline by the Board:

GENERAL GROUNDS FOR LICENSE DENIAL OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION. A person is subject to denial of a license or to disciplinary action under Section 801.401 if the person:

(6) engages in practices or conduct that violates the board's rules of professional conduct.