A Wisconsin nurse faces as many as 15 years in prison after prosecutors alleged she intentionally removed oxygen from a 75-year-old hospice patient at the Tomah Veterans Affairs Medical Center and made remarks suggesting his death would create less paperwork for her.
Beth Holtz, 53, a registered nurse assigned to the medical center's hospice ward, was charged with one count of intentionally abusing a patient, according to a criminal complaint obtained by Law&Crime. Authorities allege the patient, who suffered from pulmonary fibrosis and had an order for continuous oxygen, went without the prescribed supply for roughly 90 minutes on Aug. 17, 2025.
The case centers not only on Holtz's decision to remove the oxygen but also on statements investigators say she made around the time of the incident. According to the complaint, Holtz told a colleague, "It's easier to do death paperwork than falls paperwork."
Investigators also allege she said, "I was hoping he would die during my shift." Holtz acknowledged making the comment about paperwork but denied telling colleagues she hoped the patient would die, according to the complaint.
Holtz characterized the paperwork remark as "just being goofy," investigators said. She told police that she had "a ton of paperwork to do" as her shift was ending and that the statement wasn't intended as an expression of a desire to harm the patient.
The episode began after the patient was discovered lying on the floor of a bathroom without his oxygen connected, according to the complaint. Holtz said she helped care for him and initially restored his oxygen but later removed it because she believed his behavior indicated he was approaching death.
"I thought that he was gonna die at any moment ... the way he was looking and reaching and staring off and breathing," Holtz told investigators, according to the complaint. She said her experience caring for dying patients led her to interpret his movements and breathing as signs that death was imminent.
Holtz also recalled sitting with the patient and telling him, "It is OK to go." She told investigators that any desire she had for him to die stemmed from wanting his suffering to end, rather than from a desire to reduce her workload.
Prosecutors allege, however, that the patient's medical orders called for continuous oxygen and that the supply remained disconnected from about 6:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. A nursing assistant asked Holtz during that period whether she wanted the patient's oxygen turned back on, according to the complaint, and Holtz allegedly declined.
Another nurse subsequently found the man struggling to breathe, reaching into the air and displaying lips that appeared black and blue, the complaint states. His condition changed rapidly after the oxygen was restored.
"She said that patient immediately began to warm up, his color returned, and he began to breathe normally," the complaint states, describing the other nurse's observations.
That account forms a central part of prosecutors' allegation that Holtz's actions caused "great bodily harm." The charge remains an allegation, and prosecutors would have to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt for Holtz to be convicted.
Holtz later acknowledged during questioning that she "should have known better" because the patient had "been on oxygen forever," according to the complaint. She nevertheless maintained that removing the oxygen wasn't intended to hasten his death and expressed the view that a person who was actively dying would eventually die regardless of whether oxygen remained in place.
The patient died on Aug. 23, six days after the oxygen incident. The criminal allegations described in the complaint don't establish that Holtz's actions caused or accelerated his death, and she hasn't been charged with homicide in connection with the case.
Investigators also questioned Holtz about her intentions during a polygraph examination that she agreed to undergo. According to the complaint, she said "part of her did want him to pass sooner to be at peace."
Holtz told investigators that she hadn't previously removed a patient's prescribed oxygen under similar circumstances and characterized what happened as a "one-time mistake," according to the complaint. Her explanation placed the episode in the context of end-of-life care, while prosecutors' case focuses on whether she deliberately disregarded a medical order and deprived a vulnerable patient of prescribed treatment.
