. . . and other frightening and outrageous acts of Texas vet Patrick Griffin.
"Lucky" and "Moocher" were two dogs boarded by their owner with Griffin in 2006. The owner "visited the dogs at the clinic and noticed that 'Lucky' had apparently lost weight and appeared listless. Dr. Griffin told [the owner] that the dog's kidney's were apparently failing and there was nothing he could do. [The owner] picked up Lucky and took him to another veterinarian (not identified) who treated the dog for a kidney infection and pressure sores. The dog eventually recovered."
[Commentary: Do you know what pressure sores are? There those bedsores that elderly people get in nursing homes when they aren't being taken proper care of! Oh, and clearly, Griffin's lazy-man diagnosis was incorrect!]
"Since Moocher was diabetic, [the owner] left insulin and instructions for use, and was told by the clinic staff that the dog would be exercised and fed an appropriate diet while [the owner] was gone. After about 9 days of boarding [the owner] went to the clinic and was told by Dr. Griffin that Moocher had died about three days after boarding had begun. No explanation of the dog's death was offered. [The owner] suspected that the dog had not been given his insulin and the care promised during boarding.
"Dr. Griffin did not produce any records relating to the two dogs' conditions and care during boarding. Dr. Griffin reported that he had closes his clinic in Temple and is now working as a relief vet in Abilene."
BUT GET THIS -- the board concluded that "Due to lack of records, there is insufficient evidence on which to determine the adequacy of care of the two dogs by Dr. Griffin."
PUHLEASE!!!!! Are you deaf, dumb and blind vet board????
What do you, dear reader, think about this? DO YOU lack sufficient evidence to determine the adequacy of care of these dogs -- one dead, one suffering bed sores and a treatable-but-untreated infection - by Dr. Griffin?
So, on this case, the Board found Griffin ONLY in violation of recordkeeping statutes, and issued ONLY an INFORMAL reprimand!
Now onto the second disciplinary action -- when the Board launched its investigation into the case described above, they contacted Griffin and asked him to respond to the allegations raised by the owner. He did not respond to two letters. Then an investigator called him and the phone had been disconnected at his work; they called his home, no answer and no machine. Over FOUR MONTHS after the first letter was sent, the Board finally sent a certified letter to his house, which was signed for by one "Kayla Griffin." After that they called his house again and no pick up, no machine. A few weeks later, they were finally able to leave a message with an answering service, and he finally responded.
When they did finally talk to Griffin, Griffin told the board that the records for Lucky and Moocher were in storage, and he would send them. But HE NEVER DID. When they held an "informal" investigatory conference, Griffin said that the bank, which had FORECLOSED ON HIS TEMPLE CLINIC, had destroyed the records.
How convenient is that?
The Board can't find fault with his treatment BECAUSE, they say, they don't have records.
BUT the dude first says the records are in storage, THEN he claims they are destroyed? How convenient for him!
Do you really think the Board buys that? Do you buy it? Because I sure don't!
But one thing is for sure -- in the absence of those records, THEY SHOULD still be able to evaluate the "care" of the dog that died and the dog that got bedsores and no treatment for a treatable kidney infection. What are they trying to pull?
The Board only found Griffin in violation of his "duty to cooperate with the Board." And gave him yet another reprimand. Oh, this one was "formal." Big whup.
Rest in peace, Moocher.
Pet owners of Abilene -- beware. As of late 2006, this man is practising in your town.
