The Bad Vet Daily: Scott Gartner, Moves His Questionable Veterinary Practice From Arkansas to Missouri After Arkansas Finds Him to Have Committed Professional Misconduct

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Scott Gartner, Moves His Questionable Veterinary Practice From Arkansas to Missouri After Arkansas Finds Him to Have Committed Professional Misconduct

The shocking thing about the story of Scott Gartner is that the Missouri Veterinary Board granted him a license -- albeit one issued and placed immediately on probation for 5 years -- in spite of the fact that not only did he relocate to Missouri after Arkansas already issued disciplinary findings against him and placed him on probation (yet another case of a Bad Vet moving his practice to another state after racking up a disciplinary record in the state he is leaving), but that they did so even after the Arkansas Board found him to have committed professional misconduct, gross negligence, and incompetence. Guess they really want the best for Missouri's pets!

In the document in which Missouri issued the probated license to Gartner, they said:

". . . the Board hereby issues License No. 2006027550 to Gartner . . . subject to the terms and conditions set forth heren below.

"Dr. Gartner is also licensed by the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Board . . . On or about September 12, 2005, Dr. Gartner's Arkansas license was placed on probation for a period of five (5) years for unprofessional conduct, failing ot provide appropriate treatment and failing to maintain complete patient records . . .

"Within the Arkansas Consent Agreement, the Arkansas Board made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

Findings of Fact

1. [Gartner] is a licensed veterinarian in the State of Arkansas.
2. [Gartner] was an employee and on the premises of Edwards Veterinary Clinic on February 25, 2005.
3. On April 14, 2005, the Board received a certified complaint answer from Tiffany Vallance, a veterinary assistant at Edwards Veterinary Clinic, advising that she performed a surgical declaw on Ms. Carrie Gordon's cat, Wally, on February 25, 2005 and that she performed feline declaws in a regular basis since the time she was hired in September 2001.
4. [Gartner] allowed a lay person, Tiffany Valance, to perform a veterinary surgical procedure.
5. [Gartner] did not recall administering anesthesia to Ms. Gordon's cat, and the medical record had no entires regarding record of medications, treatment, progress and disposition of the case.
6. The patient record forwarded to the Board was incomplete."

Conclusions of Law

. . .
"2. By allowing a layperson who is not a licensed veterinarian in the State of Arkansas to perform a surgical procedure, Respondent violated A.C.A. 17-101-305(a)(6) and 17-101-305(a)(11) and Board Regulations 19B, 19J, 19O entitled "Unprofessional Conduct."

3. By not providing appropriate treatment, Respondent violated A.C.A. 17-101-305(a)(5) and Board Regulations 19F and 19L.

4. By not keeping complete patient records, Respondent violated A.C.A. 17-101-305(a)(11) and Board Regulation 9A entitled "Record Keeping."

The Missouri Board, in interpretig the findings of the Arkansas Board, said:

"6. Licensee's conduct as referenced in paragraph 5, constitutes incompetency, misconduct and gross negligence in violation of section 340.264.2(4), RSMo 2000.

7. Licensee's conduct as referenced above in paragraph 5, constitutes a violation of a professional trust or confidence.

8. Licensee's conduct as referenced in paragraph 5, constitutes disciplinary action against the holder of a license or other right to practice granted by another state upon grounds for which revocation or suspension is authorized in this state . . . "

So what did the Board do to this vet -- after he committed -- in their own words -- incompetency, misconduct and gross negligence? After all, they pointed out to him that these actions could be grounds for revocation or suspension of a license in Missouri. So is that what they did?

NO, OF COURSE NOT! They granted his request for a license and issued it to him!

I guess they want to roll out the welcome mat for vets who will treat Missouri's pets in the manner to which the board apparently believes they have the right to be treated -- that is, incompetently, and with gross negligence.

Oh, yes, they placed the license on probation -- but what does that mean? Not much.

Welcome to Missouri, Dr. Gartner.

Missouri Pet Owners -- WATCH OUT and PROTECT YOR PETS!

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I suggest a vet for you to feature on this blog? Yes. However, for my own legal protection I can only write about veterinarians for whom there is "public record." That means that either there must be one or more: Veterinary Board action, court case/records, public police record, or news story about the vet. Everything on this blog is either a recitation of public record or my personal opinion based on public records. I cannot print your opinion or your version of events. If there is no public record related to a veterinarian, I cannot blog about them. However, that doesn't prevent you from doing so, and I encourage you to tell your story.

Why don't you print comments on this blog? You would not believe the hateful, hurtful remarks that veterinarians and their "fans" post about grieving pet owners and dead pets, even when public record shows them to be at fault in actions surrounding the injury or death of a pet. I will not provide a forum for attacks on victims. This characterizes the majority of comments I got when I did allow them. I feel that it is best that I not allow comments either from victims or veterinarians. I want to make it clear: This blog presents public record and MY opinions based on public record. Period.

Will you revise or remove blogs about a vet if we send you more information or tell you how wonderful the vet is and why the "public record" does not reflect the true character of the vet? Probably not. I won't say "never" -- I did revise a blog ONCE in light of a very impassioned email I received from a rescue group about a vet. I did not, however, remove the blog. Out of deference to a rescue's heartfelt email, I chose to "tone down" the blog post voluntarily and remove references to items which were in the public record, but which were of a highly personal nature. But for the most part, no, I don't/won't do this. The public record, and my opinion based on it, stands.

If you have public record that is more recent, that sheds further light on events described in a blog post (for example, if a vet subsequently appealed a board decision and had it reversed or modified, but this is not mentioned in the post) then I would be happy to receive that information and will likely add an update to the bottom of the post to reflect it.

The Bad Vet Daily Goes Weekly . . . Monthly, etc.

Yes, regular readers: I'm sure you've noticed. I haven't been able to do this blog daily. Why? Is it because there aren't enough bad vets to fill 365 days a year?

Unfortunately, NO, that's not the reason, and YES, there are more than enough bad vets to fill 365 days a year.

It is because each of these posts has taken me no less than 1 1/2 hours, and sometimes, up to 4 hours. This includes identifying a case, researching readily available information on the vet's violations, and then doing a search to see if I can figure out where the vet is now.

Therefore, with pets to tend to and a job to keep, I bow to the suggestion of friends that I admit to myself this is just going to need to be a more occasional.

But in return . . . I promise to feature at LEAST 365 vets over the life of this blog.

Thank you for caring about your pets.

About State Veterinary Boards

Although most of the stories told here will be taken from State Veterinary Board disciplinary files -- don't let this lull you into thinking that Veterinary Boards are doing a good job of pursuing cases of veterinary negligence and malpractice or of protecting your pets. In fact, in many states, 90% of consumer complaints filed against vets are dismissed without action. Equally shocking -- when the vet board actually do something, it's very little. Small fines. "Stayed" suspensions where the vet loses not ONE day of work. No matter how egregious the vets behavior, no matter how long the record and how many dead pets, these vets almost never have their licenses taken away.

With a couple of exceptions, you could be going to any of the bad vets featured on this blog right now. Moreover, your vet may have a long history of consumer complaints, and yet the board may never have disciplined him.

Bad vets continue to be a problem because veterinary medicine is virtually unregulated, with negligent practitioners being allowed to continue to pry their trades as more victims are lured in the door.

Why 365 Days of Bad Vets?

The biggest threat to our pets is our own naiivete.

In spite of numerous reports of malpractice and worse, veterinarians continue to enjoy one of the highest ratings for "honesty" among all professions. They are universally -- and blindly trusted. Those of us who have learned the hard way that blind trust is dangerous for our pets are struggling to break through to the consciousness of our fellow loving pet owners, to inspire some healthy skepticism, before they and their pets too fall victim.

If reading this blog gets one pet owner to admit the thought into their minds that maybe -- just maybe -- they shouldn't blindly trust their vet, it will have been worth it. We need to become proactive in evaluating vets and their care, not waiting for a tragedy. We need to ask questions like: "Who will be there overnight? What are his credentials? Let me speak with him," or, "What are my pet's kidney values, and what are the potential side effects of that drug?"

We shouldn't need to do these things but we do because
. . .well, because there are so many bad vets.

Disclaimer

The use of the word "bad" on this site does not necessarily mean that the veterinarians featured here are incompetent or negligent, etc. It may mean they have bad hair, it may simply mean I don't like them.

All of the blog posts here will draw on public record, especially veterinary board documents, for content. In addition, I will comment on that content. All of my comments should be understood by the reader to be my opinions and my opinions only. Readers are not only invited, but encouraged, to use their discernment in making decisions about vets.

The Bad Vet Daily