SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - A woman whose cat was euthanized via a needle to the heart will get a second chance to sue the veterinarian who performed the procedure.
The California First Appellate District on April 28 reversed the dismissal of Ryan Berry's lawsuit against Jeffrey Frazier, finding a San Francisco trial court's grant of his demurrer on many of Berry's claims like fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Berry will also be able to file an amended complaint to seek exemplary damages under a state law regarding injuries to animals committed in disregard to humanity.
"Here... the IIED cause of action is predicated upon Frazier's alleged conduct directed at Berry - that he intentionally lied to or misled her about the nature of an inhumane and painful euthanasia, thereby obtaining consent under false pretenses and resulting in Berry suffering severe emotional distress once she learned that she had allowed her cat to suffer an unnecessary and extremely painful death," the decision says.
"These allegations go far beyond negligent care and describe conduct directed at Berry."
On April 18, 2019, Berry and James Kraus realized their cat was dying and reached out to Vetted for a vet who would perform an in-home euthanasia and arrange for a private cremation.
Frazier arrived that afternoon to put the cat down in the backyard but told Berry he could not place a catheter in any of the cat's limbs. Berry suggested an oral overdose of the medication the cat had been taking, but Frazier said it would "take too long."
Frazier's suggestion was an intracardiac injection - or "heart stick" - during which he would directly inject a euthanization agent into the cat's heart. In 2006, California's legislature made that type of injection illegal on a conscious animal unless it is heavily sedated, in a coma or the procedure s justifiable in light of all relevant circumstances.
Frazier told Berry it would be very quick and that the cat will "never know what's happening." Berry consented, and Frazier told Berry and Kraus to go inside the house while he performed the procedure.
Berry said she then learned of the "horrors" of using a heart stick to euthanize a conscious cat. She says Frazier failed to tell her it would be extremely painful and is considered inhumane on a conscious cat.
She sued for fraud/deceit/intentional misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion/trespass to chattels, IIED and violation of section 3340. She sought restitution plus punitive damages.
The trial court granted Frazier's demurrer but now that the appeals court has overruled that decision, the case will continue when a new complaint is filed. Berry adequately alleged that she was fraudulently induced into agreeing to the heart stick on her unsedated cat and wasn't able to be present when it happened, the court found.