The Bad Vet Daily: Virginia's Dr. Thomas Kawasaki: A Long Record

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Virginia's Dr. Thomas Kawasaki: A Long Record

Veterinary Boards -- including Virginia -- dismiss the vast majority of complaints they receive. In Virginia, in 2005, only 26% of complaints resulted in discipline.

So, it is the rare and unusual veterinarian who amasses a disciplinary history with a many entries as Virginia's Thomas Kawasaki. This record (available online at the Virginia Vet Board website) includes:

1988 -- Dr. Kawasaki is disciplined by the Board for allowing a person not licensed as a vet in the state of Virginia to perform surgery (spay) on a dog. Reprimand; $500 fine; order to cease and desist from allowing persons unlicensed in VA to perform duties requiring licensure.

1991 -- Dr. Kawasaki is disciplined for ordering surgery without doing pre-operative bloodwork or taking into account prior post-operative bloodwork (The document says that the dogs scrotal sacs were "infected as a result of suspected toxemia of the kidneys following a neutering procedure which had been performed a few weeks earlier. It doesn't say of Kawasaki performed the surgery that led to the kidney toxemia and thus infected scrotal sacs. Hmm . . .)

The vet board gave Kawasaki a reprimand only.

1993 -- Dr. Kawasaki removed a tumor during surgery from a dog named "Claudette" without verifying that it was the tumor that was supposed to be removed. In the same
case, the Board found that he failed to ensure adequate recordkeeping, and failed to keep adequate records regarding anesthetics or medication provided to the dog during surgery.

Again -- what did the Board do? Reprimand ONLY.

1997 (February) -- The Veterinary Board suspends Kawasaki's license as a result of an incident which involved his ingestion of drugs he had diverted (taken) from his Veterinary practice.

1997 (March) -- The Board reinstates Kawasaki's license and puts him on probation.

1999 -- The Board lifts the probation on Kawasaki's license.

2002 -- An inspection of Kawasaki's clinic reveals numerous problems including problems with the drug inventory, the controlled substances distribution log, presence of expired medications in working stock. Also the "surgery suite was not reserved for surgery only . . . the registration certificate for the x-ray machine was not available . . . autoclave packs did not always contain an internal monitor . . . "

Penalty of $250 and additional inspection.

What is of greatest concern to me in this vet's record is his 1991 and 1993 violations, which raise serious questions about his patient care. That combined with the inspection findings as well as the other violations I believe should cause great concern in the mind of anyone who is a current or potential future client of this vet.

Links:

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order06181988.pdf

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order12041991.pdf

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order02121997.pdf

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order03211997.pdf

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order04081999.pdf

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order04091999.pdf

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order02052002.pdf

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order07242003.pdf

http://www.dhp.state.va.us/Notices/VetMed/0301001524/0301001524Order04162004.pdf

Update:

As my readers have noticed, I long ago turned off "comments" for a variety of reasons, and any clarifications or additional information I post here is entirely voluntary on my part with respect to "blogged about" vets here. I will rarely do so, and this is one of those rare occasions.

Today I received a rather passionate and heartfelt defense of this vet from someone involved in ferret rescue in Virginia. In this communication, the writer extolled Kawasaki's work with/for ferrets, referring to him as "brilliant", "compassionate," and a "good vet" who is "human" and has made a "few mistakes" over his long career. This writer posited that if this vet were not in practice, the world would be a far worse place for ferrets and ferret rescue in particular.

Out of respect for the apparent sincerity of that testimonial, I print this here.

In spite of this rather compelling and apparently sincere appeal, however, I nonetheless believe that he and others should find cause for concern in this record. I repeat that there are few vets with more than a few violations in their history, although there are many with more shocking ones.

When do a "few mistakes" become a pattern? You need to answer that question for yourself.

You should read the disciplinary history of not only this vet, but any vet you are considering.

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