Today's Bad Vet

will be posted at a later date.

Long List of Violations Results in Nothing More than a Reprimand and Probation for Virginia Vet, Mitzi Elliot

In March of 2008, the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine issued an order to Virginia Veterinarian Mitzi D. Elliot of "The Animal House Veterinary Clinic" in Laurel Fork, Virginia. In this document, the Board stated the following findings of fact (my commentary appears in brackets and italics).

1. A cat named "Kitty" was brought to Dr. Elliot for a routine spay. "To sedate Kitty, a "Push-Pole" was utilized, and Kitty was given an intramuscular injection." [Push pole??? Are they talking about those things they use on animal planet rescue shows called "catch poles?" Like this?? Or are they talking about these push pole things for pushing boats and catching fish?? Either way, a bit mideivel, don't you think?]

The day after Dr. Elliot did these things, ". . . Kitty could not walk on her right hind leg, and was returned to Dr. Elliot's office for an evaluation. Dr. Elliot diagnosed Kitty with a large right lymph node, and prescribed antibiotics. When Kitty failed to improve [Kitty's owner] sought a second opinion from another veterinarian who amputated Kitty's leg. Dr. Elliott failed to take proper precautions administering an intramuscular injection, resulting in damage to Kitty's sciatic nerve."

[OK, did you catch that part about the cat's leg being amputated? I am assuming that the need for this amputation RESULTED FROM the damage caused to Kitty's sciatic nerve as a result of Dr. Elliot's bad vettery. THIS POOR CAT LOST ITS LEG!]

3. "Dr. Elliott failed to document all pertinent medical data in Kitty's medical record. Specifically, Dr. Elliott failed to describe the surgery performed, the diagnosis and/or prognosis, post-operative instructions and treatment recommendations. Additionally . . . Dr. Elliott failed to document patient temperature during the course of treatment."

But Dr. Elliott's bad vettery wasn't restricted to the Kitty incident. The Board goes on:

"4. Dr. Elliott failed to maintain treatment records for the animals brought to her practice. By her own admission, Dr. Elliott sent [two other client's] original records to subsequent veterinarians and did not maintain copies." [Really? Or perhaps the records never existed, were never created, and that's just what she said to play it off as though she had created them in the first place and to explain why she didn't have them?] "Further, Dr. Elliott stated to the inspector for the Department of Health Professions, that she were [sic] not aware of the requirement to maintain records for three years."

5. ". . . [another client] presented with 'Sugar' and 'Daisy', both canines, following a routine spay performed at Dr. Elliott's practice. . . . Both dogs had chewed through their stitches. Dr. Elliott replaced the stitches with staples, but failed to document the type and amount of anesthesia used for placing the staples. Further the records for Daisy did not indicate if an antibiotic was administered and the amoung given."

[OK, the board would not know about this if a complaint had not been filed. Why would the owner file a complaint? SOMETHING must have gone wrong after the surgery. Given the reference to Elliott NOT documenting the kind or amount of anesthesia, I am betting something very bad happened with one or both of these dogs -- I suspect that one may even have died. You see, the Board's don't always tell you what happened to the animals, so you must ALWAYS ASSUME THE WORST.]

6. "Dr. Elliott failed to provide complete records for [yet another client's] canine 'Angel Baby.' Dr. Elliott's records did not include the date of Angel Baby's rabies innoculation and ex-rays taken."

[Geez, we are establishing quite a prolonged and consistent pattern of bad vettery here, aren't we?]

7. YET ANOTHER CLIENT: ". . . presented with 'Prince,' a canine, who had been in an altercatoin with another dog. Prince was admitted with multiple abdominal puncture wounds and shock. When Prince failed to improve . . . [the client] transferred Prince to another veterinarian who found several deep puncture wounds that were not treated; a deep necrotic tract extending dorsally through deep layers of tissue into the sub lumbar region in the retroperitoneal area; and a 3 cm abdominal tear."

[OK, don't worry -- I don't understand all of that either, so I googled some of the words. The "deep necrotic tract" business means that Prince had lots of dead tissue on his lower back going deep into his flesh, into the "peritoneum" which covers the abdominal cavity . . .]

"Further, the veterinarian opined that the Penrose drain that Dr. Elliott inserted may have been improperly placed, which allowed continued saturation of bacteria into the internal wounds. Dr. Elliott failed to properly evaluate, diagnose, and treat Prince's injuries."

[Again, the don't say what happened to Prince, but it sounds VERY grave. I am assuming he DIED.]

8. "Dr. Elliott failed to document all pertinent medical data in Prince's medical record. Specifically, Dr. Elliott failed to describe the surgery performed, the diagnosis and/or prognosis, and treatment recommendations."

[Gee, big surprise. What would that prognosis sound like? Maybe: "Well, I did a totally incompetent job and now this patient had infection deep into his body so -- whoopsie! Where's the pink juice?"]

Whew! After that LITANY of horrors what do we have?

The Board determined that Elliott had committed SEVEN violations of regulation VAC 150-20-140(6) and (7), which is the UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT section, including (emphasis mine): "Practising veterinary medicine in such a manner as to ENDANGER the health and welfare of his patients or the public, or being unable to practice veterinary medicine with reasonable skill and safety."

Also they found that she had committed FIVE violations of 18-VAC-150-20-195, which is the regulation pertaining to recordkeeping. (See what I mean when I say that when you see a record-keeping violation, it usually means that something much worse happened.)

After all that you would expect the Board to take pretty strong action, wouldn't you?

Well, guess what?

They reprimanded her.

They put her on "probation" for 18 months but the only terms of the probation were:

a) to take 3 hours of continuing education in record-keeping and 10 hours in patient communication and practice management. NOTHING in improving her skills in clinical care -- her basic veterinary skills. Nothing to improve her competence at actually doing procedures. As though what happened to these animals was all a result of communication problems? Um, did they forget the part about the leg amputation and the internal infection?


b) to have 3 inspections in which they will look at her records and pay the $200 cost of the inspections.

That's it, folks. They didn't give this vet a "time out." Not one day of work missed. No suspension. No big fines. Not even any classes that would improve her clinical skills -- just classes that in my view, are aimed at helping her learn to cover her butt when her lousy clinical skills hurt patients.

Links:

Board Disciplinary Action Against Mitzi Elliott

Today's Bad Vet

Today's bad vet . . . coming soon

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).

" . . . veterinary malpractice . . . is without question the source of most harm to companion animals"

" . . . veterinary malpractice . . . is without question the source of most harm to companion animals"

This quote comes from the fascinating document, "Harming Companion Animals: Liability and Damages," written by Henry Mark Holzer, a professor at Brookly Law School.

This document, among other things, provides information on some landmark case law in the area of veterinary malpractice, including an account of the successful veterinary malpractice case brought by plaintiff "Kenny" against veterinarians F. Richard Lesser, Mark T. Meddleton, and Earl M. Gaughan. In this veterinary malpractice case Kenny was awarded $100,000 in New York State for the loss of his horse, a three-year old thoroughbred race horse.

This judgement was upheld on appeal in the year 2000.

The abridged account of the case cited in the "Harming Companion Animals" document includes the following information:

" . . . [the] plaintiff's three-year-old thoroughbred race horse underwent arthroscopic surgery for removal of a chip fracture in his right front fetlock [performed by defendant] . . . the horse was anesthetized with a combination of drugs, the bone chip was successfully removed and the horse was transported to a recovery stall. While in recovery, the horse went into cardiac arrest and died."

The horse's owner, Kenny, said that his horse had been over-anesthetized and had not been properly monitored during surgery, and that the horses death was therefore caused by the actions of the veterinarians.

"There was no dispute at trial that plaintiff's horse succumbed to the effects of the anesthesia administered during surgery. The debate was over whether this horse was among the small percentage of equine patients that simply do not survive anesthesia through no fault of the surgeon and/or anesthesiologist . . .or whether an act or omission on the part of [the veterinarians Lesser, Meddleton, and Gaughan] caused his death . . ."

Kenny, the horse's owner, had an expert testify. The expert was Nicholas Dodman, a board certified veterinary anesthetist who is a professor at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine.

Dodman testified that "the care and treatment rendered by [the anesthetist and surgeon] included departures from accepted standards of veteirnary practice which caused the horse's death.

Dodman said that "the dosage of one particular drug administered to the horse . . . over a short period of time, particularly in conjunction with the admnistration of a large dosage of another drug . . . and an inordinately high level of a gaseous volatile anesthetic . . . constituted a departure from accepted standards of veterinary care. These dosages, according to Dodman, caused the horse to become respiratorily and cardiovascularly depressed, a condition which went undetected . . . When disconnected from pure oxygen after surgery, Dodman's testimony continued, the horse could not sustain himself on room air only. Dodman also opined that the monitoring procedures employed . . . were substandard."

Specifically Dodman said that when the anesthetic Halothane (known to depress cardiovascular and respiratory systems) is being administered, standard practice requires that a patient be monitored by the use of an aneroid gauge to measure blood pressure, blood gas monitoring equipment and/or an electrocardiogram monitor. This was not done by the vets who did surgery on Kenny's horse, who said that they merely observed the horse visually and took a peripheral pulse. (Note: The owner, who was in the room at the time, said that the veterinarian NEVER took the horses pulse.]

Dodman also noted that one of the veterinarians had failed to record notes in the patient record that might have enabled him to document and see the developing trend of respiratory and cardic depression in the horse. "Dodman opined that [when] . . . an orthopaedic patient is anesthetized with gaseous Halothane, it is a departure from standard practice not to keep such notes."

It was also established at trield that after Kenny's horse died, the veterinarian created a chart of the entire procedure retroactively. The document says that this post-operative record attempts to document, in time and dosage the various drugs administered during surgery, as well as the horse's vital signs at intervals. THIS RECORD WAS NOT CREATED during the surgery itself. The jury further learned that after creating this chart, the veterinarian made additional changes to it.

[Lies and the lying liars who tell them, huh?]

In Holzer's analysis, the Kenny v. Lesser case demonstrates: conduct below the acceptable standard of care because of the way the anesthesia was handled and monitored; foreseeable injury or death if it was not handled and monitored correctly; and not having done so being the proximate cause of the horse's death.

As mentioned above, the jury awarded Kenny $100,000 for the loss of his horse.

Links:

Information on the Kenny v. Lesser appeal

Information on the Document, "Harming Companion Animals: Liability and Damages," by Henry Mark Holzer. I really recommend you order a copy from the Institute for Animal Rights Law.

Here is a link to a veterinary technician manual which says that animals on halothane require close monitoring.


Summary of an article from the journal "Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia" on the cardiovascular and respiratory depressant effects of halothane used in horses

Abstract of a Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine Article on Malignant Hyperthermia, a Problem Seen with the Use of Halothane in Horses

Vets on Meth, or What do we Do with the Drunken and/or Drugged Out Veterinarian, Installment #4

How do you like your vets?

Perhaps hopped up on methamphetamine and cocaine?

And if your vet is driving recklessly, how can he or she be yielding a scalpel with precision? NOT!

Perhaps these are questions the clients of California Veterinarian Carla Johnson should ask themselves.

In June 2006, vetrinarian Carla Johnson (of San Jose, California) signed a settlement document in which she admitted to a list of charges filed against her by the California Veterinary Board.

In 1991, Johnson was convicted "by a plea of nolo contendere" of "dry" reckless driving. As a result of that conviction, she was sentenced to a day in jail and fined $1,350. She was also placed on three years probation.

Yet, in 1996, Johnson "submitted an application, signed under penalty of perjury, for licensure to the Board of Veterinary Medicine. In that application, [Johnson] answered "no" to question 9 which asks if the applicant had 'ever pled nolo contendre or been convicted of either a felony or misdemeanor other than a minor traffic violation,"' whereas in truth and in fact she had been convicted of the criminal offenses alleged . . . above."

But Johnson didn't stop at one reckless driving conviction. In 1998, she was convicted "by nolo contendere plea . .. of . . . wet reckless driving . . . a misdemeanor. Johnson was sentenced to 2 years probation, and ordered to pay a fine of $594 and court costs of $100. (I guess there is some special logic going on in California where severity of fines and punishment goes down with each repeat offense.)

Again in 2001, Johnson submitted an application for license renewal on which she stated, under penalty of perjury, that she "had not 'been convicted of a felony offense or pled nolo contendere, in California . . . within the last five years', whereas in truth and in fact she had suffered a 1998 conviction."

That is the Vet Board's language. "Suffered a conviction." As though it were some passive act in which Johnson was the victim. But I have a idea that even if her traffic arrests didn't result in injuries to human victims, there may have been other victims, whose names are not in these "Findings of Fact."

The document goes on to say: "On or about December 27, 2003, while working as a veterinarian at United Emergency Animal Clinic in Campbell, California, [Johnson] was ordered by United's office administrator at the time, to undergo a drug test pursuant to the clinic's policy based on perceived erratic behavior. The lab test results reported by MedTox Laboratories, Inc., dated January 4, 2004, indicated that [Johnson] had tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine metabolite."

First, let me give sincere and grateful credit to the administrator of United Emergency Animal Clinic, who picked up on Johnson's erratic behavior, had her drug tested -- and presumably, although this is not stated -- took some action as a result of it. It seems that United's administrator recognized that Johnson's drugged up state caused her to be a threat to her patients.

But how sincere is the California Vet Board about protecting veterinary patients?

In its decision, the Board cited three "causes" for discipline:

Criminal Convictions (her convictions for "dry" and "wet" reckless driving)
Unprofessional Conduct - Use of controlled substances
Fraud, Misrepresentation, Deception (for false statements on her license applications)

The California Veterinary Board "revoked" Johnson's license, but outrageously, as in most of their other "revocations" they immediately "stayed" the revocation -- which means that Johnson can keep right on practising without interruption. Instead they put her license on probation for 3 years. In fact, how's this for crazy: They actually ORDERED her to practice veterinary medicine in California a MINIMUM of 24 hours a week for 6 consecutive months. (???? The thinking being, time NOT spent practicing doesn't count toward probation. Wow, "You are a threat to pets, MAKE SURE YOU KEEP PRACTISING AT LEAST 24 HOURS A WEEK." That's my paraphrase and editorialization, by the way.)

Want more ridiculousness?

The terms of this "probation" require her to obey the laws and regulations, merely by affirmation, that is -- they say, "No, little girl, obey the laws from now on, OK?"

To really understand how ridiculous this probation term to obey laws or regulations she was breaking in the first place is, you have to read on. How is the Vet Board going to check and see if she is obeying laws and regulations?

They are going to require her to erport quarterly to the board, telling them whether or not she has been obeying the laws and regulations.

HA HA!!! This woman had been found by them to have made more than one false statement, and has been found to have committed FRAUD, DECEPTION, and MISREPRESENTATION -- but they are relying on her own report of whether or not she is obeying laws and regulations. (I say HA HA, but really its not funny, since lives of beloved furry beings are affected.)

Yes, the Board reserved the right to request an in-person report, but I doubt they ever do that.

Johnson was required to inform her employers.

Johnson was required to pay the Board for it's costs in investigating her, which were $5,295.76. But they allowed her to make these payments in 34 monthly installments of $155.76 each. (Gee, I wonder if she, as a vet, gave similarly generous payment plans to her clients?)

The Board did, at least, order her to undergo a drug test, and then to "provide documentary evidence of continuing satisfactory participation" in a drug/alcohol rehab program of her own choosing.

Oh, and they ordered her to stop taking drugs.

Wonder how that will work out?

Links:

California Vet Board Newsletter Announcing Disciplinary Actions, Including that Against Carla Johnson

Do you want to know where Johnson is currently practising?

Well, here is my disclaimer: It is possible, I suppose, for two vets to practice in the same geographic area and have the same name. So, this may or may not be her, but a "Carla Johnson" is listed on the website of Pacific Veterinary Specialists Emergency Service.

Supposedly, she handles emergencies.

Longview Texas Vet Janice Petree Fails to Diagnose or Treat Bloat in Spite of Being Told That Owner and ER Vet Suspected Bloat

Molli was a Boxer. Deep chested dogs like Molli are at highest risk for BLOAT -- a life-threatening, emergency medical problem. Also, bloat, otherwise known as GDV, is cited (link below) as the SECOND leading cause of death among dogs, second only to cancer.

The Veterinary Information Network (VIN) states that aggressive and early treatment of bloat is very important, and that with this early and aggressive treatment, 80% of dogs now survive the medical emergency that bloat presents. (Another veterinary website estimates that the survival rate is 90% with appropriate, aggressive and early surgery). Moreover, VIN says: "earlier the veterinarian gets started with treatment, the better chance there is for survival."

So, although bloat is very life-threatening, it is also common, and it is also easy to diagnose: a simple x-ray will help diagnose bloat.

It is very hard to imagine that a veterinarian, presented with a dog like Molli -- a deep chested breed prone to bloat -- who is showing the "hallmark" symptom of trying to vomit but being unable to vomit, and who has been tentatively diagnosed as likely suffering from bloat based on a phone consultation with an EMERGENCY vet -- would apparently set aside that possibility, and fail to do x-rays, and send the dog home with the owner with medicine for the much less serious problem of "gastritis" -- but that is exactly what Texas vet Janice Petree did, according to Texas Vet Board documents.

Here is the story this document tells:

"[Molly's owner] noticed a slight swelling in [her] abdomen . . . The dog seemed to want to vomit but produced no vomitis. The swelling increased. [Molli's owner] contacted the Animal Emergency Clinic in Shreveport [Louisiana]. Consulting by phone, the veterinarian at the clinic said that the dog likely had "flipped stomach" (gastric dilatation and volvulus or GDV). The veterinarian could not immediately see the dog ad referred [Molli's owner] to the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic (ETPEC) in Longview, Texas. About an hour later, [Molli's owner] and "Molli" arrived at the ETPEC where the dog was examined by Janice Petree, D.V.M.

After examining the dog, Dr. Petree opined that "Molli" did not have GDV, but was suffereing from gastritis. [Molli's owner] questioned Dr. Petree about her diagnosis in light of the dog's symptoms, but Dr. Petree was firm that the problem was gastritis since the dog was not showing all the expected symptoms of GDV. Dr. Petree administered an injectio of Centreme and some Centrene tablets to take home. Dr. Petree said she could take x-rays, but reportedly said they were unnecessary and she would not take x-rays of her own dog under comparable conditions. [Molli's owner] took his dog home."

"Shortly after arriving home, [Molli's owner] noticed that the abdominal swelling had increased and 'Molli' appeared to be more uncomfortable. He rushed the dog to the Shreveport emergency clinic aroudn 3:30 a.m. Dr. Renee Jones observed that hte dog was shocky and lethargic. Her cranial abdomen was extremely extended and she was having difficulty breathing. Dr. Jones . . . took x-rays which clearly showed [Molli] had GDV. [Molli] underwent emergency surgery but her condition declined and she died at around 6:48 a.m."

"Dr. Petree's failure to x-ray and correctly diagnose and treat [Molli] does not represent 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 . . . for the following reasons:

The Shreveport veterinarian had already suggested possible GDV to the client and the client, who had observed bloating and non-productive vomiting, had traveled a considerable distance for treatment. Although the client on several occastions expressed concern about possible GDV, Dr. Petree assured [him] that gastritis was the problem. An x-ray and bloodwork would have conclusively settled the matter . . .

Large, deep-chested breeds are most commonly affected . . . The client had described the acute onset of bloating and non-productive vomiting. These factors mandated an x-ray and foundational blood work to rule out GDV.

Although x-rays were discussed . . . Dr. Petree actually discouraged them. The medical history for [Molli] says 'I did tell the husband that if it were my dog, I would not do radiographs at this time and would see if medications started to help.' . . .

[Editorial comment: OK, Dr. Petree, THEN YOUR DOG WOULD DIE OF BLOAT.]
. . . "The client apparently relied on this statement in declining x-rays."


[Editorial comment: It doesn't sound like Molli's owner declined the x-rays, it sounds like Petree declined to do them!]

" . . . waiting and monitoring as recommended by Dr. Petree could have delayed needed treatment . . ."

[COULD HAVE????? Ya gotta love how these vet boards word things.]

So, does it sound to you like Dr. Petree is likely responsible for Molli's death? Now, I am not making this statement as a matter of fact, but as a matter of opinion: I believe that Molli had a better than 80% chance of surviving this emergency when she arrived at the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic. And I believe that Dr. Petree's arrogant failure to heed the preliminary diagnosis of her colleague, to heed the concerns of Molli's owner, and to treat Molli's condition as potentially imminently life-threatening -- her failure to even investigate Molly's condition when both the owner AND another vet were mentioning bloat as a likely or possible cause of her symptoms -- TOOK AWAY MOLLI'S best chance to survive this emergency. The literature I have found says that survival rates are reduced from 80-90% to 50% or less. If I were Molli's owner, I would definitely hold Petree responsible for her death.

Moreover, Petree's failure to approach Molli's situation as urgent, requiring immediate definitive diagnosis (x-rays, etc) and surgery, IS PARTICULARLY REPUGNANT in an EMERGENCY VET.

Why is the management of the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic NOT making sure that its veterinarian's are well-educated in the apparently COMMON medical emergency that is BLOAT -- an emergency that if treated competently and quickly, is survivable 80-90% of the time, but if NOT treated competencly and quickly, will result in death?

Another veterinary hospital provides this explanation of what happens when bloat is not rapidly treated:

"Progression of Events

The first major life-threatening event that occurs is shock. This occurs because the distended stomach puts pressure on the large veins in the abdomen that carry blood back to the heart. The tissues (including the stomach wall) become deprived of blood and oxygen. If the blood supply is not restored quickly, the wall of the stomach begins to die and may rupture. If volvulus occurs, the spleen's blood supply will also be impaired. When the stomach twists, the spleen is also rotated to an abnormal position and its vessels are compressed. When the stomach is distended, digestion stops. This results in the accumulation of toxins that are normally removed from the intestinal tract. These toxins activate several chemicals which cause inflammation. This causes problems with the blood clotting factors so that inappropriate clotting occurs withinblood vessels. This is called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and is usually fatal."

On the Marvistavet website, a study of bloat is provided. This study included an evaluation of circumstances that lead to higher rates of death associated with bloat. One of those included: clinical signs of bloating for more than 6 hours before seeing the vet."

Let's do the countdown: By the time Molli's owner called the first emergency vet, she was already showing the symptoms of abdominal swelling and vomiting with nothing coming up. Then her owner called the Animal Emergency Clinic where a vet told him Molli likely had bloat. Since that vet could not see Molli in a timely enough fashion, Mollis owner drove "a considerable distance" to see Petree, and an hour elapsed betwee the referral and the time he arrived to see Petree. Presumably, by this time, Molli has been showing symptoms for at least a couple of hours.

The document doesn't say how long Molli and her owner were at the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic, but let's assume it is 1 hour. Then, when Petree sent him home with medicine -- having taken NO x-rays, NO bloodwork, and NOT treating Molly for bloat -- he would have had to drive another hour home. Now we are up to 4 hours. Then there was time for Molli's owner to continue to observe her (getting worse) at home. Let's say that's another hour. We are up to 5. Then, he rushed her to the Shreveport ER, where she was finally seen and treated for what she had been suffering from all along -- BLOAT. By that time, it was probably about 6 hours. At least.

Seeing Petree was, as far as I can see, the same as not seeing a vet at all.

For this serious violation of the veterinary practice act, what did the Texas Veterinary Board do?

They reprimanded Dr. Petree.

And made her take some classes -- 6 hours worth, by the end of the year.

That's it. That's all. No fine. No suspension. Nothing sufficient, in my view, to really drum into this woman's head that Molli's situation DESERVED to be taken seriously. She as an ER vet had no business minimizing in her mind the potential of bloat in a susceptible breed with "hallmark" symptoms. She either knew, or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that bloat must be treated immediately to give the dog a good chance at survival.

Sadly and shockingly, as common and serious as bloat is, it seems that Dr. Petree is not alone in her failure to adequately diagnose and treat bloat.

"Dog Connections" published "Bloat Notes" -- a letter from the Director of the Purdue Bloat Research Program, in which Larry Glickman, VMD, said:

"Too often, however, owners of dogs that died of bloat tell me that they had recognized that the dog had a serious problem and rushed the dog to a veterinarian, only to be told that it was probably only a "belly ache," or that the dog's stomach was dilated, but not rotated . . . If you suspect your dog has bloat, but the veterinarian dismisses it as a minor problem, inquire about radiographs to rule out GDV."

Well, Molli's owner apparently did exactly that: Inquired about x-rays to rule out GDV, and Petree "discouraged them." When Molli finally got those x-rays, they "clearly showed [that she had] GDV."

Glickman recounts this story:

"Following is an excerpt of a letter that illustrates some of these points.

'I noticed Kelly [an Irish Setter] attempting to vomit with nothing coming up . . .We went home and Kelly went upstairs where she attempted to vomit several times. I immediately called my vet. Kelly and I arrived at the veterinarian's office within five minutes of the phone call. I told the veterinarian that Kelly had vomited two or three times with nothing coming up. I said that she looked a little broad around the ribs. The veterinarian did a physical examination and concluded that Kelly's problem was just a "stomach ache." ... I was directed to give her Pepto Bismol®. I took Kelly home and she lay down on the bed. About 45 minutes later she went out to the back yard. When I went out 10 minutes later, I found her bloated up. I grabbed her, took her back to the veterinary hospital, but she died on the operating table.'"

Glickman stresses the importance of taking a dog suspected of having bloat to an emergency clinic equipped to do the type of surgeries bloat requires, on an emergency basis. Presumably, East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic should have been one of those places. In my viewpoint, this is what makes the story of Molli even more maddening. The owner did everything right.


Links:

Texas Vet Board Document/Findings of Fact on Janice Petree


Dog Connections and Glickman's Notes on Bloat


Bloat Info and List of Breeds Most at Risk


Veterinary Info Network on Bloat

Explanation of bloat and surgery for bloat; more information on the importance of immediate diagnosis and treatment


Marvistavet Site on Bloat