tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84417737425441124912024-02-18T21:45:55.355-08:00The Bad Vet DailyVeterinary Malpractice, Veterinary Negligence, and Veterinary Abuse occur all over the United States -- and the regulatory agencies that oversee vets do little or nothing about it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-61733841138618726972019-01-15T17:27:00.000-08:002019-01-15T17:27:12.813-08:00Maryland to Conduct a Full Sunset Review of the Veterinary Board for the First Time in 30 YearsGood news for Maryland Animal Lovers! For the first time since 1989 legislation will be introduced to provide for a full Sunset Review of the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
The 1989 review found that the Maryland Vet Board was SO biased against consumers that it recommended the board be stripped of its complaint function. They found that the Board was loathe to discipline members of its own profession, and recommended that the complaint process be vested in a separate panel with access to veterinary experts. Sadly for me and for other pet owners, no action was taken on that recommendation, and the board has continued to operate without this important recommended change. Many consumers, myself included, have first-hand experiences with the board's hostility toward pet owners who file complaints, its bias in favor of veterinarians; we observe that the board does not take disciplinary action in some truly horrific cases, and that when they do act, we believe those actions are insufficient to deter future negligence, incompetence, or abuse.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-76909509274449993922014-04-12T11:50:00.000-07:002014-04-12T11:50:37.447-07:00Cruel Cat Killing by Ohio Veterinarian Bea Turk Leaves Owner Speechless, in Tears "I will never stop reliving this nightmare in my head," said Amy Havranek (as quoted by <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/04/veterinarian_uses_inhumane_eut.html">Cleveland.com</a>), recalling the horrific sight of her 17-year old cat Bobbie having a needle shoved into his heart by veterinarian Bea Turk while he was fully conscious and unsedated. In a related news segment, Havrenak recalled: "Bobbie didn't die. Bobbie laid there, screaming and screaming and screaming . . . and I saw her, she just stabbed him right in the heart [again]. Bobbie screamed, like I have never heard any animal scream before. I almost passed out. I didn't know what to do. I was in a state of shock." <p>
The article further describes Havranek as "horrified by his pained reaction." Not only are "heartsticks" without sedation considered inhumane, they are also against the law in Ohio. And Bobbie was not the only victim.<p>
Honey Pot, a Pomeranian, was also given this particularly cruel method of death by Turk according to board documents.
<p>
The Ohio Veterinary Medical Board website now lists Turk as retired. In reality, Dr. Turk entered into a consent agreement to surrender her license. But how long was Turk permitted to perpetrate horrors upon patients?<p>
Prior to these charges Turk had racked up a long record of violations -- particularly concerning since the Ohio Veterinary Board isn't exactly famous for its disciplinary zeal. These included violations dating back to 2010 according to the article, as follows:<p><ul>
<li>". . .dirty medical equipment, packages and shelves throughout the clinic and not having a sink in the surgery area" resulting in a $1,500 fine (December 2011);</li>
<li>" . . . 13 bottles of expired drugs, damaged X-ray protection gloves, dirt on the X-ray machine and dirty equipment in the pharmacy and laboratory areas" (May 2012)</li>
<li>improper suturing of a Yorkshire Terrier's bladder, and releasing the animal to its owner before it had recovered from the anesthesia, resulting in $1,000 in fines and over $1,000 in investigation costs (February 2010)</li>
<li>". . . Turk was fined $500 and reprimanded for over-anesthetizing Cleopatra the cat to spay her. Cleopatra was sent home still not awake and died the next day." (May 2007)</li>
<li>Unsanitary conditions and failure to keep proper anesthesia and medical records resulting in fines in 2001 and 2002.</li>
</ul>
Over 10 years of shoddy veterinary practice -- why didn't Turk clean up her act? Why didn't she take the Ohio Veterinary Board seriously? <p>
The answer seems clear: None of the actions taken by the veterinary board were effective. But what would have been effective, and what would have saved lives, would have been yanking her license years ago when a clear pattern had emerged. While it is good that the Ohio Veterinary Board finally acted strongly, the fact remains that all those years she was permitted to continue her perpetration of suffering and substandard care. Citizens of Ohio are waking up and fighting back, and the veterinary board must listen. In the words of a commenter on one of the articles, "It is amazing that this woman was allowed to continue to practice for so long, given all the issues brought up during her career."<p>
Links:
<p>
<a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/06/brunswick_veterinarian_bea_tur.html">Brunswick Veterinarian Bea Turk is Losing her License to Practice</a><p>
<a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/04/veterinarian_uses_inhumane_eut.html">Veterinarian Disciplined</a>
<a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/04/veterinarian_uses_inhumane_eut.html">Vet Stabs Cat in Heart
</a><p>
<a href="http://www.ovmlb.ohio.gov/pdfs/BT-DVM.pdf">Turk's Signed Consent Agreement Surrendering License</a><p>
<a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/who-s-watching-ohio-s-vets-ask-ohio-governor-kasich-who-s-watching-your-pet-s-vet">Change.org Petition: Who's Watching Ohio's Pet Vets?</a> started by fierce and fabulous Ohio Consumer Advocate Marybeth Sheehan<p>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-30758140630796114622014-03-29T13:37:00.000-07:002014-03-29T14:43:37.697-07:00Dr. James Hunt Jr, DVM, New York: Exposed in PETA Horseracing Probe<font size="+1">The video is, like most PETA videos, painful to watch. Perhaps the most heartbreaking is the abusive, cruel, derisive and exploitative language used by the trainers exposed in this problem against the horses they exploit for a living. "Cocksucker." "Motherfucker." "Rat." Derision and hatred and vitriol against the innocent animals they exploit for wealth -- a betrayal.
<p>
But another shocking betrayal is encapsulated in evidence of ongoing and routine Lasix administration by James Hunt, DVM, regardless of medical need or potential harm. While lasix is legal in the United States, it is banned in Europe.
<p>
The video says: "Lasix . . . was injected into all of Asmussen's horses who were being raced or timed. PETA's investigator recorded New York's top racehorsing veterinarian admit that the primary reason why Lasix is given to most of the horses is for performance enhancement." Hunt -- on camera -- tells the investigator that all of th horses "run on" Lasix because " . . . It makes 'em lighter." When asked if there aren't some horses who don't need it, Hunt says: "Probably, but it's a performance enhancer."
<p>
Although the New York Times stated that Hunt could not be contacted to comment on their story, Hunt's previous comments on this matter leave little doubt how he sees his job as a racetrack vet -- and it doesn't involve the interests of the horses. In fact, it doesn't even involve the interests of the horse owners. Previously the New York Times ran a series, Breakdown at America's Racetracks, including the article "Racing Economics Collide with Veterinarians' Oath." In this article Hunt was reported as arguing that trainers should not have to reveal the medication regimens applied to their horses, stating that veterinarians will honor the trainers' request not to reveal this information because ". . . the trainers are their real clients, not the owners . . . The board must also understand that trainers make nearly 100 percent of all veterinarian decisions regarding the medication of their horses.”<p>
Trainers. You know, those guys who were recorded on video calling "their" horses "cocksuckers," "motherfuckers" and "rats." Those guys are the ones this veterinarian lets call the shots.
<p>
The veterinary oath includes the promise to protect "animal health and welfare" and to prevent and relieve animal suffering. Veterinarians also swear that "I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics."<p>
You watch the video yourself. And you see if you think that Dr. James Hunt's behavior is consistent with that oath. As you do so, remember that this is not the first time Hunt has been embroiled in scandals and controversies regarding horseracing industry's treatment of its horses.
<p>
There was an interesting comment on this story over at a site called the <a href="http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/industry-reactions-kentucky-new-york-launch-investigations-in-wake-of-peta-complaint/">Paulick Report</a>: "If veterinarians were regulated, you would see an end to many of our problems. . . Vets have no skin in the game when it comes to responsibility. It needs to change." I emphasize -- IF vets were regulated. IF. And it's true that they are NOT regulated. <p>
<a href="https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=5345">Watch PETA's Undercover Video Investigation</a>
<p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/sports/peta-accuses-two-trainers-of-cruelty-to-horses.html?_r=0">New York Times Article on PETA investigation</a>
<p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/us/at-the-track-racing-economics-collide-with-veterinarians-oath.html">Prior NYT Series Quoting Hunt</a>
</font size="+1">Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-57501932771709159682014-03-03T19:15:00.002-08:002014-03-03T19:19:11.687-08:00Breaking the Rules: Veterinarian Peter Rule's Plentiful Violatons of Veterinary Standards Bring Probation, but No Suspension, from Washington State<span style="font-size: large;">The Washington State Veterinary Board's Statement of Charges is chilling, detailing physical abuse of patients, drug diversion, not merely allowing but directing the practice of surgeries by an unlicensed assistant, surgical errors, and more. These "alleged facts" (quoting the Agreed Order) include a description of how a patient died from blood loss after Rule "nicked" her spleen during a spay; another patient burned; yet another given way way way way too much fluid; another with a "nicked" urethra. The owner of the dog whose ureter was "nicked" gave a heart-wrenching account of her experience in press reports. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Here are the Findings of Fact from the agreed order from the Washington Veterinary Board on Peter Rule, DVM: </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">"From on or about February of 2007 through July of 2008, at least five (5) members of Respondent's staff observed him diverting tramadol for his own use." Rule admitted to this on camera in local press coverage of the case, a link to which is provided below. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">"From on or about April 2005 through on or about March 2008, at least three (3) employees observed respondent using unnecessary force, excessive physical restraint, and/or threatening conduct with patients." This is further described in the Veterinary Board's statement of charges as follows: </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">[Rule] was observed "physically and psychologically abusing patients. Specifically, [Rule]:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A. Taunted patients by "getting in their faces" or growling at them;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">B. Slapped or punched their faces; </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">C. Pulled their tails; and</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">D. Tightened his hand around the animal's neck until it lost consciousness."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">From on or about April 2005 through on or about March 2008, and in August 2010, [Peter Rule, DVM] aided and abetted the unlicensed practice of veterinary medicine. Specifically [Peter Rule, DVM]:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A. Allowed at least one (1) unlicensed assistant to perform the duties of a licensed veterinarian on at least five (5) occasions; </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">B. Verbally pressured an unlicensed assistant to perform spay and neuter surgery."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">{<b><i>Comment: Spay surgery is major abdominal surgery. One is left to wonder what the outcome of this surgery was -- an unlicensed assistant is not even a licensed veterinary technician, it would be like having an orderly do a hysterectomy. How do you think that turned out? </i></b>} </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">From on or about April 2005 through on or about February 2008, at least one (1) employee observed that [Rule] left the clinic on one or more occasions while patients were under sedation and recovering from surgery, even though no veterinarian or veterinary technician was on the premises." </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">"From on or about April 2008 through on or about October 2008 [Peter Rule] provided veterinary services that did not meet the standard of care for the State of Washington. Specifically: </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A. On or about April 11, 2008, [Peter Rule, DVM] performed an ovario-hysterectomy on client A's dog Daisy. During the surgery [Peter Rule, DVM] nicked the dog's spleen and could not control the consequent bleeding; the patient bled to death."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">B. On or about May 16, 2008, [Peter Rule, DVM] performed an OVH on Client B's dog Sophie. The dog was placed on a heating device by an employee of respondent's clinic, which burned the patient's skin." </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">C. "On or about October 28, 2008, [Peter Rule, DVM] performed a spay on Client C's cat Bella. The treatment involved hydration. An employee of Respondent's clinic over-hydrated the patient by administering fluids at the rate of 700 ml per hour." Now, how bad is that? Well, let's see. According to AAHA itself, the appropriate fluid rate for a cat is 2-3 ml per kg per hour. (See <a href="https://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/FluidTherapy_Guidelines.pdf">AAHANet.org Fluid Therapy Guidelines</a>, page 9). A cat of 10 pounds is about 4.5 kg. That equates to a fluid rate of 13.5 ml/hr. That means the cat received fluids at a rate over <b> 50 times that which it should have been! </b> The board document does not specify what happened to the cat in question, but without a doubt, this can cause life threatening complications such as <a href="http://www.petplace.com/cats/pleural-effusion-in-cats/page2.aspx">pleural effusion.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">D. On or about August 9, 2010, while performing neuter surgery on Client D and E's dog Trooper, Respondent [Peter Rule, DVM] nicked the patient's urethra."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Trooper's owner was interviewed on a local TV station about what happened to Trooper, saying <a href="http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Ferndale-veterinarian-accused-of-punching-taunting-animals-181294211.html">she could hear her dog " . . . </a><a href="http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Ferndale-veterinarian-accused-of-punching-taunting-animals-181294211.html"> yelling and writhing, just being really in great pain."</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">My experience with the Washington State Veterinary Board is that they are, like many Vet Boards, seemingly very reluctant to publicize or even release upon request disciplinary records. Why would Rule be different? Could it have anything to do with what Rule said when confronted with the Board's Statement of Charges? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Rule said, on camera: "How dare they." </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps that's one of the only times a vet board actually does something about a vet who's practice is substandard -- when the vet himself thumbs his nose at the board. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Veterinary+news/Washington-veterinarian-accused-of-abusing-patient/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/798692">Industry Article on Rule Disciplinary Action</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> <a href="http://q13fox.com/2013/10/14/vet-to-keep-his-license-after-animal-abuse-stealing-pain-meds/#axzz2uxKxdgFo">"Vet to Keep His License After Animal Abuse, Stealing Pain Meds"</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/11/the_veterinarian_who_seemed_to.php">"The Veterinarian Who Seemed to Hate Animals"</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-12163206281779783832013-03-08T09:57:00.005-08:002013-03-08T09:57:43.948-08:00No Respect for the Dead, No Respect for your Trust: Andrew Manesis Arrested for Dumping Dead Patients Bodies <font size = "+1">
Bronx veterinarian Andrew Manesis was arrested in spring of 2012 for dumping bodies of dead pets in the brush near the Hudson River. News reports stated that “Andrew Manesis of Animal Clinic & Surgery of Throggs Neck was arrested by Westchester County police following an investigation that began April 5 when the remains of 26 cats, eight dogs and a lizard were discovered in dense brush roughly 10 feet from the Hutch in Harrison, N.Y. .. The pets were wrapped in garbage bags and lobbed into the brush on several occasions from March 2011 to April 2012.”
<p>Pet owners had trusted Manesis to handle their beloved pets remains in a respectful manner, and that’s what they presumably paid for, including one “grieving cat lover” who had paid Manesis to cremate her beloved cat. <p>
What was he handing them back instead of the remains of their pets? <p>
This reminds me of an experience I had while working as a receptionist at a Virginia animal hospital briefly, when a company representative showed up “for a pickup” with a card that said: “We buy bones, meat, fat and gristle.” What was happening to the remains of pets owners entrusted to the hospital to dispose of? I think it’s obvious, and of course, I quit. <p>
How many veterinarians throughout the country disregard people’s emotions about their pets, and sell or dump the dead bodies, all the while pocketing the money they are given for cremation and returning a box of mystery ashes? Or nothing at all? According to the news reports, pet owners had paid $100 to $300 for respectful disposal of their pets remains – surely not to have them tossed as trash. <p>
One thing is for sure: When investigative reports have uncovered disrespectful treatment of human remains, it has received national news attention on night time news magazine shows, and resulted in serious investigations. <p>
Manesis? He was charged in Harrison Town Court with fraud, violation of environmental conservation law and two counts of petit larceny – but all of these charges are mere misdemeanors.<p>
More outrageous still: Although naiive bloggers and news people predicted that the New York State Veterinary Board would take strong and decisive action in this case, we here at Bad Vet Daily are not surprised to see the comment of one recent poster on a news story about this case: “Why is this piece of crap vet still opened?” Well, we can tell you why. <p>
<b>The State Veterinary Board doesn’t care any more about pets, or your feelings, than Andrew Manesis does. Shocking, but absolutely true. </b> <p>
Links:
<p>
<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/bronx-veterinarian-busted-dumping-dead-pets-hutchinson-river-parkway-westchester-article-1.1086324">http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/bronx-veterinarian-busted-dumping-dead-pets-hutchinson-river-parkway-westchester-article-1.1086324
</a><p>
<a href="http://www.petside.com/article/bronx-vet-faces-more-criminal-action-dumping-pets">http://www.petside.com/article/bronx-vet-faces-more-criminal-action-dumping-pets
</a><p>
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/andrew-manesis-dumped-euthanized-animals_n_1553667.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/andrew-manesis-dumped-euthanized-animals_n_1553667.html
</a><p>
<a href="http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=22752">http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=22752
</a>
</font>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-26045128552192552262013-03-07T12:30:00.002-08:002013-03-07T12:31:51.299-08:00Vets Who Take Joy in Tormenting and Killing Animals: Stacy Smith’s Illegal Hunting Ground<font size="+1">In December 2012 Tennessee Veterinarian Stacy Smith pled guilty to running an illegal hunting operation on his property, which he opened for hunting of wild hogs. <p>
While the news stories on this focus on the role of illegal distribution and hunting of wild hogs contributing to environmental destruction, I am seriously disturbed by the idea of any veterinarian taking joy and profit in running a hunting ground of any kind.
<p>The message this send to me is “Let’s torment and kill some animals! Yippee!” <p>
And a sadist who enjoys tormenting and killing animals for profit on their illegal hunting grounds is not someone who I would ever want to be a medical care provider for my pets, much less be alone with them “in the back.” I would never ever ever ever trust such a person, nor do I think anyone else should.
<p>
It also makes me wonder what is up with all the sadistic veterinarians in Tennessee who enjoy tormenting animals as they/before they kill them, given that Smith joins “Barbarous Baber” on the Tennessee Veterinary Wall of Shame.
<p>
<b>Links: <br>
</b>
<a href="http://www.wsmv.com/story/20319433/veterinarian-arrested-for-illegal-hunting-ground">http://www.wsmv.com/story/20319433/veterinarian-arrested-for-illegal-hunting-ground
</a><p>
<a href="http://www.nooga.com/158727/veterinarian-fined-nearly-5000-for-possession-of-wild-hogs/">http://www.nooga.com/158727/veterinarian-fined-nearly-5000-for-possession-of-wild-hogs/
</a><p>
<a href="http://news.tn.gov/node/9970">http://news.tn.gov/node/9970">http://news.tn.gov/node/9970">http://news.tn.gov/node/9970
</a><p>
<a href="http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/dec/02/outdoors-notes-tennessee-hunters-kill-17093-deer/?print=1">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/dec/02/outdoors-notes-tennessee-hunters-kill-17093-deer/?print=1
</a></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-83703958090370008302012-08-08T17:00:00.000-07:002012-08-08T17:00:24.896-07:00Is "Dr." Andrew Carlton Covering Up Greyhound Racing's Dirty Secrets?<font size="+1">According to a recent alert by Grey2K USA, Arizona Department of Racing's Chief Veterinarian, Andrew Carlton, is in possession of injury reports for the state's racing greyhounds. Yet the Department repeatedly refuses to release this information to Grey2K USA.
<p>
Is Dr. Carlton complicit in a cover up of the horrors of greyhound racing?
<p>
Carlton, in fact, is not merely implicated in what may be a coverup of racing injuries causing the suffering of greyhound dogs. Web searches for Carlton reveal that he has a history of complaints. Another veterinarian, Janet Forrer, joined with a retired assistant U.S. Attorney General to file a
<a href="http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/12/06/104454-racing-foes-file-complaints-against-tucson-greyhound-park-vets/">complaint</a> against Carlton in 2008,alleging that Carlton and two track vets, Betty Menke and Paul Pullen, were in violation of the Veterinary Practice Act. Allegations included: steroids being administered by staff not licensed to do so; lack of records for dogs; and most importantly, lack of oversight by Carlton. <p>
In 2005, also under Dr. Carlton's tenure as the State Veterinarian for the Tucson Greyhound Park, animal <a href="http://www.greyhoundnetworknews.org/backissues/05/Q02_cover_g.html">cruelty investigators seized 76 greyhounds from conditions described as "deplorable." </a> Dogs seized were found to be suffering from posible urinary tract ailments, kennel cough, and "blood diseases." Many were suffering from severe flea and tick infestation, mange, and possible internal parasites. 31 of the dogs were "very thin"; 21 had sores and 8 had puncture wounds and cuts. While Dr. Carlton was not necessarily implicated in the circumstances leading to their deplorable condition, a concerned animal lover must surely ask the question: "How good could his 'oversight' possibly be if such conditions were allowed to develop under his nose? Does this not indicate dereliction of duty on his part?" <p>
</a>An important fact that we all must realize is that nearly every horror visited upon animals in the United States -- from veterinary abuse/malpractice to vivisection to factory farming to puppy mills -- involves the complicity of veterinarians.<p>
Read the facts. Is this one?</font> <p>
<a href="http://www.grey2kusa.org/eNEWS/G2K-8812.html">News Release with Appeal for Action from Grey2K</a><p>
<a href="http://www.grey2kusa.org/pdf/SMOKING_GUN_CORRESPONDENCE_2012.pdf">Email documentation proving that veterinarian Andrew Carlton is aware of injuries</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-43622841867416091742012-02-04T20:15:00.000-08:002012-02-04T20:39:56.600-08:00P.S. They Molest Children too . . . But they Keep Getting to Practice!<font size="+1">Seriously, is there NO CRIME that will result in utter revocation of a veterinary license? <br /><br />Illinois Veterinarian James Anthony Dillon was charged with, and apparently (based on the subsequent vet board record) convicted of "aggravated criminal sexual abuse, a Class 2 Felony." What's the story here? <br /><br />According to the Chicago Tribune (July 28, 2004), Dillon was the exchange student coordinator of the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Noon Rotary Club. He molested a boy who was an exchange student "from Europe, three times from January until May. . . . [Lake County Assistant State's Attorney Matthew Chancey said that] the abuse occurred at Dillon's house . . . Dillon occasionally entertained exchange students as well as arranging their visits, he said."<br /><br />"The boy told his host family about the alleged abuse, which led to an investigation by the Children's Advocacy Center of the Lake County state's attorney's office, Chancey said."<br /><br />Dillon had a veterinary office in Knollwood, IL. He was also was chairman of the Rotary Youth Leadership Awards, the article states. <br /><br />Do you really need more proof that abusers seek roles where they will have access to victims? So, if that's true of "youth leaders" it follows that animal abusers also would seek out veterinary medicine. <br /><br />So what did the vet board do? <br /><br />They suspended his license for 30 days and put him on subsequent probation. In other words they did not take his license away. Right, like it's safe for child molesters to handle our pets. Brilliant, vet board. <br /><br />A search of the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation's website shows that his license is active. But if you want to remember who to stay away from, you can memorize his photo from the Sex Offender Registry. <br /><br />Illinois vet board, you are good for NOTHING. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.vernonhills.org/contact/RegisteredSexOffenderInformation.asp">Sex Offender Registry Entry with Photo</a><br /><br /><a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-07-28/news/0407280400_1_rotary-club-host-family-abuse">Veterinarian Charged with Child Molestation - Chicago Tribune</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nospank.net/exchng3.htm">Advocacy Website Coverage re: Host Family Abuse of Exchange Students</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.idfpr.com/Forms/DISCPLN/0602_dis.pdf">Vet Board's Laughable Probation Action</a><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-15394752536486876102012-01-30T16:16:00.000-08:002012-01-30T16:52:58.647-08:00They Screw Horses, Don't They? Pennsylvania Vet Charged in Oklahoma Incident with Horse<font size="+1">Thomas Lyle Wilson, a veterinarian now practicing at an as-yet undisclosed veterinary practice in Pennsylvania animal practice, has been charged in Oklahoma with sodomizing a horse ("a crime against nature"). <br /><br />The news coverage provided via the link to video below from KJRH.com, Channel 2 in Tulsa, states: <br /><br />"Oklahoma State investigators say the man was caught in a sex act with a horse .. . [the act occurred over 2 years ago] when he was a student in the Tulsa area. That case didn't surface until this summer and today Wilson was in court to face a judge. . . .Court documents state that a doctor was checking on the horses at his clinic [where Wilson was training] on a live video feed and saw Wilson having sex with one of the animals. The doctor told investigators that he confronted Wilson about the alleged incident. Wilson's response was that he was glad to have been caught, and that he needed help. The case was turned over to the Tulsa County District Attorney's office last October." <br /><br /><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="video" width="333" height="289.75" data="http://www.newsnet5.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=16926"><param value="http://www.newsnet5.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=16926" name="movie"/><param value="&skin=MP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf&embed=true&adSizeArray=1x1000,320x40,3x1000&adSrc=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fpfadx%2Fssp%2Ewews%2Fnews%2Flocal%5Fnews%2Fdetail%3Bdcmt%3Dtext%2Fxml%3Bsz%3D%25size%25%3Bpos%3D%25pos%25%3Bloc%3D%25loc%25%3Bcomp%3D%25adid%25%3Btile%3D3%3Bfname%3Dvet%2Daccused%2Dof%2Dsexual%2Dact%2Dwith%2Dhorse1327070712832%3Bord%3D47039679826171020%3Frand%3D%25rand%25&flv=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewsnet5%2Ecom%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%3FobfType%3DVIDEO%5FPLAYER%5FSMIL%5FFEED%26componentId%3D188707349&img=http%3A%2F%2Fsharing%2Enewsnet5%2Ecom%2Fsharekjrh%2F%2Fphoto%2F2012%2F01%2F19%2FMan%5Farrested%5Ffor%5Fcrime4d13d08d%2D6dfe%2D498a%2D8b8d%2Dc2067ed9ca350000%5F20120119221517%5F640%5F480%2EJPG&story=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewsnet5%2Ecom%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Flocal%5Fnews%2Fvet%2Daccused%2Dof%2Dsexual%2Dact%2Dwith%2Dhorse1327070712832&category=local%5Fnews&title=Man%20arrested%20for%20crimes%20against%20horse&oacct=&ovns=" name="FlashVars"/><param value="all" name="allowNetworking"/><param value="always" name="allowScriptAccess"/></object><br /><br />OK, let's pause and digest this. <br /><br />Wilson was a veterinary student working at a clinic -- a veterinary clinic. He was observed by the clinics owner or manager (it doesn't say which, it just says the doctor was checking on horses at "his" clinic, which leads me to believe he was the owner) having sex with one of the animals. Since this was a veterinary hospital, we can infer that he was [allegedly] having sex with a clinic patient. <br /><br />When confronted, Wilson's response was "I need help." Those are not the words of a man who is doing this for the first time. Those are the words of a man who has an ongoing problem. <br /><br />So, here is this vet, [allegedly] fucking a clinic patient, admitting he has a problem with this kind of behavior . . . . and it takes 2 1/2 years for the case to come to light. In that 2 1/2 years, Wilson has become licensed and started practicing in Pennsylvania. <br /><br />The coverage includes an interview with Dell Fullerton of the Oklahoma State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. He said this issue came to his attention when he was looking "at another matter." But get this setup: Fullerton says "He's being very cooperative with the District Attorney's office," adding that Wilson has never been licensed in or practiced in Oklahoma. Ah, I feel excuses coming on. <br /><br />The Pennsylvania Veterinary Board has not initiated any charges against Wilson. I'm putting money on them NEVER doing so. This case will probably just slink away. The PA vet board may claim that Wilson's fucking a horse as a student in Oklahoma has nothing to do with his practice of veterinary medicine in Pennsylvania. Right. <br /><br />Well, if they DO take that position, it will be equivalent to a state licensing board claiming that a man raping a child should be allowed to work at a daycare center. <br /><br />This man should LOSE his license. Period. <br /><br />Why don't they release the name of the hospital at which this vet works? Don't you think the clients have a right to know that this man is "treating" their patients? That way they can make up their own minds about what to do when this vet says he's going to take their pets "in the back" room for treatment. He may mean that in more ways than one. <b>WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE THIS MAN IS WORKING!!!!!</b><br /><br /><br />Links: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/vet-accused-of-sex-with-horse/">News Coverage -- Vet Accused of Sex with Horse</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=19480">Horse Industry Site on this Story</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.telegraphbuzz.com/thomas-lyle-wilson-video-4323/">Video Coverage</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/vet-accused-of-sexual-act-with-horse">Local News -- Thomas Lyle Wilson Charged for Sex with Horse</a><br /><br /><a href=" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090751/Thomas-Lyle-Wilson-Animal-doctor-sex-horse-veterinarian-student.html">Thomas Lyle Wilson Charged - Daily Mail UK</a><br /><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-64700134431613788332011-11-16T19:03:00.000-08:002014-03-03T19:21:46.421-08:00Fairfax VA's Crosspoint Animal Hospital Kills Dog Without Permission of Owners<span>It's all over the news, so if you are local, you've heard by now of the terrible, horrible, awful story that should strike fear into the heart of every pet owner. For really, this could happen to almost anyone. <br /><br />Allen and Allison Holmes of Occoquan Virginia had shared their lives with, and loved, their dog Basie, a Corgi-Border Collie mix, for nearly 17 years, according to press reports. Basie was an old dog. But Basie, according to accounts, was still hanging in there. Still eating, still drinking, still doing her business and going out in the yard. And that is where she was when her owners went inside for 15 minutes. When they came out, Basie was gone. <br /><br />Now, like any old dog, Basie was slow moving, and they knew she couldn't have gotten far. But unfortunately, Basie was picked up by a client of Crosspoint Animal Hospital who saw her and took her there. <br /><br />There, where the vets of their own accord decided that "for humane reasons that the dog should be put down." Within mere hours of being lost from her yard, the much loved old dog was dead. No hold period. No search for owners. Nothing. <br /><br />A vet who apparently didn't care enough to find out if this lost old dog had loving owners looking for her. Which she did. <br /><br />It is horrifying that your pet could go missing and within hours be summarily killed by a veterinarian without the vet, or the shelter (which the vet CLAIMS they called the local shelter and asked permission to kill the dog -- although I don't know how the shelter could possibly give permission for such a thing since the dog had only been lost for a few hours and that doesn't constitute any kind of hold period) checking to see if someone has reported a lost dog matching your pets description. <br /><br />In fact, when confronted about the vet's claims that they called the shelter and asked permission to kill the dog that had been picked up on the street by a client and had only been in their office a brief period, according to one press report, "the Fairfax County Police Department, which oversees Animal Control, clarified that the shelter would never give that advice. Officer Shelly Broderick told WUSA the decision to put the dog down was the veterinarian's alone."<br /><br />While press reports say the owners are considering a suit, and have not decided, I will predict that any action they take will be met with derision and nothing but further heartache, because these people who claim to love animals in the vet world believe that they should get to do whatever they want to our pets, and no one should question them. They have lobbies and money and they have made damn well sure that it remains virtually impossible to get justice when our pets are injured or killed. This is a vicious cycle. Because there is no accountability, it emboldens them further to act with disregard and impunity, arrogance, and the God Complex that allows them to mete out death to our loved ones on a veritable whim, without due process, without a search for a family, without even providing adequate time for the family to find the dog. <br /><br />When Basie's family found her, the very day after she disappeared, they were given back a box of ashes. And apparently, no apologies. Not that an apology would be anywhere near enough. <br /><br />In the words of her loving owner Allison, thanks to this vet, "Basie died alone with strangers, which is the real tragedy." <br /><br />Shame, shame shame.<br /><br />Links to local coverage: <br /><br /><a href="http://fairfaxstation.patch.com/articles/owners-of-euthanized-dog-may-file-lawsuit">Owners of Euthanized Dog May File Suit</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061185/Couple-pet-dog-17-just-day-went-missing--discover-vet-down.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">OK, this is not local -- they care about this stuff in Great Britain, too. They find it horrifying. </a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-42388997030259623262011-08-11T20:49:00.000-07:002011-08-11T21:29:01.968-07:00There is Yet Another Black Mar on the Face of Veterinary Medicine<font size="+1">Yes, that's right. There is another black mar on the face of Veterinary Medicine, and its name is Dr. Dawn Blackmar.
<br />
<br />Blackmar, who reportedly is paid $125,000 a year to run Harris County Animal Control in Texas, presides over what can only be called a house of horrors at the Harris County Animal Control "shelter."
<br />
<br />See the recent TV investigative report for yourself from Houston's Fox News station:
<br />
<br /><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="video" width="367" height="315.25" data="http://www.myfoxhouston.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=11266"><param value="http://www.myfoxhouston.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=11266" name="movie"/><param value="&skin=MP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf&embed=true&adSizeArray=300x240&adSrc=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fadx%2Ftsg%2Ekriv%2Fnews%2Fmetro%2Fdetail%3Bdcmt%3Dtext%2Fxml%3Bpos%3D%3Btile%3D2%3Bfname%3D110804%2Dformer%2Danimal%2Dcontrol%2Demployees%2Dreact%2Dto%2Dfox%2D26%2Dinvestigation%3Bloc%3Dsite%3Bsz%3D320x240%3Bord%3D991719440302201300%3Frand%3D0%2E9265400281442739&flv=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxhouston%2Ecom%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%3FobfType%3DVIDEO%5FPLAYER%5FSMIL%5FFEED%26componentId%3D135580654&img=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2%2Emyfoxhouston%2Ecom%2F%2Fphoto%2F2011%2F07%2F28%2F110728animalcontrol9pm%5Ftmb0003%5F20110728221719%5F640%5F480%2EJPG&story=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxhouston%2Ecom%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Flocal%2F110804%2Dformer%2Danimal%2Dcontrol%2Demployees%2Dreact%2Dto%2Dfox%2D26%2Dinvestigation&category=investigates&title=110804animalcontrol5pm&oacct=foximfoximkriv,foximglobal&ovns=foxinteractivemedia&headline=Former%20Animal%20Control%20Employees%20React%20to%20FOX%2026%20Investigation" name="FlashVars"/><param value="all" name="allowNetworking"/><param value="always" name="allowScriptAccess"/></object><p style="width:367px"><a href="http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/110804-former-animal-control-employees-react-to-fox-26-investigation">Former Animal Control Employees React to FOX 26 Investigation: MyFoxHOUSTON.com</a></p>
<br />
<br />" . . the more we continue to investigate . . . the more gut-wrenching stories we hear," says journalist Randy Wallace.
<br />
<br />Animals made to watch each other killed, including mother dogs made to watch their puppies killed, and puppies forced to watch their mother's killed. This practice is against the law. "Look at these pictures . . . " Wallace says, showing the proof.
<br />
<br />Former employees say this has been going on for years.
<br />
<br />"The more questions we asked Blackmar, the more she tried to pretend we weren't there" said the reporter, who asked the six-figure salary veterinarian and sadist in chief if the taxpayer's weren't owed an explanation for the horrors they have learned about. The video shows Blackmar coldly walking away.
<br />
<br />Like she has from the suffering of all the animals she has overseen the killing of. According to former employee, this has been going on for years.
<br />
<br />Except I suspect its more than merely walking away. I think that someone who goes on running a place like this, a torture chamber of mental torture for the human employees and sheer Auchwitz-like terror death camps for animals must enjoy it.
<br />
<br />I think she must be a sadist.
<br />
<br />"Dr. Blackmar has been there for too long," said a former employee. "They don't see anything wrong with it. It's been going on for years . . ."
<br />
<br />We here at Bad Vet Daily agree. She needs to go.
<br />
<br />Talking about how awful it was to hear the allegations about the momma dog being killed in front of her puppies, the female newscaster says: "It's just too much," said a female newscaster.
<br />
<br />"It makes you want to cry," said the male newscaster.
<br />
<br />The station is running a poll and the public can participate, on whether or not they think Blackmar should resign. I know how I vote! <b>Sign the petition to urge the prosecution of Dawn Blackmar! <a href="http://www.care2.com/news/member/357545291/2902291">Sign the Petition!</a></b>
<br />
<br />How much more evidence does the public need that sadists who enjoy animal torture are drawn to the field of veterinary medicine?
<br />
<br />More coverage of Blackmar's reign of terror, sadism, and death:
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/110504-area-shelter-wont-consider-offer-that-could-save-money-lives">Shelter Won't Consider Offer that Could Save Money and Lives</a>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-houston/the-urgent-need-for-texas-capa-h-b-3450">A Tragic Example of the Urgent Need for Texas CAPA</a>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/110518-investigation-into-animal-shelter-has-officials-considering-changes">Investigation into Animal Shelter has Officials Considering Changes</a></font>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/110802-more-questions-surrounding-harris-county-animal-control">More Questions Surrounding Harris County Animal Control</a>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/110805-county-attorney-says-laws-violated-at-harris-county-animal-control">County Attorney Says Laws Violated at Harris County Animal Control</a>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.care2.com/news/member/357545291/2902291"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-81042803995119902192011-06-22T19:04:00.000-07:002011-06-22T20:51:03.284-07:00Enough to Know you Don't Want to Go There: Larry Britt, Florida, Allegedly Lets Patient Bleed to Death<font size="+1"><br /><br /><B>UPDATE: After writing this post I did more research on the subject, Larry Britt. It seems that Dr. Britt has a very disturbing prior history before this most recent disciplinary action by the Board. In 2008, according to press articles, Britt was arrested on two felony charges, one for filing a fraudulent insurance claim and the other for alleged theft of a show horse named "Bellagio." Press accounts of this can be found <a href="http://www2.tbo.com/news/plant-city/2008/jun/21/pc-is-bellagio-dead-or-alive-ar-231067/">here. </a> I find it particularly ironic that Britt, who appears to be still affiliated with "Roadrunner Vet Clinic", markets himself as an equine dentist. The veterinary industry -- its boards and associations - have been going after unlicensed but traditionally trained equine "tooth floaters" for years, claiming that only licensed vets like Britt should be able to provide any kind of dental care to horses. They claim their attempts to stop the "tooth floaters" are all about patient safety. I, and most other consumers I know, believe it is about money -- protecting the source of income. And here is a licensed vet, Larry Britt, engaging in an apparent pattern of clearly unethical and even dangerous behavior. But he's stil a licensed vet. BEWARE!</b><br /><br /><br /><br />The Florida Veterinary Board, while it is responsive to public records requests for disciplinary records, don't appear to make these records available online. You can see if a vet has a record, but you can't get the details by using their license verification feature. <br /><br />However some information is included in their Board minutes, albeit not the details. In some cases you really can't tell what happened, and in other cases what appears in the minutes is JUST ENOUGH for you to know to stay away. I believe any loving Florida owner would want to steer clear of Larry Britt, DVM in Plant City Florida after reading the minutes of the December 2010 Florida vet board meeting. <br /><br />These minutes state: <br /><br />" . . . the administrative complaint alleges that the Respondent <b> falsified records and allowed one of his patients to bleed to death.</b> Ms. Duffy [investigator] advised the board that the department recommended a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) fine, eight hundred and three dollars and twenty three cents ($803.23) in costs, three (3) years probation, ten (10) hours of continuing education in ethics and retake the Florida laws and rules exam."<br /><br />"After discussion by the board the following motions was made.<br /><br />MOTION: Dr. O’Neil made a motion to accept the settlement stipulation as presented.<br />SECOND: Dr. Figarola seconded the motion.<br />Dr. O’Neil withdrew his motion.<br />MOTION: Dr. Maxwell made a motion to reject the settlement stipulation.<br />SECOND: Dr. Simmons seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.<br />MOTION: Dr. Maxwell made a motion to offer a counter stipulation of a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) fine, eight hundred and three dollars and twenty three cents ($803.23) in costs, three (3) years probation with an annual appearance and one at the end of probation, twenty (20) hours of continuing education ten (10) hours in ethics and ten (10) hours in Equine surgery and retake the Florida laws and rules exam."<br /><br />This motion was passed. <br /><br />So, I gather from the information in the minutes that the patient, or a patient, involved in the complaint was a horse, and that the horse bled to death, with Britt being accused of both falsifying records and allowing aforesaid patient to bleed to death. <br /><br />After surgery, I presume. (Given the requirement to take continuing education in equine surgery). <br /><br />Florida doesn't make it easy to find this information, at least not by vet name in a lookup on their site. It makes me wonder if they are trying to protect vets like this - trying to withhold information by hiding it in plain site, depriving clients from important facts they need to determine what vets they do, and do not, want to see. <br /><br />I hope that Florida changes their license lookup feature to allow full access to all of the facts and allegations of the case, because this is very important for a consumer to make informed choices. <br /><br />In the meantime, I wouldn't be taking my animals to Britt. Would you? <br /><br />Links: <a href="http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pro/vetm/meetings_past.html">Minutes from Florida Vet Board's December 2010 meeting</a><br /><br /><br />NOTE: According to the Annual Report of Florida's Department of Business and Professional Licensing, the Florida Veterinary Board received 599 complains in FY 2009-2010, but took only 38 disciplinary actions in that time period. That is a rate of 6 actions per 100 complaints, or 6%. That number is abysmal enough, but when you consider that some of the disciplinary actions taken may not have been in response to complaints, but may instead have resulted from inspection findings or CE violations, you realize the number is likely worse. <br /><br />This means that if you file a complaint with the Florida Veterinary Board, there is a 94% chance of the board taken no disciplinary action. <br /><a href="http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/os/annual-reports.html"><br />Link to Annual Report</a></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-10798794748524837922011-02-13T17:20:00.000-08:002011-02-13T20:18:22.415-08:00Vet Sarah Pizano Fires Whistleblower and Turns off the Cameras After Employee Videotaped Performing Cruel, Deadly "Heartsticks" on Cats<font size="+1">Veterinarian Sarah Pizano has been the Director of Miami-Dade Animal Services since 2005. Tthe shelter she runs has come under harsh criticism from concerned members of the community and animal lovers. <br /><br />A recent news investigation has exposed an unthinkable horror at the shelter -- and it may indicate that "heartsticks" -- a cruel, painful method of killing animals which cannot rightly be considered "euthanasia -- are more prevalent and widespread in the veterinary community than we would ever have realized, even after the <a href="http://badvetdaily.blogspot.com/2008/09/charles-maben-thompson-sympathizer-with.html">revolting defense of Dr. William Baber by the President of the Tennessee Veterinary Board</a>. <br /><br />Again on horrifying video (you can watch it as a part of the news investigation <a href="http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/carmelcase/MI91019/">here</a>), we have the proof: Someone referred to as a "vet tech" -- an employee of Sarah Pizano -- shoving a needle with poisonous deadly fluid directly into the chest cavity and heart of conscious, aware, struggling, flailing, desperate homeless cats whose fates were entrusted to this "shelter." <br /><br />Pizano's public statements would seem to indicate that she claims neither to have known that this was going on, or to support it. But where, I'd like to know, did her "vet tech" learn to do this barbaric technique -- done solely to make the killing go faster? <br /><br />Luckily for the community, Grace Avila, a worker at the shelter, blew the whistle on this activity, which she described as painful - which was caught on tape and made available through the news investigations. <br /><br />After she blew the whistle, Avila was fired. <br /><br />And the guy who did the heartsticks? He was "demoted" and lost just $50 a week in pay. <br /><br />Let's see, what message does that send from Pizano? <br /><br />(Even though she CLAIMS her firing Avila had nothing to do with the whistleblowing). <br /><br />What actions has Pizano taken since this revelation? <br /><br />Well, she removed the cameras that tape what goes on at a facility a local animal activist called "a concentration camp." <br /><br />She expressed concern about the community REACTION to what happened. <br /><br />To me, this indicates that it's all about PR for the apparently camera loving Pizano, who, on her YouTube video, said "I make a difference for animals and people." <br /><br />In that same video, Pizano said that one of her jobs is reuniting animals with their families. Well, I guess someone ought to ask the grieving owners of "Cowboy" about that. <br /><br />Cowboy, who ran off during a storm that frightened him, was held at Miami-Dade in August 2005. (Pizano on her Youtube video said she began her tenure there in summer of 2005 which means she likely presided over this heartbreaking fiasco.) According to a lawsuit filed in Circuit Court, the owner called the shelter and described her dog, but the shelter wrongly told her that no dog matching that description was there. Two days in a row. Finally, someone at the shelter in a stroke of brilliance scanned his microchip, and phoned Cowboy's owners. Cowboy's owners attempted, according to the lawsuit, to make arrangements to pick him up the next day, but the shelter asserted one and then another set of administrative requirements upon the owners. They were told they could not pick up their dog not only without proof of rabies vaccine from their vet, but then were required to produce a notarized letter (according to the suit). <br /><br />By the time his owners showed up that very same day to get him, with the handfuls of papers the shelter demanded, the shelter had killed their dog. <br /><br />According to the lawsuit, a May 2004 evaluation (which to be fair, would have predated Pizano's term as director which started in 2005, the same year Cowboy was killed) conducted by the Humane Society of the United States concluded that the overall management, organization, and handling of animals at this shelter was "appalling." <br /><br />It seems that under Pizano's tenure, things remain appalling. <br /><br />There are now petition drives on both Facebook and the Petition Site for her removal as director. <br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/carmelcase/MI91019/"><br />Carmel on the Case: Video of Cats Being Given Heartsticks, and Pizano's Maddening Monotone Interview</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2010_11/MoreMiamiHorror.htm">New Horror Story about Miami-Dade</a><br /><br />Petitions for the removal of Pizano: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/we-demand-dr-sara-pizano-be-removed-as-director-of-miami-dade-animal-services-and-a-new-shelter-be/">Petition Site</a><br /><br /><a href="http://apps.facebook.com/petitions/1/we-demand-dr-sara-pizano-be-removed-as-director-of-miami-dade-animal-services-and-a-new-shelter-be/">Facebook</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusrodriguez_porras.htm">Lawsuit Filed Against Miami-Dade for Unauthorized Euthanasia of a Dog Before the Owner had a Chance to Pick Him Up</a></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-31647271778321493852010-08-25T19:43:00.000-07:002010-08-26T14:54:58.506-07:00Vet Darry Griebel and Lehigh Acres Animal Hospital Kill Two Dogs for Unpaid Bill<Font size="+1"><strong>BREAKING NEWS: </strong><p><br /><br />Lehigh Acres Animal "Hospital", under vet Darry Griebel -- a veterinarian with a prior record of violations and disciplinary record with the Florida Veterinary Board, who practices in Lehigh Acres Florida -- has killed a client's two dogs because he had an unpaid $2,000 boarding bill. According to news accounts, the family found themselves unable to pay the bill due to a family medical emergency. But the Veterinary "Hospital" killed the dogs. According to local news reports, he took this action in spite of the fact that a rescue group had come forward and asked for 24 hours to raise the money, as well as offered to take over care of the dogs, after the vet threatened to kill the dogs. In fact, according to the news reports, "dozens of people devoted time and money in hopes of saving that family's dog" to help pay off the debt -- money the vet hospital continued to accept even after they had already killed the dogs. <br /><p><br />On August 20th, angry local citizens protested in the rain outside Lehigh Acres Animal "Hospital." News cameras from local station WINK news were there. <br /><br />"They should be sued, they should be shut down," one protester said. <br /><br />"I don't think a clinic that practices in this . . . manner has any business being open," said another. <br /><br />An animal rescue group had asked the vet to give them 24 hours to pay the bill, the report said. But the vet Griebel was unwilling to do that, and killed the dogs -- although reports are that they continued to take money sent in as donations by people hoping their donations would spare the dogs. <br /><br />"I've been doing rescue for 19 years. I've never seen a case handled like this, never, ever. When someone stepped forward -- a rescue AND a vet clinic -- offering to pay the bill. Why didn't they let us pay the bill today, and the dogs would be alive, and the family would have their dogs back?" asked a clearly emotional Ginny Bashear, rescue group representative. <br /><br />We couldn't agree with her more. <br /><br />I ask you -- should a place even be allowed to be called a "hospital" when they kill patients over unpaid bills? <br /><br />If the hospital killed your child because you had an unpaid balance, what do you think would happen? Do you think they would be shut down by the authorities? <br /><br />Do you think this place will be shut down by the "authorities" that run the Florida State Board of Veterinary Medicine? <br /><br />Well, they should be. But they WON'T be. But if those valiant citizens have their way, they just might succeed in doing what the veterinary board SHOULD do, but won't do -- driving them out of business. <br /><br />Bravo to the caring citizens of Lehigh Acres. <br /><br />Links: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2010-08-20/Angry-protesters-camp-outside-Lehigh-animal-hospital">Angry Protestors Camp Outside Lehigh Acres Vet Hospital, WINK News</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.winknews.com/Home/2010-08-20/Lehigh-animal-hospital-threatens-to-put-dogs-down-over-bill-dispute-">Lehigh Animal Hospital Threatens to Put Dogs Down over Bill Dispute</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pro/vetm/documents/vets_12_04_minutes_9_12_05.pdf">Minutes of Meeting at Which Prior Disciplinary Action Against Griebel is Recorded</a><br /><br /><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-50002275330168569662010-06-26T09:25:00.000-07:002010-06-26T09:44:41.604-07:00Virginia Vet William Will Shows NO LOVE to Patient Kismet<font size="+1"><br />It is a bit ironic that Virginia Veterinarian William Will works at a clinic called the “love” clinic. Because love is certainly the last thing he displayed to his patient, a frightened (as well he should have been) dog whose life he took, sometime after he yanked him out of a truck by his leash so roughly that the dog’s face hit the ground. Also disturbing is Will’s prior disciplinary history, which goes back to 1989.<br /><p> <br />In an order dated March 2, 2010, the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine found that:<br /><p><br /><b><i>“On March 31, 2009 [veterinarian William Will] . . . provided substandard care for ‘Kismet,’ a canine. “When Kismet was frightened and did not respond to urging that he enter the office, Dr. Will pulled said canine from his owner’s truck by leash resulting in Kismet hitting his face on the pavement.”</i><br /><p> <br />[And they term this “substandard care?” OK, the word I would use is “abuse!”]<br /><p><br /><i>“Following Kismet’s soiling of his clinic’s floor, Dr. Will shouted obscenities which greatly upset Kismet’s owner.”<p><br /> <br />“Dr. Will diagnosed “parvo” without performing any laboratory tests and suggested that Kismet be euthanized. Dr. Will acknowledged that he ‘chose not to treat the dog due to its demeanor.’”</i></b><br /><br />DEMEANOR? The dog was (wisely) scared and didn’t want to come into his vet clinic, and then was so scared that it pooped on the floor, so Dr. Will decided to issue the dog a death sentence? And they call that “substandard care?” I call it sadism, and murder. <br /><p><br /><b><i>“Dr. Will failed to include pertinent medical data in the patient record of Kismet regarding his March 31, 2009, visit to his clinic. Dr. Will’s brief entry in the medical record referred only to Kismet’s euthanization.”</b></i> <br /><p><br />OK, so let me get this straight: The dog might not have had parvo, and although the vet led the client to believe that he was recommending the dog be euthanized because of parvo, the real truth – as the vet admitted – is that the vet wanted to kill the dog, and did kill the dog, because of the dog’s “demeanor?” Was he exacting retribution against the dog for being afraid of him, and for pooping on his floor? <br /><p><br />The document goes on to say:<br /><p><br /><b><i>“A consent order of the Board, entered March 4, 2009 (“Board’s Order”), ordered that Dr. Will’s clinic uundergo an unannounced inspection within the subsequent six month period. On July 19, 2009 and inspector from the Department of Health Professions inspected Dr. Will’s clinic and found that he was out of compliance in two areas. A) Dr. Will’s surgical suite was unsanitary. B) Syringe’s were left on the counter tops of Dr. Will’s pharmacy and grooming areas.”</i></b><br /><p><br />In it’s “Conclusions of Law” section ,the board cite’s violations by section of Virginia code only – which seems to be a neat little trick to avoid naming, in layman’s terms, the violations the vet was found to have committed. A member of the public would have to actually go through the trouble of looking up each cited code section to determine what violations were found. So we will do that here. <p><br /><br />Unprofessional Conduct (violation of Virginia code 54.1-3807(5)) and VAC 150-20-140(6) and (7)<br><br />Recordkeeping Violations (violation of the above cited Virginia code section as well as Veterinary regulation 150-20-195)<br><br />Violation of Standards for Veterinary Establishments (violation of the above cited Virginia code section as well as Veterinary regulation 150-20-200 (A) (1))<br><br /><p><br />So get this: <br><br />The Veterinary Board suspended his license for 2 years but STAYED all but 30 days of that suspension (and frankly, from the information available online, I wonder if they may have even stayed that 30 days, because the site shows a “stay” of suspension order).<p><br /><br />They ordered him to take 15 hours worth of continuing education in customer relations, practice management, and “controlling controlled drugs.”<p><br /> <br />[Gee whiz – yanking a dog out of a car by its leash so that its face hits the ground, then killing it because you don’t like its demeanor – that’s just a ‘customer relations’ problem . . .????? What, no classes in ‘How not to be a psycho asshole?’]<p><br /><br />They fined Will $5,000 and ordered that his clinic be subjected to unannounced inspections. <br /><br /><p><br /><b><i>But wait . . . </b></i><br />Dr. Will already had failed an inspection by the board. In yet another consent order issued by the Veterinary Board, dated March 4, 2009, the Board found that:<p><br /><br /><b><i>“On November 4, 2008, an inspector from the Department of Health Professions performed an inspection of the Love Shop Veterinary Clinic, Halifax, Virginia, where Dr. Will is employed as veterinarian-in-charge. The following deficiencies were discovered in the course of said inspection: <p><br /><br />a. The facility, including the surgery room, was not clean nor was it sanitary.<br><br />b. The facility lacked an animal identification system that would identify all animals kept on the premises.<br><br />c. There was no resuscitation bag on the premises.<br><br />d. There were no signed disclosure forms in the patient files. <br><br />e. Medications in pill and syringe form were unsecured, with open pill bottles in the pharmacy area and syringes left on counter tops in the surgery area and elsewhere.<br><br /></b></i><br /><p><br />They fined him $500 and reprimanded him, ordering that his practice also be subjected to an unannounced inspection within 6 months of the date of the order (March 4, 2009).<p><br /><br /><b>Why</b> are they yet again including unannounced inspections as an action against this vet when already, he has failed to clean up his act after inspections have found his premises, including his surgical area which should be sterile, filthy, in addition to other violations? More importantly, notwithstanding their $5,000 fine (hefty by Vet Board standards) WHY ARE THEY ALLOWING THIS VET, WITH A LONG DISCIPLINARY HISTORY, TO PRACTICE AT ALL?<p><br /><br />As stated above, Will’s first violation, according to Board records from 1989, occurred in 1987. It was over two years between the incident itself and the Board’s order. In that case, the board found that:<p> <br /><br /><b><i>“ . . . Dr. Will treated Flash, a canine owned by Ms. Sherrie Talley, in a substandard manner by not performing an adequate preoperative evaluation in that he did not take a preoperative radiograph. That Dr. Will did not refer the patient to a specialist, but instead attempted treatment that he was not properly qualified to perform.” Then the Board document states “That as a result of the aforesaid substandard treatment, the fractures did not heal properly, and euthanasia of the canine occurred on or about June 16, 1987.”</b></i><br /><br />In that case, the board merely fined Will $100. <p><br /> <br />The question that must be asked in cases such as this is: <p><br />Do State Veterinary Boards bear some responsibility for ongoing acts of negligence, substandard care, unprofessional behavior (including physical violence) of veterinarians when those veterinarians show a pattern going back years, with multiple violations, and yet the Vet Boards give the vets a mere slap on the wrist time after time – IF THAT?<p><br /><br />Do the overseers of a regulated industry (in this case, veterinary medicine) become RESPONSIBLE for ongoing violations and the impact of those violations (up to and including death) when they clearly practice lax enforcement and issue laughably miniscule or clearly ineffective penalties time and time again, all the while allowing repeat violators to keep practicing their “business as usual?” <p><br /><br />Certainly, this question has been asked repeatedly about the Minerals Management Service in the wake of the Gulf Oil “spill” (more like a volcano) – and I can’t help but think of our nation’s veterinary boards whenever the incident in the Gulf prompts discussion about regulators who fail to regulate, because they are “in bed with” the people they are supposed to enforce standards for and regulate. I do believe that those organizations become criminally responsible for the havoc that is caused by the repeat-offender professionals they refuse to adequately regulate. <br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-42623223831034147162010-03-29T20:16:00.001-07:002010-03-29T20:37:27.736-07:00Florida Veterinarian Margaret Fowler Charged with Felony Animal Cruelty in Beating Death of CatA Florida woman says that on March 1, 2010 she stepped outside her front door to see a horrifying sight: her own neighbor repeatedly hitting a cat with a blunt object that looked like a rubber mallet with a wooden handle. Then, the witness said she saw this neighbor pick up the cat by the tail, carry it to the fence, and drop it over. It was then, the witness claims, that she walked over to the cat and saw that it was her own live-in boyfriend's cat. <br /><br />These events would be horrific enough, no matter who perpetrated them. They are all the more chilling because the alleged perpetrator is veterinarian Margaret Fowler, who runs an "acupuncture and holistic" veterinary service from her home. <br /><br />According to the Sheriff's office report, a necropsy performed on the cat showed the cause of death to have been "exsanguination" -- the cat bled to death -- after suffering blunt force trauma to the head and abdomen. <br /><br />Fowler was arrested and charged with Felony Animal Cruelty. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/local_vet_charged_with_cruelty_to_animals/mbb7722314/">This article</a> seems to include a picture which looks like a mug shot. <br /><br />Is it just me, or is this woman smiling? <br /><br />Is she smiling because she knows that no matter what they do, vets almost always walk away with little or no punishment from any legal or regulatory agency? <br /><br />Article -- WMBB.com news. <br /><br />Link: <a href="http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/local_vet_charged_with_cruelty_to_animals/mbb7722314/">Local Vet Charged with Cruelty to Animals</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-62223073584057982132010-02-23T13:15:00.000-08:002010-02-23T14:20:33.436-08:00Colorado Vet Debra Megonigle Sends "Technician" (?) to Treat Horse; Technician Pours Mineral Oil Into Horses Lungs and Kills It.<font size="+1">In this rare case that actually resulted in discipline, the following story is told in the public record documents of the Colorado Vet Board: <br /><br />"[Debra Megonigle] was the registered agent of Animal Emergency Room and Medical Center, Inc., located in Pueblo, Colorado, on or about May 31 and June 1, 1999.<br /><br />". . . the Animal Emergency Room and Medical Center, Inc., was contacted about a gelding horse suffering from colic. The horse and horse's owner were from California and were attending an AQHA horse show at the Colorado State Fairgrounds in Pueblo." <br /><br />"[Debra Megonigle] sent Mr. "KC" (Casey) Cooper, a veterinary technician employed by Emergency Room and Medical Center, to treat the horse. Cooper administered mineral oil via a naso-gastric tube. Cooper also injected the horse with Bentamine." <br /><br />"The horse ultimately died as a result of having mineral oil inserted into its lungs."<br /><br />"At no time during Cooper's care of the horse was a veterinarian on premises or available to supervise his care of the horse." <br /><br />"On or about June 18, 1999, [Debra Megonigle] completed a form supplied by Equine Insurance Claims Services, Inc. The form related to Cooper's treatment of the horse on May 31, 1999. In the space listing veterinarian, [Debra Megonigle] crossed out "Casey Cooper, DVM" and inserted "Debra Megonigle, DVM." <br /><br /><br /><b><i>[NOTE TO READERS: Serious questions are raised by this passage. <br /><br />Were the horse's owners led to believe that Cooper was a veterinarian? (This would explain why their insurance company's form would list him that way.) <br /><br />Was Cooper even a licensed technician? (I doubt it, since it seems to me the document from the veterinary board would specify so if that were the case.) <br /><br />In making this change, was Megonigle trying to mislead anyone into believing that she had actually been present when the incident occured?<br /><br />The document continues . . . ]</b></i><br /><br />"The above-described conduct constitutes violations of the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act . . . "<br /><br />They go on to cite five violations of the act including sections pertaining to: <br /><br />"Fraud, deception, misrepresentation, or dishonest or illegal practices in or connected with the practice of veterinary medicine" . .. . <br /><br />"Incompetence, negligence, or other malpractice in the practice of veterinary medicine . . . " <br /><br />"Unprofessional or unethical conduct . . . "<br /><br />"An act or omission which fails to meet generally accepted standards of veterinary practice . . . "<br /><br />As a result of these cited violations, the board suspended Megonigle's license for a month, placed her on probation for a year, and fined her $5,000 ($1,000 for each of 5 violations). <br /><br />Although you might not think this is enough, it's more than boards usually do. I must ask however: <br /><br />If the same thing had been done but the patient were a cat or dog, rather than a horse whose owners had equine insurance and were in town to attend an American Quarterhorse show, would the action have been as strong? <br /><br />Can you even imagine the suffering that this horse must have gone through? <br /><br />Public Record Document taken from the website of the Colorado Veterinary Board:<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN6KCA04-3JEbGsSY509LEdmmHV0PiAiKE4Y189TVYFTiBTRobdNMAiRlZVQzqCUgVH7Bhk4ZnEp2ARo1SCrfs8CBTBT4avUD7gY-8wKBUF7MNS4sCNEWU2832pfFdOWU8LsE1IWCmjg/s1600-h/badvetmegonigle_Page1.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN6KCA04-3JEbGsSY509LEdmmHV0PiAiKE4Y189TVYFTiBTRobdNMAiRlZVQzqCUgVH7Bhk4ZnEp2ARo1SCrfs8CBTBT4avUD7gY-8wKBUF7MNS4sCNEWU2832pfFdOWU8LsE1IWCmjg/s320/badvetmegonigle_Page1.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441557562081515410" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCZ-fmlkVH5GjbBGHkkx98MqRiyRW3ZSP1YDlVAjawWTCyxTHvGl7-Cau7cwV-G0C7tMWApKxg3hTu8WCMp71DyeU5qpFG01BUKZQr5T-vuYVlyH8vRXBQhklHtchOTn6FW8JZI2AAnA/s1600-h/badvetmegonigle_Page2.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCZ-fmlkVH5GjbBGHkkx98MqRiyRW3ZSP1YDlVAjawWTCyxTHvGl7-Cau7cwV-G0C7tMWApKxg3hTu8WCMp71DyeU5qpFG01BUKZQr5T-vuYVlyH8vRXBQhklHtchOTn6FW8JZI2AAnA/s320/badvetmegonigle_Page2.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441557726142523042" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOxrfYCPwQUubbnhlNTcPrp9PhzIR5AnBTUOc_PSuFo6a9zRZPwbioTntlWt2JTC7pwx9AgX1FK7FMB0F9tf_EBHI8_dnV41hvwRv8iawo5K-iucXxzFbmZvqd7w_NuGG8WyBCktoNTw/s1600-h/badvetmegonigle_Page3.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOxrfYCPwQUubbnhlNTcPrp9PhzIR5AnBTUOc_PSuFo6a9zRZPwbioTntlWt2JTC7pwx9AgX1FK7FMB0F9tf_EBHI8_dnV41hvwRv8iawo5K-iucXxzFbmZvqd7w_NuGG8WyBCktoNTw/s320/badvetmegonigle_Page3.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441557869314554642" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2oRsrR52KrKLJBBwxob6iX6P5XinoZ_JZ1iJyJ01C07c0Il_qTY9Fg0SeG5Dp4dVuSLqlFt6t7KaYqWfXr94kieo-grWtI8r7I6XzUau1qVEqAILcOaOKEloiV6INkzSPnecviy8xYQ/s1600-h/badvetmegonigle_Page4.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2oRsrR52KrKLJBBwxob6iX6P5XinoZ_JZ1iJyJ01C07c0Il_qTY9Fg0SeG5Dp4dVuSLqlFt6t7KaYqWfXr94kieo-grWtI8r7I6XzUau1qVEqAILcOaOKEloiV6INkzSPnecviy8xYQ/s320/badvetmegonigle_Page4.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441558015189193010" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8ROLO0TsPHwPbDvkG2C1BC0qycxj9FwUrvT-YFYQEmPWP6u2a9ZoEbj1lSuSagVkjHGnIbScH0-6eETLJcZsFpDLuFlorSb5FtnynnVGOW9SihB7Rlbd8uhp7UiFLo2NPR8naIzZh4Q/s1600-h/badvetmegonigle_Page5.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8ROLO0TsPHwPbDvkG2C1BC0qycxj9FwUrvT-YFYQEmPWP6u2a9ZoEbj1lSuSagVkjHGnIbScH0-6eETLJcZsFpDLuFlorSb5FtnynnVGOW9SihB7Rlbd8uhp7UiFLo2NPR8naIzZh4Q/s320/badvetmegonigle_Page5.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441558118991230178" /></a><br /><br /><br /><b>CASE UPDATES:<br /><br />Dr. Megonigle never paid the Colorado Veterinary Board the $5,000 fine. In April, 2001, the Board sent her a letter regarding her non-payment. Later that year, without ever having paid any portion of the $5,000 fine, Debra Megonigle declared bankruptcy in Texas, and all of her debts were discharged on December 13, 2001. The Colorado Board informed her that this penalty was not dischargable in bankruptcy, but she still didn't pay it, and so faced with revocation of her license Megonigle surrendered her license in Colorado and is now practising in TEXAS. <br /><br />Web searches on Dr. Megonigle seem to indicate that she was working at Island Animal Clinic in Port Aransas Texas in mid 2009. </b></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-11849767548222820072009-08-22T12:05:00.000-07:002009-08-29T14:32:25.993-07:00Pennsylvania Puppy Mill Vet Thomas Stevenson Charged with Animal Cruelty<font size="+1"><p>Think of all the horrors that animal advocates list: <br /><ul><br /><li>Unnecessary and/or excessive torment and pain of animals used in research; <br /><li>Horrifying conditions for factory farm animals<br /><li>Unspeakable cruelty and deprivation suffered by puppy mill dogs<br /></ul><p> . . . and others. <br /><br />There is one class of professionals whose hand is complicit in all of these atrocities. That is <u>veterinarians</u>. More often than not, they are spared the focus of investigations into these practices. But not this time. <br /><br />While working with an undercover SPCA officer to investigate a puppy mill operation, Helen Smith went to Country Lane Kennels in the hopes of obtaining a one-eyed dog she had seen there.<br /><br />According to the article posted on Pet-Abuse.com, Smith witnessed the following act, perpetrated by veterinarian Thomas Stevenson, who was providing his er, uh, services to this horrific place:<br /><br />"Stevenson treated a 9-week-old mixed poodle's already injured and bleeding tail by 'soaking it in scalding water' and then cutting it off with shears 'without sedation or prior numbing of the tail.' Smith said: <br /><br />"The dog was screaming, and screaming, and screaming . . . You could see the blood. You could see the exposed bone."<br /><br />The article says that Stevenson is the "vet of record" for most of the largest kennels -- aka Puppy Mills -- in Pennsyvania, a notorious puppy mill state. Libby Williams, of New Jersey Consumers Against Pet Shop Abuse, reportedly received dozens of complaints about sick dogs that had been under Stevenson's responsibility. <br /><br />The article further reports that Stevenson "was named in a New Jersey consumer-fraud lawsuit against Joyce and Raymond Stoltzfus of CC Pets, one of the largest puppy brokers" [aka Puppy Mills] "in Pennsylvania. The New Jersey suit alleges Stevenson provided CC Pets with fraudulent health certificates."<br /><br />The attorney for the plaintiffs accused Stevenson of conspiring with the kennal operation to conduct substandard or nonexistent veterinary exams on dogs. <br /><br />Of note, in the article, our hero Helen Smith said of her investigation: "The state should be doing this . . . but they're not. That's why volunteers have to get involved. If the inspectors won't do their jobs, then somebody has to help these dogs."<br /><br />Hmm, the same could be said about vet boards not doing their jobs. Oh, wait, the vet boards are the states too! Right Ms. Smith! <br /><br />I'd like to urge everyone to sign the online petition urging the State of Pennsylvania to permanently revoke Stevenson's license. Not that they will. But we need to make our voices heard. <br /><br />Here's the petition, and some more links on this case: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/3245/petition.html">Petition to Revoke the License of Thomas Stevenson</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/15395/PA/US/"><br />Pet Abuse.com articles on vet Thomas Stevenson</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-1513-Philadelphia-Dog-Advocate-Examiner~y2009m4d5-Helen-Smith-witnesses-veterinarian-amputating-puppys-tail-without-anesthesia">Article on Helen Smith's witnessing Stevenson's cruel act</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pets/Consumer_lawsuit_against_CC_Pets_moves_forward_in_NJ_court.html?posted=n">Consumer Lawsuit Moves Forward Against Kennels "served" by Stevenson</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/humane_society_magazines_and_newsletters/all_animals/archive/volume-9-issue-1-winter-2007/puppy_mill_truths.html">The Truth About Puppy Mills</a><br /><br /><a href="http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/236136">Stoltzfus Puppy Mill Shut Down for Six Months</a> </font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-70924798723356680172009-08-22T11:34:00.000-07:002009-08-22T11:41:19.758-07:00Dr. William Powell: License Revoked in Oregon after Botched Spays, Substandard Care, Negligence, says Board<font size="+1">In veterinary medicine, license revocations are rare. In Oregon, they are super rare. That's why their actions in the case of William Powell show that they must think he is a particularly BAD VET. But does this action REALLY have any meaning, since the vet was 77 years old when his license was revoked? Isn't that pretty much the same as simply waiting until a vet is ready to retire anyway, before doing something? <br /><br />This is a case that also raises the important issue of SUBSTANDARD CARE provided to pets presented to a low-cost spay neuter clinic or treated at a shelter. As you read this, please consider the following questions: <br /><br />If you are considering having your pet spayed or neutered at a low-cost (or free) clinic, how do you know that your pet will be provided with the kind of competent, quality care that is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to ensuring that your pet does not die of complications or botched surgery? At the end of this post, we will provide some things you MUST ask for whenever your pet is going to have a surgical procedure. PLEASE REALIZE that sometimes the "cheap" option is really the costliest of all. <br /><br />In my mind, this is a case that calls into question the relationship between non-profits, or shelters, and the vets who provide "free" or "low cost" services there. As far as I can tell, some or all of the "services" referenced in this board document were performed by Powell for a local shelter. Online research leads me to believe that one of these shelters was likely Coos County Animal Shelter in Coos Bay Oregon. Although one website refers to him as a "volunteer" at the shelter, and an article available online says that Powell provided "free" spay/neuter services at the shelter, the <a href="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2008/204/342/2008-204342102-042641a0-Z.pdf">IRS documentation for the local organization "Friends of Coos County Animals"</a> explains that it's $54,827 expenditures for the year 2007 went to provide medical care for the County shelter's animals -- specifying spaying and neutering -- and finding them homes. The "home finding" part was, I imagine, the far smaller expense, I wonder how much of that money was spent paying Dr. Powell for spays and neuters he "volunteered" to perform? And how many of those did he botch before his license was yanked in November, 2007?<br /><br />Another online reference I found today included a statement about Friends of Coos County Animals raising money to pay for spays and neuters. The facts in the vet board document give us a bit of an idea about the "quality" of some of the spays provided by Dr. William Powell.<br /><br />Here are the Board's Findings of Fact:<br /><br />"The evidence of record establishes that [Powell] violated the Medical Practices Act, in that:<br /><br />1. On May 19, 2004, [Powell] performed a spay on 'Dory' a kitten at a local shelter. He reported that it was a standard procedure but difficult because the patient was small and had a 'friable uterus.' On June 2, 2004, the owner who adopted 'Dory' took her to a different veterinarian for a 'wellness examination.' On examination the veterinarian found some abnormal findings that concerned him, specifically a 'significant incision infection' and what appeared to be an abnormal bladder because it was 'very full and not movable.' Following a course of antibiotics, 'Dory' still had a distended bladder that was painful on palpation. The veterinarian performed exploratory surgery which revealed 'troubling' findings, including many adhesions, a large retoperitoneal cavity filled with bloody urine and the right ureter (the tube from the kidney to the bladder) was included in the ligature when the right ovary was ligated, the result of which was that the right kidney had to be removed." <i>[Note: a "ligation" is when the vet "ties off" where he has cut. In this case, he "tied off" the tube that led from her kidney to her bladder. Had he done this on both sides rather than just on one, she would have died. Had she not had surgery to correct this as she died, it is probably likely that she would have also died.]</i><br /><br />The document continues: <br /><br />"He reported that the fact that he saw: 'a significant incision infection, many abdominal adhesions and a ligated ureter'" caused him to conclude that "'this surgery was of a substandard nature.'"<br /><br />"2. On March 12, 2005, [Powell] performed a spay on 'Baby Girl,' aka 'Roxy.' A subsequent treating veterinarian discovered hydronephrotic right kidney and evidence that the right ureter had been ligated, which resulted in removal of the dog's kidney." <br /><br />"3. On November 19, 2005, [Powell] treated 'Taz' whose owner presented the dog for symptoms that included vomiting. Without performing any diagnostic testing, [Powell] diagnosed salmon poisoning and administered Oxylet, atropine and Lax'aire. Within minutes, the client returned with the dog, claiming it had stopped breathing and had a swollen tongue. [Powell] confirmed his diagnosis of salmon poisoning and advised client to return the following day. On November 21 . .. the client took 'Taz' to a different veterinarian who property diagnosed and successfully treated 'Taz' for a genital tract infection. This veterinarian opined that [Powell's] care did not meet the standard of care provided in the local community. Her opinion was based on [Powell's] lack of diagnostic testing, lack of fluid support and [Powell's] choice of medications. [Powell] refused to provide the owner with 'Taz's' medical records when they were requested." <br /><br />"4. On January 11, 2006, [Powell] examined three dogs, 'Riley,' 'Ben,' and 'Molly,' that belonged to a local shelter. He diagnosed Canine Hip Dysplasia without performing any diagnostic testing. He stated that his diagnosis was by 'palpation.' Based on his diagnosis, he performed pectinal [sic] myotemies on all three dogs." <br /><br />I am sure that if you are a layperson like me, you need to look that term up. What is a pectinal myotemy? Can't find it, but I can find "pectineal myotemy" and that, I think, is what they intended to type. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/biz4/MastiffBreeder/chd7.html">This following online document</a>, written by a PhD on Canine Hip Dysplasia, describes the procedure as follows: <br /><br />"Originally developed by J. Barden, Larry J. Wallace, D.V.M., M.S., modified the procedure in 1967 to include the tenectomy (cutting out a portion of the tendon) or tenotomy (cutting of the tendon) of the pectineus tendon of insertion (that part of the muscle that goes into and attaches to the bone). . . Wallace’s procedure is by no means a cure for CHD, but has been described as somewhat effective in temporarily relieving pain and restoring function. . . . The rationale for this procedure is to relieve the tension on the joint capsule, caused by the upward force on the coxofemoral joint from a contracted pectineus muscle. It is also thought that improved weight loading of the femoral head within the acetabulum may result from the increased range of abduction. . . . This type of surgery should be considered strictly therapeutic in nature and does little or nothing to stabilize the dysplastic hip. Therefore, the owner of an affected animal can expect the degenerative changes due to osteoarthritis to continue." <br /><br />It cites complications of the procedure as including "fibrotic reattachment of the muscle or tendon and seroma formation. Seroma are tumor-like collections of blood and serum in the muscle tissue."<br /><br />The document continues: <br /><br />"'Riley' was subsequently treated by another veterinarian who stated that he could not support the diagnosis and treatment without previous radiographs [x-rays] on record. 'Riley's' wound dihiscence [presumably from the surgery performed by Powell] required two surgeries to repair. This veterinarian opined that the surgery [done by Powell] was unnecessary and the radiographs he took afterwards showed 'no evidence of osteoarthritis, let alone hip dysplasia." <br /><br />One wonders what became of Riley, Ben and Molly -- and how much the shelter paid Powell for these surgeries. Did these surgeries cause one of them, or all of them, to be less adoptable, thus leading to the sad outcome that awaits unadopted shelter pets? Or were one or more of them fortunate enough to be adopted, but by owners who might find themselves soon incurring additional veterinary costs due to the surgeries performed by Powell? <br /><br />"5. On December 14, 2006, a dog, 'Biscuit,' was presented to [Powell] with what [Powell] described as an 'obvious orthopaedic injury,' which appeared to be the result of the dog being hit by a car. Although [Powell's] clinic did not have radiographic equipment" [x-ray machine] "[Powell] applied a splint to the dog's leg. On December 15, 2006, a subsequent treating veterinarian stated that her examination revealed a palpable fracture involving the left stifle, a grossly swollen left tarsus and deep ulcerated wounds to the lateral and medial left tarsus. The owner reported that [Powell] had applied a cast to the leg, but the cast had fallen off. 'Biscuit' was euthanized because of his poor condition and prognosis. The veterinarian stated that the dog 'should not have been made to suffer for so long with such extensive injuries and inadequate medical care." <br /><br />"6. Based on the multiple complaints and concerns expressed regarding [Powell's] practice, in April 2006, the Board ordered [Powell] to review the minimum standards for facilities and veterinarians as provided by ORS chapter 688 and OAR chapter 875 (Veterinary Practice Act) and report back within 30 days regarding improvements made. [Powell] failed to respond. In August, 2006, the Board renewed its request for a report about improvements in the licensees clinic. On September 8, 2006, [Powell] responded as follows: <br /><br />'In reply to your letter dated August 1, 2006, I have complied with your instructions. All equipment listed under rule #875-015-0030 is in place and operational at the clinic. Paperwork has been modified to include all requirements listed. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.'<br /><br />The Board determined that the response was inadequate. In November, 2006, the Board provided specific instructions to Dr. Powell on expected improvements at the cinic and determined it would be necessary to conduct a site visit. <br /><br />The Board conducted a site visit on June 25, 2007." [Wow, nearly 11 months after their letter to him. Wonder what happened in the meantime? To animals, I mean.]<br /><br />"The following conditions were found at [Powell's] clinic: <br /><br />a. The facility was not properly ventilated to exhaust odors.<br /><br />b. Surgical area was not aseptic. A dog in the surgery area had been tied to a chair for two days for treatment for 'salmon poisoning' with primary clinical symptoms of diarrhea and bloody diarrhea. [Powell], at times, does not use a cap and gown during surgeries. Animal containment facilities consisted of airline crates.'<br /><br />[Ok, does that sound very sanitary? A dog with bloody diarrhea in the surgery area tied to a chair? And what's with the "salmon poisoning" thing . . . bloody diarrhea happens to be a parvovirus symptom . . . among other things.]<br /><br />"c. Review of the medical record of the dog found in the surgery area revealed a lack of a physical examination, diagnostics and treatment plan. <br /><br />d. Licensee allowed his veterinary technician, who is not certified, to induce anesthesia. <br /><br />e. Controlled drugs were stored in an unlocked cabinet; Ketamine and Diazepam where visible on a shelf. Medications for various patients were found throughout the preparation-surgery-recovery area, and also on most surfaces in the exam room. [Powell] does not have a locking cabinet for controlled drug storage. [Powell] also keeps controlled drugs in his car, which exposes the chemicals to elevated temperatures that lesson the efficacy of the drugs while the animal is under anesthesia." <br /><br />The Board found that Powell breached the standard of care; performed substandard surgery resulting in complications; failed to maintain his clinic in compliance with standards; allowed unlicensed support staff to administer anesthesia; had unsanitary conditions; failed to isolate contagious animals; and more. Of note, the board commented that Powell's treatment of animals: <br /><br />". . . demonstrate that he had an ongoing practice of providing substandard care, which constitutes a pattern of practising with negligence, ignorance and inefficiency in the practice of veterinary medicine . . . a pattern, practice or continuous course of negligence, ignorance, or inefficiency in the practice of veterinary medicine (OAR 875-011-0010(2)."<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.pilandranch.com/drpowells.htm">The "Pi Land Ranch" website</a> accuses the veterinary board of a "harrassment and smear" campaign. <br /><br />A <a href="http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Veterinary+news/The-cross-hairs-of-complaints/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/460959">Veterinary News article</a> says that Dr. Powell alleges that the vet board made him a "target" because of his reduced price services, saying that the board is concerned with maintaining "revenue standards." <br /><br /><a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/In+neutering,+this+guy's+the+cat's+meow-a0131827728">A 2005 article,</a> written when Powell was 74 years old, quoted Powell as saying: "My hands are good, my eyes are good. As long as I can keep my (pistol) rounds on a playing card at 12 yards I figure my eyes and my hands are good enough to do surgery.'"<br /><br />Perhaps a couple of ligated ureters wouldn't agree with that assessment. <br /><br />Are these the discounted services that you want???????<br /><br />In any case, The Board has revoked the now 77-year old Powell's license. Websites cited above said that he would appeal the ruling. I could find no updates. <br /><br />Of interest, Powell is also listed on the website "<a href="http://www.declawhallofshame.com/wst_page4.html">Declaw Hall of Shame</a>" for marketing his $65.00 reduced price cat declaws. The site lists Powell on their "The Bad Guys" page, whose header says "Dolts, Thugs, and Greedy Bastards." Of Powell they say: "The only worse thing than a pimp is a cheap pimp." <br /><br />Also of interest: <br /><br />The famous Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon (famous for its animal law program) actually recognized Powell by making him a finalist <a href="http://legacy.lclark.edu/cgi-bin/shownews.cgi?news_item=1002746460.2">in the "Nancy Perry Cougar Award" competition</a> which recognizes an outstanding "animal advocate." So, do they even CARE about quality? Low cost spay and neuter is, I'd agree, a noble thing if done competently and at standard. But is that what this is????? Was????? Doesn't look like it to me. <br /><br />If you are considering a low-cost spay neuter for your pet, you might want to read the guidelines published by the <a href="http://www.snapus.org/site/DocServer/javma.233.1.pdf?docID=1361">Association of Shelter Veterinarians </a>for spay-neuter, and make sure the care that will be provided to your pet at least meets these guidelines. <br /><br />From my own reading, I recommend you do the following: <br /><br />1. Have pre-operative bloodwork done. Abnormal bloodwork can show underlying health conditions which make surgery less safe. <br /><br />2. Have a full physical exam performed. Findings on physical exam can reveal heart murmurs and other conditions that make anesthesia less safe. <br /><br />3. Ensure that either a veterinarian or a licensed technician will be administering and monitoring your pet under anesthesia. <br /><br />4. Find out what anesthesia and pre-anesthetic, if any, will be used. Do online research and ask around to determine if these choices are the best available. Some drugs used as pre-anesthetic such as xylazine are associated with increased deaths. Some anesthetics like halothane have fallen out of favor because of potential effects on the organs. As far as I am aware, isoflourane and sevoflourane are more commonly used now, but even these anesthetics -- all anesthetics -- require careful monitoring. Which brings me to my next point. <br /><br />5. Make sure your pets blood oxygen level, blood presure, respiration and temperature will be monitored throughout the procedure. A pulse oximeter monitor should be used for the oxygen monitoring. <br /><br />6. Make sure your pet will be on constant rate infusion IVs during the procedure. This helps support blood pressure and hydration, and allows rapid access if medications need to be administered.<br /><br />7. Make sure that someone will monitor your pet continuously post-operatively to make sure there are no problems regaining consciousness or coming out of anesthesia. Your pet should be monitored till it is able to sit up on its own. <br /><br />8. Do NOT leave your pet overnight at a clinic that does NOT have overnight monitoring. If overnight hospitalization is needed, you should transfer your pet to a 24-hour practice.<br /><br />9. Yes, your pet should receive something for pain after the operation. This is something that Dr. Powell may not be sure of, but think: Would you want to have a hysterectomny and get nothing for pain after?<br /><br />** DISCLAIMER: I am not a vet. **<br /><br />Not quite sure what that means, but I feel I must say it. Do the research yourself. See if you dont' come to the same conclusions. ined <br /><br />Can all of the precautions above be obtained at a bottom of the barrel, cut rate price? Probably not. <br /><br />Which is part of the reason, IMHO, low cost spay neuter in the wrong hands can be such a racket. If you are cutting so many corners (and cutting tubes leading to kidneys, too) you can still make far more than you should for such shoddy care while charging the lowest local price. BEWARE. <br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-86505055925505550312009-05-25T11:57:00.000-07:002009-05-25T12:30:18.388-07:00What Happened to "Patch Parker" as a Result of South Carolina Vet Frank Hooper's Substandard "Care?"<font size="+1">The South Carolina Veterinary Board has demonstrated that, although it has a mission to "protect citizens by ensuring that only qualified and competent veterinary practitioners operate in South Carolina," like other vet boards, it doesn't seem particularly eager to publicize the details that gave rise to its disciplinary actions.<br /><br />As a rule, South Carolina's "Consent Agreements" are lacking in adequate detail for a consumer to really figure out what happened. Why is this a problem? <br /><br />This is a problem because, as a consumer, it is vitally important for us to know what the veterinarian did, so that we can evaluate and assess his or her behavior. This kind of information is critical for making informed choices about veterinary care. <br /><br />So, it is a good thing that recently, the South Carolina Vet Board began making the "Formal Complaints" available on its website. The Formal Complaint is the document filed by the Veterinary Board charging the vet with violations, and it typically includes more detail than the final "Consent Agreement."<br /><br />Nonetheless, the IMPACT on the patient of the vet's behavior is often omitted from both documents. Perhaps this is because vet boards do not want to state that the vets behavior actually caused the death or injury of the animal. And maybe they don't want to say so because they can't be sure that's true. On the other hand, maybe they don't want to say so because it would indicate to the consumer exactly how dangerous this vet may be. Goodness knows, we wouldn't want to give the consumer information that would steer him away from a vet, would we? Even if that vet had behaved dangerously. Oh, but there is that little problem of the mission statement . . . <br /><br />Both the Consent Agreement and the Formal Complaint filed by the Board in the case of Frank Hooper and his treatment of Patch Parker are lacking one important fact, and leave the reader asking: "WHAT HAPPENED TO 'PATCH'?"<br /><br />Well, I think we can make an educated guess. Here are the facts that we do know . . . <br /><br />In the Formal Complaint, the Veterinary Board asserted that in January 2007 " . . . an American Pit Bull named 'Patch' was presented to Guingnard Veterinary Clinic incident to a severe limp. Patch could not place weight o his front right legl. Patch was examined by another veterinarian. The owner reports that the other veterinarian opined that the leg was fractured and required surgery. The owner provided consent to repair the fracture."<br /><br />Two days later, vet Frank Hooper operated on Patch. The Board says that Hooper's "records do not document the completion of a physical examination of Patch before commencing surgery. [Hooper] did not notify Patch's owner that Patch's surgery would be more extensive than originally assumed by the other veterinarian."<br /><br /><i>[OK, what's that supposed to mean? Please tell me -- if you DO NOT conduct a physical exam of a patient prior to cutting into him, how the heck do you know you need to, uh, expand the surgery and make it more extensive?]</i><br /><br />Hooper, the document says, did not contact the owners before surgery. <br /><br />Then, the document says, "The surgical procedure was extended due to the unavailability of certain equipment, a personnel shortage, and the complexity of the procedure."<br /><br /><i>[Um, what? Did he not CHECK to make sure he had all the needed equipment and staff before starting????? So, basically, this dog was under anesthesia longer . . . ????? </i><br /><br />Hooper, it says, ". . . interrupted the surgical process while the animal remained under anesthesia. [Hooper] permitted his technician to depart from the area without ensuring that someone monitored the animal. [Hooper] failed to ensure that the oxygen supplies for Patch's surgery were adequate and to ensure the availability of equipment that was necessary for Patch's surgery."<br /><br />"A review of [Hooper's] records relating to this mattre reveal that a physical examination was not conducted prior to the procedure. [Hooper] failed to rcord the route of administation of Telazol, a controlled substance. [Hooper] did not record the dose and administration of Atropine." <br /><br />The document goes on to cite the violations the Board charged Hooper with, which include failure to "provide or maintain proper facilities, engag[ing] in unprofessional or unethical conduct, and engag[ing] in incompetent or negligent conduct" as well as failure to provide proper supervision of the technician and failure to keep proper records for Patch's treatment and drug administration. <br /><br />What the document does NOT say is what happened to Patch. <br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br />Is it your guess -- as it is mine -- that the dog probably DIED? After all, we have: <br /><ul><br /><li>Failure to examine the dog prior to surgery</li><br /><li>Expanding the surgery to make it more "extensive" without ever having examined the dog</li><br /><li>Prolonged surgery in which the patient was apparently left under anesthesia while people left the area</li><br /><li>Reference to inadequate oxygen supplies and inadequate equipment, as well as failure to record how much anesthetic drugs they gave Patch and how they were administered</li><br /><br /></ul><br />Do you think -- without saying what happened to Patch -- consumer's will realize that this kind of behavior COULD LEAD to the death of a patient, whether or not it did? <br /><br />LINKS:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.llr.state.sc.us/pol/veterinary/Orders/09Orders/09AprHooperF.pdf">Board Consent Agreement with Frank A. Hooper</a><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-2323064116629054662009-05-16T10:30:00.000-07:002009-05-16T13:43:31.231-07:00A History of Prior Violations and New Allegations of Animal Cruelty, but The CA Vet Board Still Wants Them to Get Their Filthy Paws on your Pets!!!!<font size="+1">The Order Signed by the California Veterinary Board in August, 2008 wasn't the first violation committed by Oasis Veterinary Clinic and Hospital and Ronald Walker, DVM, its managing vet. In 2006 the CA Vet Board ordered Walker and his clinic to "take such measures as [were] necessary to practice at an acceptable level of care." Yet, the dizzying and frightening list of violations alleged by the CA Vet Board -- seven in all, including an animal cruelty -- beg the question: WHY DOES THE CALIFORNIA VET BOARD ALLOW OASIS AND WALKER TO CONTINUE PRACTISING <ul>AT ALL?</ul><br /><br />The facts are these: <br /><br />Approximately 3 years after fining and disciplining Walker, the Veterinary Board issued an accusation against Walker and his clinic based on an inspection conducted by a board investigator. The Vet Board charged Walker and his clinic with:<br /><ul><br /><li>Unsanitary Conditions </li><br /><li>Failure to Maintain Aseptic Surgical Suite</li><br /><li>Animal Cruelty</li><br /><li>Failure to Comply with Emergency Services Requirements and Inoperable Phone</li><br /><li>Maintenance of Misbranded or Expired Drugs</li><br /><li>Violation of Health & Safety Code Section 2514.13 (this deals with failure to properly dispose of x-ray developer fluid, which the inspector said was being improperly disposed of into the public sewer. Public health endangerment, perhaps?</li><br /><li>Failure to Provide Medical Records on Demand</li><br /></ul><br /><br />The outcome of this case is that the Board entered into (yet another) "stipulated settlement" with Walker and Oasis. In this settlement, Walker and his clinic admitted to all of the charges except for animal cruelty - and guess what? As part of the "settlement" with the vet, the Vet Board simply dropped (dismissed) it's animal cruelty charges. Please read what the investigator report says, you be the judge! (It is right for the vet board to dismiss charges of animal cruelty in spite of what the investigator saw with his own eyes!???)<br /><br />For the remaning 6 violations, the vet board placed them on 3 years probation. They ordered Walker and the hospital to reimburse them for their "enforcement" costs, in the amount of $3,575. Please note that this was reimbursement to the board for it's costs, NOT a punitive fine for their dizzying and horrifying violations. Outrageous! No punitive fines! The Board ordered them to take 8 hours a year of continuing education -- that's just one working day!<br /><br />Oh, the Board "revoked" their license but STAYED THE REVOCATION (which means, pretty much, decided not to enforce it), opting instead for mere probation which means of course, they keep funneling pets in the door. <br /><br />Now, you tell me: Given the history of prior violations, and the truly frightening findings of the Board investigator (details below), do YOU think the Board's discipline is sufficient, either as a punitive measure or to incentivize Walker and Oasis to clean up their act? More importantly, is it sufficient to "protect consumers and animals" -- which they SAY is their mission?????<br /><br />Here are the accusations based on the investigation, in detail. You will recall, as I stated above, that Walker and Oasis admitted them all except for the animal cruelty charge -- so the vet board simply retracted that charge in the final settlement. I guess BOTH Walker AND the Board know what kind of incendiary effect an admission of animal cruelty might have on public perception of a vet -- but unless the investigator is outright lying (do you think he is, with everything else Walker admitted to?) then he SAW what he SAW, so YOU be the judge as to whether it is "cruelty" or not -- I certainly think it is! <br /><br />As you will read, among the allegations ADMITTED to, include caged animals sitting in their own waste with no food or water, keeping used syringes to be cleaned for RE-USE (!), un-sterile conditions including dirty surgical instruments, and more! <br /><br /><b>UNSANITARY CONDITIONS <br /><i>(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)</i></b><br /><br />"On or about January 25, 2008, during the course of an unannounced inspection, the Board's inspector identified many violations of the Board's standards of cleanliness and sanitary conditions, including, but not limited to, the following: <br /><br /><ul><br /><li>a. The reception area was dimly lit, and smelled of urine</li><br /><li>b. Bulk liquids were stored in a cupboard with a mixture of spilled medication completely covering the cupboard's bottom, cementing an old cardboard box and stuffed animal toy along with the bottles to the bottom of the cupboard.</li><br /><li>c. The treatment area was dirty and had a pit bull patient with wounds on its rear legs running around freely. This dog had no access to food or water.</li><br /><li>d. The treatment room's counter was dirty and had 15-20 used syringes with needles stabbed into a pad, many used needles in the sink, a plastic jar full of used needles, and several used needles lying around the sink. There were also used syringes with condensation inside apparently to be used on patients again. The floor was dirty with blood and scrub, or surgical soap. Many old endotracheal tubes, some without viable cuffs, were piled in a bowl on a dirty cart. </li><br /><li>e.The surgery room's sink was dirty and appeared to be partially disconnected from the water supply, but still connected to the drain. The surgery table was littered with used surgery instruments, including several hemostats still clamped to a uterus. The mayo stand (a small stand used in surgery) was covered in blood and dirty instruments. A surgery pack was opened and used for a procedure, but there was no indication of a sterile indicator in the pack remnants. The flooring was cracked and pulling away from the wall in places. The wall was damaged and has chunks missing in one corner.</li><br /><li>f. The ambu-bag, a squeezable bag used to assist a patient to breathe, was left out on the O2 tank rack and was crushed and covered in an unidentifiable sticky black material. The stored packs, packs of surgical instruments used for a procedure, were wrapped in porous towels and had no sterile indicator tape on them. The orthopedic kit was not sterilized. The door from treatment into surgery has a hole in it were the window used to be.</li><br /><li>g. The back kennel area was extremely dirty and smelled so strongly of animal waste it was difficult to breathe. <font size="+2">Every animal there was sitting in a mixture of feces and urine. None of the dogs had food or water.</font> Only a cage with two kittens had food and their water was dirty. </li><br /><li>h. The bathing area had water flooding on the floor. There was also a bucket of used needles and syringes which were apparently waiting to be cleaned for re-use." </li><br /><br /></ul><br /><br /><b>FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ASEPTIC SURGICAL SUITE <br /><i>(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)</i></b><br /><br />During the inspection referenced above, the inspector found that:<br /><br />"The surgery room was not clean and sterile. The floor and walls have damage that makes it impossible to adequately sanitize certain areas as required . . . The instruments that were present were dirty, including the presence of animal tissue in violation of [citation]. The surgical packs present were wrapped in a porous material that would allow contamination to strike through the material and contaminate the instruments inside. There were no devices to measure and confirm sterility of the packs pursuant to the requirement of [citation]. A sick patient was being housed in the aseptic surgery room. This patient might have contaminated the room, exposing the next patient to risk of illness. The sink in the surgery room with the connected drain is a source of infection for patients. <b> The condition of the surgery room was so inadequate that no surgeries could be properly performed there, and, in any case, [Walker] did not have the necessary equipment to perform sterile surgery."</b><br /><br /><b>ANIMAL CRUELTY <br /><i>(Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic denied these charges, and the vet board withdrew them. However, in the "accusation", the inspector for the board reported seeing the following . . . )</i></b><br /><br /><UL><br /><li>a. There were two dogs (patients) running free, one in the treatment room and one in surgery. <b> Neither dog had access to food or water</b>. The dog in the surgery room appeared to be very ill, barely responding when the inspector entered the room. The dog also appeared to have an injury on its left rear leg. All of the client-owned animals in the treatment room cages had feces and uring in their cages. <b> Two cats had no litter boxes, food or water in their cages.</b> One of the cats appeared very ill and the Board's inspector was told that [Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic] were <font size="+2">not treating him because the owners were probably going to euthanize him.</font> Otherwise, the Respondents' employee did not know who the patients were, and was unable to indentify them by name or owner. </li><br /><li>b. The kennel area was extremely dirty and smelled so strongly of animal waste it was difficult for the inspector to breathe. The runs did not have passive drainage, and all the animals were sitting in feces and urine pooled on the floor of the compartments. <b>None of the dogs had food or water. All bowls were empty.</b> Two kittens had food in their cage, and only dirty water." <br /></ul><br /><i>EDITORIAL COMMENT: I find it outrageous, and a perversion of justice, that the veterinary board withdrew the animal cruelty charge -- which was based on its own inspectors report -- particularly when many of the same allegations in the animal cruelty charge were repeated in charges that the vet, Ronald Walker, ADMITTED TO. He admitted to the truth of the other six counts. Those six counts include a reiteration of the observation that animals were kept in their own feces, most without access to food and water. Is this, or is it not, cruelty? Don't ask the vet board -- apparently, just a little resistance from the vet, and they change their mind and decide that it's not. DO YOU THINK IT'S CRUEL? </i><br /><br /><b>FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES REQUIREMENTS AND INOPERABLE PHONE <br /><i>(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)</i></b><br /><br />During the inspection described above, the inspector found that Oasis Veterinary Clinic "did not have notices posted outside their building of where emergency services could be obtained when their clinic was closed as required . . . The phone number listed for emergencies was the clinic's own telephone number . . . [which they admitted] had been inoperative for some time, and the number was not answered when the Board's inspector tried to call it. Moreover, there was no functioning answering machine to provide an outgoing message as to where emergency services could be obtained. Additionally, there was an absence of notice that there was no 24-hour supervision of patients as mandated . . . Finally, the facility was found closed during nomral posted business hours, yet no referral was available for emergency services."<br /><br /><b>MAINTENANCE OF MISBRANDED OR EXPIRED DRUGS <br /><i>(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)</i></b><br /><br />The inspector found that "The pharmacy area was stocked with many expired drugs, which Respondents' employee indicated were routinely dispensed to the animals treated at [Oasis Veterinary Clinic & Hospital]. The controlled drug drawer was unlocked . . . The vaccine refrigerator/freezer had human food stored in it. The bulk liquids were stored in a cupboard with a mixture of spilled medication completely covering the bottom, cementing an old cardboard box and stuffed animal toy along with the bottles to the bottom of the cupboard. There were several bottles of liquid medication pre-packaged with only a drug name on them. These bulk and expired drugs which were either expired or so oldthat the expiration dates of the drugs could not be read, and the stuffed animal which was adhered to the medication spilled in the cupboard . . . The sale of expired prescription drugs is prohibited by law."<br /><br /><b>VIOLATION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE <br /><i>(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)</i></b><br /><br />The inspector found that Oasis Veterinary Clinic's "x-ray developer is a hand-dipping tank, and was set up to have the chemicals drain into a pipe connected to the public sewer system. The x-ray waste generated . . . contains a silver-conten levfel that exceeds that which may properly be disposed of into the public sewer, and [Oasis Veterinary Clinic did not] have a contract with a licensed company for the disposal of their x-ray waste, or otherwise provide for the proper disposal of Respondent's x-ray waste in accordance with applicable law." <br /><br />[<i> Oh, great! Threats to human health, as well!</i>]<br /><br />FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RECORDS ON DEMAND (The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)<br /><br />" . . . The Board initiated an investigation based on a consumer complaint submitted by a consumer, Ms. J. J. on July 10, 2007. The complaint stated that on June 20, 2007, Ms. J.J. took her 5-year old Miniature Pinscher, Rex, to [Oasis Veterinary Clinic] for a neutering procedure and [he] ended up dead. As part of its investigation, the Board requested that [Oasis] produce the medical records for Rex. [Oasis Veterinary Clinic] failed to do so and later reported that the records for Rex were 'shredded' and destroyed . . ." [An Oasis employee later] "informed the Board's inspector that notwithstanding Respondent's requirements to maintain animal records fore a minimum of three years, [Oasis Veterinary Clinic] had a practice of destroying old records, including records of animals that died, such as Rex." <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-2604582398071852252009-04-26T14:58:00.000-07:002009-04-26T15:52:51.454-07:00Violent Nutcase Vet Jeffrey Baranack Still Practising: Another Vet with Anger Management Issues!<font size="+1">If this doesn't make your stomach turn, I don't know what would.<br /><br />In February of 2007 the Ohio Veterinary Board issued a "Notice of Opportunity for Hearing" to Jeffrey Baranack, DVM, of Oakpoint Veterinary Care in Dover Ohio. In this notice, the Ohio Veterinary Board listed 15 ALLEGED violations. Of these 15 allegations, 12 involved violent behavior toward patients. <br /><br />For some reason (perhaps the nature of the violations? or is it the SNAILS PACE of state government?) it was not until March of 2008 -- over a year later -- that a Consent Agreement, detailing the disciplinary action against Baranack, was issued and signed. As a part of that consent agreement, Jeffrey Baranack "knowing and voluntarily" admitted violations related to 6 of the original allegations -- all of which involved violent behavior toward patients. <br /><br />For my legal protection, I must say the following: the allegations that were not admitted to remain simply allegations. I am listing all of the violations alleged by the Veterinary Board in it's original notice below. The ones that Baranack admitted to are so noted.<br /><br />ALLEGED VIOLATIONS (from the original hearing notice). <br /><br />"1. On October 5, 2006, you treated 'Catalina' Hursey, a corgi mix. Although 'Catalina' was not behaving poorly, you allegedly repeatedly shoved her and yelled at her.<br /><br />. . . . <br /><br />2. On July 18, 2006, yu treated 'Chloe' Galmish. Although 'Chloe' was not behaving poorly, you allegedly repeatedly shoved her. . . .<br /><br />3. On June 19, 2006, you treated 'Luke' Brown for an eye problem. While examining 'Luke' you allegedly yelled at him and roughly shoved his head. . . . <br /><br />4. On April 25, 2006, you were taking a hip x-ray of 'Lakota' Smith. You allegedly began yelling and throwing things in the room and slammed 'Lakota' on the x-ray table. . . . <br /><br /><b>5. On May 19, 2006, you treated 'Bear' Murray for a mass on his nose. You allegedly punched and hit 'Bear' repeatedly, while yelling at him, causing blood from the mass to splatter on the wall." [VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THIS ALLEGATION WERE ADMITTED BY BARANACK]<br /></b><br />"6. On August 11, 2006, you were to neuter a dog named 'Chopper.' You allegedly yelled at 'Chopper' and shoved him repeatedly. . . . <br /><br />7. On August 20, 2006 you were treating 'Justice' Jeandervin when he barked at you. You muzzled the dog and allegedly told the owner that if he were your dog you would kill him and that he would have to be put down if he continued with this behavior. . . . <br /><b><br />8. On November 2, 2005, you treated 'Pooh' Gardner for diarrhea. You allegedly hung 'Pooh' from the ground with a leash around his neck repeatedly until the cat went limp. 'Pooh' died a few days later and a necropsy revealed the cause of death as endocarditis and secondary pneumonia. You allegedly yelled at both the cat and the owners while doing this. Mrs. Gardner wrote a letter to the clinic complaining of your treatment of 'Pooh.'" [VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THIS ALLEGATION WERE ADMITTED BY BARANACK]<br /><br />"9. On April 28, 2006, 'Theo' Shamel was brought in for euthanasia due to aggressiveness. You allegedly leashed the animal and had an assistant pull the leash tight around 'Theo's' neck while he was being pressed between the wall and door. When the staff complained you stated that you were going to kill the dog anyway." [VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THIS ALLEGATION WERE ADMITTED BY BARANACK]<br /><br />"10. On November 28, 2005, you used a slip leash to get 'Oreo' Bennett out of his carrier. You allegedly then dragged 'Oreo' down the hall, bumping him into the exam room door, and used the leash to hoist the cat onto the surgery table." [VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THIS ALLEGATION WERE ADMITTED BY BARANACK]<br /><br />"11. On February 23, 1999, 'Brownie," a terrier-mis, was in the clinic for diabetic blood work and a possible slipped disk. While examining 'Brownie' you allegedly muzzled and leashed the dog. You pulled the leash tight and 'Brownie' was panting and bleeding from his mouth with his front legs off the ground. You were yelling at 'Brownie.'" [VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THIS ALLEGATION WERE ADMITTED BY BARANACK]<br /><br />"12. On March 22, 2005, 'Chloe,' a Jack Russell terrier, was in the clinic for blood work. 'Chloe' growled at you and you allegedly opened the cage. Using a broom you pinned 'Chloe's' head to the side of the cage and then repeatedly poked at 'Chloe' with the broom. Staff heard you yelling and saw the broom broken on the ground. You then muzzled 'Chloe' and removed her from the cage which was by then smeared with fecal matter. You kicked the dog repeatedly. Using a slip leash, you dragged 'Chloe' down the hall to an exam room. 'Chloe' stopped breathing and had to be intubated and resuscitated. The owners were called and told that 'Chloe' was unruly and needed to be picked up." [VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THIS ALLEGATION WERE ADMITTED BY BARANACK]<br /></b><br />"13. On December 27, 2005, you performed a spay and front declaw on 'Sadie' Mullett. During this surgery you also filed down 'Sadie's' canine teeth. 'Sadie's' feet became swollen and she had a severe aversion to having her head touched or handled. 'Sadie's' paws required further treatment due to exuberant granulation tissue and dehiscence. A material thought to be surgical adhesive was found in each incision and had to be removed. 'Sadie's' teeth were filed down revealing the pulp and exposing the root. 'Sadie' underwent four root canals to correct the damage." <br /><br />"14. You permitted Lori Murphy, an animal aide, to perform dental prophylaxis on patients in your clinic. Only a licensed veterinarian or registered veterinary technician is permitted to perform dental prophylaxis."<br /><br />"15. You called in a prescription to Drug Mart for insulin for 'Sherman' Bennett. 'Sherman' is the patient at another veterinary clinic. 'Sherman's' owner did not want to take 'Sherman' for blood work. You do not have a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship with 'Sherman'. You do not have any records for 'Sherman' or any record of the prescription you called in."<br /><br />The Consent Agreement does not cite violations related to allegations 1-4, 6, 7, 13-15 above, but the ones he admitted to (5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) are bad enough. <br /><br />So what did the vet board do?<br /><br />They suspended his license for only 30 days. <br /><br />They ordered him to take an anger management class, and to be assessed by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. <br /><br />They ordered that he must be accompanied by a veterinarian or licensed technician for one year when he practices. <br /><br />They put him on 3 years probation. <br /><br />So, this is a guy whose history of violent treatment of patients goes back to 1999. Nine years. <br /><br />Does the board really need a shrinks opinion? <br /><br />If a pediatrician admitted to dangling children by their necks, would he still be practising? <br /><br />If a person carrying out an execution order on a human pulled something tight around their necks and pressed them between a wall and a door before stopping all that violent nonsense to administer the lethal injection, what do you think would be done to them? Do you think they would still be working in that role? <br /><br />WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE OHIO VET BOARD THAT THIS MAN IS STILL PRACTISING?????????<br /><br />Links: <br /><br /><a href="www.ovmlb.ohio.gov/minutes/Nov%2014%2007%20min.pdf">www.ovmlb.ohio.gov/minutes/Nov%2014%2007%20min.pdf</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://www.ovmlb.ohio.gov/compliance.stm">http://www.ovmlb.ohio.gov/compliance.stm</a><br /><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-73256978264593842632009-04-14T18:42:00.000-07:002009-04-14T20:27:51.599-07:00Alleged "Inhumane" Euthanasia via Insulin Overdose - Florida Vet Jay Butan of Lake Worth -- "Marley" of "Marley and Me's" Former Vet<font size="+1"><br />"Marley and Me" is all the rage, but in some circles, it's sparking debate (because bloat, the condition for which Marley's owner had him euthanized, is TREATABLE in most cases and because their dealings with Marley's supposedly bad behavior, in the view of many, leave something to be desired). <br /><br />In Grogan's book, he apparently calls Butan, Marley's first vet, "the doctor of our dreams."<br /><br />Well, it seems that for at least one cat, and for a former colleague, Butan was the vet of their NIGHTMARES. "Marley's" first vet, Jay Butan, may not be such a great guy after all, no matter what author John Grogan says.<br /><br />As some readers may know, my own beloved Toonces was given an insulin overdose at his vets. I saw some of the aftermath of that insulin overdose, and it was horrible and heartbreaking -- nothing you would ever want to see a pet go through. Therefore, when I read about Florida Vet Jay Butan, I became convinced that he is a MONSTER right up there with the likes of Bill Baber. Let me describe to you what happens when an animal receives an insulin overdose -- before it dies, if it dies. <br /><br />First, the animal would experience: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.diabitieslife.com/diabetes/diabetes-basics/treatment-of-diabetes/insulin-overdose.htm">". . . headache, irregular heartbeat, increased heart rate or pulse, sweating, tremor, nausea, increased hunger and anxiety . . ."</a><br /><br />With a massive overdose, this would progress to severe effects on the central nervous system, including hypokalemia, hypophospatemia, hypomagnesia, and hypothermia. As the brain is deprived of glucose it needs to function, the animal will experience seizures and coma. Death will not come quickly, easily, or even surely. However, "massive necrosis," to quote my Toonces' neurologist, may result. That means death of brain tissue. <br /><br />Does this sound like a humane method of trying to kill -- or euphemistically, "euthanize" -- a pet to you? <br /><br />In the words of his former business associate and vet, Archie Kleopfer, who reported Butan: " . . . an insulin overdose leads to a slow, cruel, cold death. I still don't know why he went to the clinic in the middle of the night to kill animals with insulin". <br /><br />Well, according to the Florida Vet Board, this is exactly what Jay Butan did -- use an insulin overdose as a means of killing a patient. On purpose. <br /><br />Actually, in this <a href="http://www.vetlocator.com/newsarticles/talesofwoe.php">article</a>, it appears Butan admits it. Where are the animal cruelty charges against this, "Marley's" former vet?<br /><br />Oh, that, plus engage in fraud in his business dealings. <br /><br />The following is taken from the Administrative Complaint filed by the vet board against Butan (the fraud allegations come first):<br /><br />"[Butan] and another veterinarian, Dr. Archie Lee Kleopfer, shared clinic space, an office secretary, and account management services, including credit cared service and common accounts." <br /><br />"The office secretary observed unusual shortages . . . in Dr. Kleopfer's account."<br /><br />"[Butan] explained the inconsistencies as 'A trade secret' and 'a computer re-indexing error' respectively. The missing monies were credited to Dr. Kleopfer's account on each following day."<br /><br />"An accounting audit revealed that [Butan] embezzled at or around $27,447.14 by adjusting the accounts of both clinic clients and Dr. Kleopfer's. The account adjustments went back ten (10) years."<br /><br />"[Butan] used an overdose of insulin to kill Spencer, an ill cat who lived at the clinic." <br /><br />"Overdosing a patient with insulin is not an approved method of euthanasia. It is considered inhumane for purposes of euthanasia."<br /><br />Editorial comment: Er, uh, it should be considered inhumane for ANY purpose!<br /><br />"[Butan] failed to record within Spencer's medical records the method he died."<br /><br />"[Butan] failed to record within the medical records of 'Taffy,' a dog who also lived at the clinic, the method he was euthanized." [sic]<br /><br />The Board then cites Chapters 61G18-18.002(3) and (4) of the Florida Administrative Code, which address requirements for medical record-keeping. <br /><br />The Board charged Butan with three counts: <br /><br />Count 1: A violation of Florida Statute section 474.214(l)(m), by "fraudulently increasing several accounts payable"<br /><br />Count 2: A violation of Florida Statute section 474.214(l)(o), "fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or misconduct, in or related to the practice of veterinary medicine"<br /><br />Count 3: A violation of Florida Statute section 474.214(l)(ee), "failing to keep contemporaneously written medical records as required by the rule of the board.<br /><br />As you may be aware, veterinarians charged by their state boards usually choose to sign what is called a "consent agreement" or "settlement" in lieu of contesting the charges. As a term of these agreements, the vet never has to admit guilt, nor are the charges ever heard in court, so they forever remain allegations, and such is the case with the charges brought by the Florida Board against Butan. Butan, in signing a settlement, merely admitted that "the facts set forth [in the charges] . . . if proven, would constitute a violation . . ." <br /><br />Butan was fined $2,000 and ordered to take "six (6) hours of continuing education in the subject area of euthanasia, anesthesiology or ethics." <br /><br />Don't you think this man's license should have been taken away? Don't you think he should have been brought up on cruelty charges? I certainly do. <br /><br />But not only is he still practising . . . <br /><br />According to the Canal Animal Hospital website, of which he is now "President", his peers allow him membership in the Palm Beach County Veterinary Society, The Florida Veterinary Medical Association, and the freakin Chamber of Commerce. <br /><br />What a role model. <br /><br />And the Florida Vet Board apparently thinks he should still be able to get his hands on your pet.</font><br /><br />LINKS: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pro/vetm/documents/vets_9_05_minutes_2_9_06.pdf">Summary of Disciplinary Action -- Florida Board Minutes</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.vetlocator.com/newsarticles/talesofwoe.php">Article on how Butan was Marley's vet, citing his violations and his admission of the insulin overdose</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nursing.alaska.gov/pub/VET_meeting_02_08_draft_minutes.pdf">Alaska Denies Butan Request for Courtesy License to be Iditarod Vet (oh, that's a humane event . . . NOT!!)</a>. Note that Alaska cites Butan's failure to disclose Florida's disciplinary action on his license (proving that ETHICS are still an issue . . . ) ". . . for failing to disclose [the Florida disciplinary action] on his application as required by the statement 'I am not omitting any information which might be of value to this board in determining my qualifications and character . . . "<br /><br /><b>WATCH OUT!!!! Where is he now?? </b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.canalanimalhospital.vetsuite.com/Templates/ContentPages/Clinic_Info/OurStaff.aspx">Butan's Profile at Canal Animal Hospital. Scary stuff.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_8qvv6w">Manta Business Listing</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-10463187914247979092009-04-06T17:47:00.000-07:002009-04-06T18:21:01.874-07:00"Gross Negligence" in Arizona<font size="+1"><br />This case involves "Flash," a 5-month old male Blue Point Siamese cat, who went into cardio-pulmonary arrest during what should have been a routine procedure -- a neuter and microchip implantation. The following is taken from the Findings of Fact issued by the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. The veterinarian named in this case, and found by the board to have committed "gross negligence," is Denise Upchurch, D.V.M.<br /><br />Flash's owners brought him to Upchurch on March 19, 2007. He was to be neutered and vaccinated the following day. <br /><br />"'Flash' was examined the next day . . . noting a weight of 4 pounds 7 ounces, temperature of 99.9 degrees F, pulse > 200 BPM, and a respiration rate of 40 rpm. All else noted within normal limits. 0.3 metacam was administered orally, 0.5 mg acepromazine IM, 0.025mg atropine IM, and 1.0 torbugesic IM. Induction of anesthesia and maintenance wa3s by mask delivery of isoflurane. The timeframe between administration of the preanesthetics and delivery of isoflurane were not given in the medical notes. The concentration of the isoflurane for induction and maintenane was not documented in the medical record. A routine castration was performed, a microchip implanted, and a vaccination administered prior to cessation of anesthesia."<br /><br />"After the microchip implantation, it ws noted that the mucous membranes were not pink and 'Flash' was not breathing. Manual breathing was started; however the patient proceeded into cardiac arrest. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed to revive "Flash." <br /><br />No intravenous catheter or supportive fluid therapies in the form of colloids or crystalloids were attempted because [Dr. Upchurch] indicated she was not authorized to do so." <br /><br />However, they note: <br /><br />"It is stated on the surgical release form that the client has been informed that there are risks and complications associated with any procedure and unforeseen conditions may arise that may necessitate the performance of additional procedures." <br /><br />"Radiographs were performed to reveal an abnormal pattern which was attributed to manual ventiliation. 'Flash' remained on oxygen for twenty minutes while breathing regulated and the abnormal pulmonary sounds decreased."<br /><br />"[Upchurch] contacted the cat's owner, advised him of the situation, and recommended transfer to a 24-hour facility. The owner was unable to leave work and elected to have the clinic continue hospitalization and callback in three hours to see if the cat would recover." <br /><br />"At this point, 'Flash' was not placed back on mask delivery of oxygen. He was placed at the feet of the receptionist for visual observation. The only monitoring parameter recorded in the medical record between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. (discharge) was at 2 p.m., and reported as 'breathing well, heart rate stable near 175 bpm."<br /><br />"After two hours at 3:00 p.m. 'Flash' was semi-conscious, demonstrated opisthotonus, and showed no further signs of improvement. In the medical record it was noted a concern of hypoxia during arrest and brain injury. There was no indication of continued supportive care such as oxygen delivery or supportive fluid therapy. [Upchurch] recommended transfer to a facility for 24-hour care. 'Flash' was discharged at 4:00 p.m. into the owner's care for transport/transfer to Southern Arizona Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center (SAVSEC)."<br /><br />"Upon initial examination at SAVSEC, 'Flash' was hypothermic, non-responsive, and recumbant. An intravenous catheter was placed, crystalloid and colloid fluid support started along with thermal support, oxygen support, pulse oximetry, blood pressure monitoring, and hourly TPR (temp, pulse, respiration). 'Flash' made continued recovery with possible long-term visual impairment." <br /><br />I presume that visual impairment would be from brain damage due to oxygen deprivation. <br /><br />The board found that Upchurch's conduct "constitute[s] a violation of A.R.S. 32-2232 (11) for gross negligence for not placing an IV catheter to provide fluids and supportive care, including adequate monitoring to the cat after and during cardiopulmonary arrest." <br /><br />Note: Although the Board document does not identify the business where Upchurch works, a web search finds a "Denise Upchurch D.V.M." at Feline Limited Cat Clinic in Tucson. If anyone knows if they are the same, let me know. <br /><br />The Board placed Upchurch on 1 year probation and ordered her to take 6 hours of continuing education in critical care management. <br /><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441773742544112491.post-34846594543139715602009-03-05T07:34:00.000-08:002009-03-05T12:33:40.587-08:00Dog Dies After Sustaining Head Trauma at the Vets (Sonya McClendon, DVM, Marshall Texas)<font size="+1">This is one of those stories where a pet owner with a brain will read "between the lines." Keep in mind, that the veterinary board who acted in this matter pretty much recounted the VET'S VERSION OF EVENTS as though it were the truth. In the VET'S VERSION OF EVENTS the dog, a rat terrier named Star, "fell off the table and hit her head on the floor." She hit her head so hard that the damage sustained was so bad that she had to be euthanized. The vet claims the dog "fell off the table," even though she told the owner that (having been bitten by the dog), if the dog were hers she would have "beat the hell out of her." <br /><br />So what do you think REALLY happened? <br /><br />Here is the vet board's account: <br /><br />In April, 2008, Star's owner brought Star in for coughing. "Dr. McClendon examined 'Star' and diagnosed 'Star' with bronchitis and tracheatis, possibly due to a bordatella infection. After the examination, Samantha Maxwell, a veterinary technician at respondent's clinic, attempted to administer Metacam orally with a syringe. 'Star' bit Ms. Maxwell on her hand, but she was successful on her second attempt. 'Star' was placed on a table in the kennel, where Ms. Maxwell attempted to medicate 'Star' with a Primor pill antibiotic. Ms. Maxwell was unable to administer the medication as 'Star' continued to snap at her. Dr. McClendon also tried to administer the medication, but was bitten in the process. Dr. McClendon subsequently used a pill pusher to successfully administer the medication. In the process, Star bit Dr. McClendon twice more. However, when Dr. McClendon pulled her hand back, 'Star' bit her on the thumb and would not release. Dr. McClendon slapped 'Star' on the muzzle several times in an attempt to get 'Star' to release her thumb. In the confusion, 'Star' fell off the table and hit her head on the floor." <br /><br />"IN THE CONFUSION?????? IN THE CONFUSION?????" What the hell does that disingenuous phrase mean?<br /><br />I'm guessing it means: "Oh, gee, somehow, we dont remember, the dog who was attached to my thumb -- who I was busy slapping -- ended up slamming to the floor and hitting his head really hard. Duh. Not sure how." <br /><br />What do you think? <br /><br />The document goes on: <br /><br />"'Star' was then given a flea bath and placed in the kennel to dry. While drying in the kennel, 'Star's' nose began to bleed. [Star's owner] was in the clinic's waiting room while the medication was administered. While she was paying her bill, Dr. McClendon stated that Star had bitten her, and if it was her dog, she would have 'beat the hell out of her.' Dr. McClendon also said she did not want to see 'Star' at her clinic anymore, and [the owner] apologized. 'Star' was picked up by [the owner's] husband, at approximately 4:30 p.m. that day and presented with blood on her nose. A staff member of the clinic informed [the husband] that 'Star' had fallen off an examination table."<br /><br />Keep in mind, at this point, these vets had Star for some time. <br /><br />"Star's nose continued to bleed after returning home. At approximately 8:00pm that evening, [the owner] noticed that 'Star' had become letharghic. On the morning of April 3rd Star was still lethargic and her nose was still bleeding. She could not walk and was having difficulty breathing. At approximately 7:30 am [the owner] presented star to Jason Anderson, D.V.M., Marshall Animal Hospital, where a blood profile was conducted and radiographs taken. Dr. Anderson diagnosed 'Star' with severe head trauma. 'Star' suffered seizures while being examined, which left her 'non-responsive and in an apparent vegetative state,' and 'eventually went into cardio-respiratory arrest.' Once Dr. Anderson informed [the owner] of Star's status, she elected to euthanize Star." <br /><br />Did you get the part about "SEVERE HEAD TRAUMA?" <br /><br />The board stated: <br /><br />"Dr. McClendon's failure to property restrain and administer medication to Star 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 in good standing in Marshall, Texas or similar communities. Specifically (1) Dr. McClendon's failure to property restrain Star during the administration of medication, (2) her failure to allow Star's owner -- who was present in the clinic waiting room -- to administer the medication to Star, rather than to administer it herself and (3) her failure to recognize that Star's continuing nosebleed subsequent to her fall . . . " [editorial comment: Yeh, fall. Right. Some "fall."] ". . . was a sign of head trauma and treat accordingly, led to complications which ultimately contributed to the untimely death of Star." <br /><br />CONTRIBUTED TO?????<br /><br />Hmmm. About that comment Sonya McClendon made. That comment that if Star were her dog, she would "beat the hell out of her." Maybe it wasn't a hypothetical????<br /><br />And you gotta wonder -- does Dr. McClendon HAVE ANY DOGS? ANY PETS AT ALL? If she does, shouldn't someone go remove them from her custody, given her assertion that she finds justification to "beat the hell out of" her dogs, as well as given the fate of Star? <br /><br />Poor Star. <br /><br />Star, if there is a heaven, or any kind of justice in the afterlife, you will 150 pounds and giant, and Dr. McClendon will be 15 pounds and tiny. And she will be delivered to you on a silver platter, for you to so with as you wish. <br /><br />Alas, in this life, you were a victim. <br /><br />A veterinary victim.<br /><br />How did the veterinary board deal with McClendon? <br /><br />They gave her a big scary FORMAL REPRIMAND. <br /><br />They fined her $500. <br /><br />They ordered her to take a class in animal behavior. (Um, how about anger management?)<br /><br />They ordered restitution of a measely $111.82. Which McClendon had apparently had the gall to charge Star's owners. <br /><br />Do you think this is enough for the life of your dog?<br /><br />Moreover, this was not the first time McClendon had been disciplined by the board, nor the first time her actions had been implicated in the death of a patient. See below. <br /><br />All of that -- and does the board take her license? No. Do they give her so much as 1 day active suspension? No. <br /><br />Way to go coddling those repeat offenders, Texas. How many dogs will she have to kill before you take some real action?<br /><br /><b><i>Thank you to Texas Citizen Greg Munson of the Texas Vet Board Watch and <a href="http://texasveterinaryrecords.110mb.com/">Texas Veterinary Records</a> site for calling my attention to this case.</b></i><br /><br />To view the disciplinary record on which this entry is based, go <a href="http://texasveterinaryrecords.110mb.com/McClendon%202009-23.pdf">here</a><br /><br /><br /><B>UPDATE: Bad Vet Daily has just found out that Sonya McClendon, the vet in this case, <a href="http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/059/RipOff0059206.htm">allegedly supports the breeding of cats with deformities</a>, providing veterinary services to a breeder called "Karma Cats". See <a href="http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/059/RipOff0059206.htm">http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/059/RipOff0059206.htm</a>. Many people believe this to be a cruel and perverse operation. For more debate, see <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/yt/twistykats/">http://www.angelfire.com/yt/twistykats/</a><br /><br />Also, this is not the first death in the hands of McClendon in a case disciplined by the vet board. In a 2004 case, it was found that McClendon "failed to administer fluids to a dehydrated patient" and to that patient, simultaneously administered two contraindicated drugs -- rimadyl and banamine. The dog in question died two hours later. The board described that in that case, she was "annoyed" that she had to see the dog -- who came in on an emergency basis, and who was not her regular patient. In that case, the board "formally reprimanded" her. <br /> <br />Here is the case: <a href="http://texasveterinaryrecords.110mb.com/TX_2005_Mcclendon_Sonya_2005-05.pdf">http://texasveterinaryrecords.110mb.com/TX_2005_Mcclendon_Sonya_2005-05.pdf </a><br /></b><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com