The Bad Vet Daily

They Screw Horses, Don't They? Pennsylvania Vet Charged in Oklahoma Incident with Horse

2012-01-30T16:16:00.000-08:00

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").

The news coverage provided via the link to video below from KJRH.com, Channel 2 in Tulsa, states:

"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."

OK, let's pause and digest this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This man should LOSE his license. Period.

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. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE THIS MAN IS WORKING!!!!!

Links:

News Coverage -- Vet Accused of Sex with Horse

Horse Industry Site on this Story

Video Coverage

Local News -- Thomas Lyle Wilson Charged for Sex with Horse

Thomas Lyle Wilson Charged - Daily Mail UK

Fairfax VA's Crosspoint Animal Hospital Kills Dog Without Permission of Owners

2011-11-16T19:03:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just an arrogant vet who apparently didn't care enough to find out if this lost old dog had loving owners looking for her. Which she did.

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.

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."

So, based on that, Crosspoint Animal Hospital is a BUNCH OF LIARS too!

This is the arrogance and total power of veterinarians.

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 viscious 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.

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.

In the words of her loving owner Allison, thanks to this vet, "Basie died alone with strangers, which is the real tragedy."

Shame, shame shame.

Links to local coverage:

Owners of Euthanized Dog May File Suit

OK, this is not local -- they care about this stuff in Great Britain, too. They find it horrifying.

There is Yet Another Black Mar on the Face of Veterinary Medicine

2011-08-11T20:49:00.000-07:00

Yes, that's right. There is another black mar on the face of Veterinary Medicine, and its name is Dr. Dawn Blackmar.

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."

See the recent TV investigative report for yourself from Houston's Fox News station:

Former Animal Control Employees React to FOX 26 Investigation: MyFoxHOUSTON.com

" . . the more we continue to investigate . . . the more gut-wrenching stories we hear," says journalist Randy Wallace.

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.

Former employees say this has been going on for years.

"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.

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.

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.

I think she must be a sadist.

"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 . . ."

We here at Bad Vet Daily agree. She needs to go.

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.

"It makes you want to cry," said the male newscaster.

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! Sign the petition to urge the prosecution of Dawn Blackmar! Sign the Petition!

How much more evidence does the public need that sadists who enjoy animal torture are drawn to the field of veterinary medicine?

More coverage of Blackmar's reign of terror, sadism, and death:

Shelter Won't Consider Offer that Could Save Money and Lives

A Tragic Example of the Urgent Need for Texas CAPA

Investigation into Animal Shelter has Officials Considering Changes

More Questions Surrounding Harris County Animal Control

County Attorney Says Laws Violated at Harris County Animal Control

Enough to Know you Don't Want to Go There: Larry Britt, Florida, Allegedly Lets Patient Bleed to Death

2011-06-22T19:04:00.000-07:00

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 here. 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!

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.

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.

These minutes state:

" . . . the administrative complaint alleges that the Respondent falsified records and allowed one of his patients to bleed to death. 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."

"After discussion by the board the following motions was made.

MOTION: Dr. O’Neil made a motion to accept the settlement stipulation as presented.
SECOND: Dr. Figarola seconded the motion.
Dr. O’Neil withdrew his motion.
MOTION: Dr. Maxwell made a motion to reject the settlement stipulation.
SECOND: Dr. Simmons seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
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."

This motion was passed.

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.

After surgery, I presume. (Given the requirement to take continuing education in equine surgery).

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.

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.

In the meantime, I wouldn't be taking my animals to Britt. Would you?

Links: Minutes from Florida Vet Board's December 2010 meeting

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.

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.

Link to Annual Report

Vet Sarah Pizano Fires Whistleblower and Turns off the Cameras After Employee Videotaped Performing Cruel, Deadly "Heartsticks" on Cats

2011-02-13T17:20:00.000-08:00

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.

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 revolting defense of Dr. William Baber by the President of the Tennessee Veterinary Board.

Again on horrifying video (you can watch it as a part of the news investigation here), 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."

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?

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.

After she blew the whistle, Avila was fired.

And the guy who did the heartsticks? He was "demoted" and lost just $50 a week in pay.

Let's see, what message does that send from Pizano?

(Even though she CLAIMS her firing Avila had nothing to do with the whistleblowing).

What actions has Pizano taken since this revelation?

Well, she removed the cameras that tape what goes on at a facility a local animal activist called "a concentration camp."

She expressed concern about the community REACTION to what happened.

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."

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.

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).

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.

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."

It seems that under Pizano's tenure, things remain appalling.

There are now petition drives on both Facebook and the Petition Site for her removal as director.

Carmel on the Case: Video of Cats Being Given Heartsticks, and Pizano's Maddening Monotone Interview

New Horror Story about Miami-Dade

Petitions for the removal of Pizano:

Petition Site

Facebook

Lawsuit Filed Against Miami-Dade for Unauthorized Euthanasia of a Dog Before the Owner had a Chance to Pick Him Up

Vet Darry Griebel and Lehigh Acres Animal Hospital Kill Two Dogs for Unpaid Bill

2010-08-25T19:43:00.000-07:00

BREAKING NEWS:

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.

On August 20th, angry local citizens protested in the rain outside Lehigh Acres Animal "Hospital." News cameras from local station WINK news were there.

"They should be sued, they should be shut down," one protester said.

"I don't think a clinic that practices in this . . . manner has any business being open," said another.

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.

"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.

We couldn't agree with her more.

I ask you -- should a place even be allowed to be called a "hospital" when they kill patients over unpaid bills?

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?

Do you think this place will be shut down by the "authorities" that run the Florida State Board of Veterinary Medicine?

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.

Bravo to the caring citizens of Lehigh Acres.

Links:

Angry Protestors Camp Outside Lehigh Acres Vet Hospital, WINK News

Lehigh Animal Hospital Threatens to Put Dogs Down over Bill Dispute

Minutes of Meeting at Which Prior Disciplinary Action Against Griebel is Recorded

Virginia Vet William Will Shows NO LOVE to Patient Kismet

2010-06-26T09:25:00.000-07:00

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.

In an order dated March 2, 2010, the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine found that:

“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.”

[And they term this “substandard care?” OK, the word I would use is “abuse!”]

“Following Kismet’s soiling of his clinic’s floor, Dr. Will shouted obscenities which greatly upset Kismet’s owner.”

“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.’”

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.

“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.”

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?

The document goes on to say:

“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.”

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.

Unprofessional Conduct (violation of Virginia code 54.1-3807(5)) and VAC 150-20-140(6) and (7)

Recordkeeping Violations (violation of the above cited Virginia code section as well as Veterinary regulation 150-20-195)

Violation of Standards for Veterinary Establishments (violation of the above cited Virginia code section as well as Veterinary regulation 150-20-200 (A) (1))

So get this:

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).

They ordered him to take 15 hours worth of continuing education in customer relations, practice management, and “controlling controlled drugs.”

[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?’]

They fined Will $5,000 and ordered that his clinic be subjected to unannounced inspections.

But wait . . .
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:

“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:

a. The facility, including the surgery room, was not clean nor was it sanitary.

b. The facility lacked an animal identification system that would identify all animals kept on the premises.

c. There was no resuscitation bag on the premises.

d. There were no signed disclosure forms in the patient files.

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.

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).

Why 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?

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:

“ . . . 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.”

In that case, the board merely fined Will $100.

The question that must be asked in cases such as this is:

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?

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?”

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.

Florida Veterinarian Margaret Fowler Charged with Felony Animal Cruelty in Beating Death of Cat

2010-03-29T20:16:00.001-07:00

A 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.

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.

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.

Fowler was arrested and charged with Felony Animal Cruelty.

This article seems to include a picture which looks like a mug shot.

Is it just me, or is this woman smiling?

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?

Article -- WMBB.com news.

Link: Local Vet Charged with Cruelty to Animals

Colorado Vet Debra Megonigle Sends "Technician" (?) to Treat Horse; Technician Pours Mineral Oil Into Horses Lungs and Kills It.

2010-02-23T13:15:00.000-08:00

In this rare case that actually resulted in discipline, the following story is told in the public record documents of the Colorado Vet Board:

"[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.

". . . 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."

"[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."

"The horse ultimately died as a result of having mineral oil inserted into its lungs."

"At no time during Cooper's care of the horse was a veterinarian on premises or available to supervise his care of the horse."

"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."

[NOTE TO READERS: Serious questions are raised by this passage.

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.)

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.)

In making this change, was Megonigle trying to mislead anyone into believing that she had actually been present when the incident occured?

The document continues . . . ]

"The above-described conduct constitutes violations of the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act . . . "

They go on to cite five violations of the act including sections pertaining to:

"Fraud, deception, misrepresentation, or dishonest or illegal practices in or connected with the practice of veterinary medicine" . .. .

"Incompetence, negligence, or other malpractice in the practice of veterinary medicine . . . "

"Unprofessional or unethical conduct . . . "

"An act or omission which fails to meet generally accepted standards of veterinary practice . . . "

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).

Although you might not think this is enough, it's more than boards usually do. I must ask however:

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?

Can you even imagine the suffering that this horse must have gone through?

Public Record Document taken from the website of the Colorado Veterinary Board:

CASE UPDATES:

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.

Web searches on Dr. Megonigle seem to indicate that she was working at Island Animal Clinic in Port Aransas Texas in mid 2009.

Pennsylvania Puppy Mill Vet Thomas Stevenson Charged with Animal Cruelty

2009-08-22T12:05:00.000-07:00

Think of all the horrors that animal advocates list:

Unnecessary and/or excessive torment and pain of animals used in research;
Horrifying conditions for factory farm animals
Unspeakable cruelty and deprivation suffered by puppy mill dogs

. . . and others.

There is one class of professionals whose hand is complicit in all of these atrocities. That is veterinarians. More often than not, they are spared the focus of investigations into these practices. But not this time.

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.

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:

"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:

"The dog was screaming, and screaming, and screaming . . . You could see the blood. You could see the exposed bone."

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.

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."

The attorney for the plaintiffs accused Stevenson of conspiring with the kennal operation to conduct substandard or nonexistent veterinary exams on dogs.

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."

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!

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.

Here's the petition, and some more links on this case:

Petition to Revoke the License of Thomas Stevenson

Pet Abuse.com articles on vet Thomas Stevenson

Article on Helen Smith's witnessing Stevenson's cruel act

Consumer Lawsuit Moves Forward Against Kennels "served" by Stevenson

The Truth About Puppy Mills

Stoltzfus Puppy Mill Shut Down for Six Months

Dr. William Powell: License Revoked in Oregon after Botched Spays, Substandard Care, Negligence, says Board

2009-08-22T11:34:00.000-07:00

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?

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:

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.

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 IRS documentation for the local organization "Friends of Coos County Animals" 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?

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.

Here are the Board's Findings of Fact:

"The evidence of record establishes that [Powell] violated the Medical Practices Act, in that:

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." [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.]

The document continues:

"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.'"

"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."

"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."

"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."

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.

This following online document, written by a PhD on Canine Hip Dysplasia, describes the procedure as follows:

"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."

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."

The document continues:

"'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."

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?

"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."

"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:

'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.'

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.

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.]

"The following conditions were found at [Powell's] clinic:

a. The facility was not properly ventilated to exhaust odors.

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.'

[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.]

"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.

d. Licensee allowed his veterinary technician, who is not certified, to induce anesthesia.

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."

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:

". . . 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)."

The "Pi Land Ranch" website accuses the veterinary board of a "harrassment and smear" campaign.

A Veterinary News article 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."

A 2005 article, 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.'"

Perhaps a couple of ligated ureters wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Are these the discounted services that you want???????

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.

Of interest, Powell is also listed on the website "Declaw Hall of Shame" 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."

Also of interest:

The famous Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon (famous for its animal law program) actually recognized Powell by making him a finalist in the "Nancy Perry Cougar Award" competition 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.

If you are considering a low-cost spay neuter for your pet, you might want to read the guidelines published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians for spay-neuter, and make sure the care that will be provided to your pet at least meets these guidelines.

From my own reading, I recommend you do the following:

1. Have pre-operative bloodwork done. Abnormal bloodwork can show underlying health conditions which make surgery less safe.

2. Have a full physical exam performed. Findings on physical exam can reveal heart murmurs and other conditions that make anesthesia less safe.

3. Ensure that either a veterinarian or a licensed technician will be administering and monitoring your pet under anesthesia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

** DISCLAIMER: I am not a vet. **

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

Can all of the precautions above be obtained at a bottom of the barrel, cut rate price? Probably not.

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.

What Happened to "Patch Parker" as a Result of South Carolina Vet Frank Hooper's Substandard "Care?"

2009-05-25T11:57:00.000-07:00

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.

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?

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.

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."

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 . . .

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'?"

Well, I think we can make an educated guess. Here are the facts that we do know . . .

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."

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."

[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?]

Hooper, the document says, did not contact the owners before surgery.

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."

[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 . . . ?????

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."

"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."

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.

What the document does NOT say is what happened to Patch.

What do you think?

Is it your guess -- as it is mine -- that the dog probably DIED? After all, we have:

Failure to examine the dog prior to surgery

Expanding the surgery to make it more "extensive" without ever having examined the dog

Prolonged surgery in which the patient was apparently left under anesthesia while people left the area

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

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?

LINKS:

Board Consent Agreement with Frank A. Hooper

A 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!!!!

2009-05-16T10:30:00.000-07:00

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

AT ALL?

The facts are these:

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:

Unsanitary Conditions

Failure to Maintain Aseptic Surgical Suite

Animal Cruelty

Failure to Comply with Emergency Services Requirements and Inoperable Phone

Maintenance of Misbranded or Expired Drugs

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?

Failure to Provide Medical Records on Demand

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!???)

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!

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.

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?????

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!

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!

UNSANITARY CONDITIONS
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

"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:

a. The reception area was dimly lit, and smelled of urine

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

g. The back kennel area was extremely dirty and smelled so strongly of animal waste it was difficult to breathe. Every animal there was sitting in a mixture of feces and urine. None of the dogs had food or water. Only a cage with two kittens had food and their water was dirty.

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."

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ASEPTIC SURGICAL SUITE
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

During the inspection referenced above, the inspector found that:

"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. 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."

ANIMAL CRUELTY
(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 . . . )

a. There were two dogs (patients) running free, one in the treatment room and one in surgery. Neither dog had access to food or water. 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. Two cats had no litter boxes, food or water in their cages. One of the cats appeared very ill and the Board's inspector was told that [Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic] were not treating him because the owners were probably going to euthanize him. Otherwise, the Respondents' employee did not know who the patients were, and was unable to indentify them by name or owner.

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. None of the dogs had food or water. All bowls were empty. Two kittens had food in their cage, and only dirty water."

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?

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES REQUIREMENTS AND INOPERABLE PHONE
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

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."

MAINTENANCE OF MISBRANDED OR EXPIRED DRUGS
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

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."

VIOLATION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

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."

[ Oh, great! Threats to human health, as well!]

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)

" . . . 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."

Violent Nutcase Vet Jeffrey Baranack Still Practising: Another Vet with Anger Management Issues!

2009-04-26T14:58:00.000-07:00

If this doesn't make your stomach turn, I don't know what would.

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.

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.

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.

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS (from the original hearing notice).

"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.

. . . .

2. On July 18, 2006, yu treated 'Chloe' Galmish. Although 'Chloe' was not behaving poorly, you allegedly repeatedly shoved her. . . .

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. . . .

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. . . .

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]

"6. On August 11, 2006, you were to neuter a dog named 'Chopper.' You allegedly yelled at 'Chopper' and shoved him repeatedly. . . .

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. . . .

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]

"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]

"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]

"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]

"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]

"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."

"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."

"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."

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.

So what did the vet board do?

They suspended his license for only 30 days.

They ordered him to take an anger management class, and to be assessed by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist.

They ordered that he must be accompanied by a veterinarian or licensed technician for one year when he practices.

They put him on 3 years probation.

So, this is a guy whose history of violent treatment of patients goes back to 1999. Nine years.

Does the board really need a shrinks opinion?

If a pediatrician admitted to dangling children by their necks, would he still be practising?

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?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE OHIO VET BOARD THAT THIS MAN IS STILL PRACTISING?????????

Links:

www.ovmlb.ohio.gov/minutes/Nov%2014%2007%20min.pdf

http://www.ovmlb.ohio.gov/compliance.stm

Alleged "Inhumane" Euthanasia via Insulin Overdose - Florida Vet Jay Butan of Lake Worth -- "Marley" of "Marley and Me's" Former Vet

2009-04-14T18:42:00.000-07:00

"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).

In Grogan's book, he apparently calls Butan, Marley's first vet, "the doctor of our dreams."

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.

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.

First, the animal would experience:

". . . headache, irregular heartbeat, increased heart rate or pulse, sweating, tremor, nausea, increased hunger and anxiety . . ."

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.

Does this sound like a humane method of trying to kill -- or euphemistically, "euthanize" -- a pet to you?

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".

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.

Actually, in this article, it appears Butan admits it. Where are the animal cruelty charges against this, "Marley's" former vet?

Oh, that, plus engage in fraud in his business dealings.

The following is taken from the Administrative Complaint filed by the vet board against Butan (the fraud allegations come first):

"[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."

"The office secretary observed unusual shortages . . . in Dr. Kleopfer's account."

"[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."

"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."

"[Butan] used an overdose of insulin to kill Spencer, an ill cat who lived at the clinic."

"Overdosing a patient with insulin is not an approved method of euthanasia. It is considered inhumane for purposes of euthanasia."

Editorial comment: Er, uh, it should be considered inhumane for ANY purpose!

"[Butan] failed to record within Spencer's medical records the method he died."

"[Butan] failed to record within the medical records of 'Taffy,' a dog who also lived at the clinic, the method he was euthanized." [sic]

The Board then cites Chapters 61G18-18.002(3) and (4) of the Florida Administrative Code, which address requirements for medical record-keeping.

The Board charged Butan with three counts:

Count 1: A violation of Florida Statute section 474.214(l)(m), by "fraudulently increasing several accounts payable"

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"

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.

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 . . ."

Butan was fined $2,000 and ordered to take "six (6) hours of continuing education in the subject area of euthanasia, anesthesiology or ethics."

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.

But not only is he still practising . . .

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.

What a role model.

And the Florida Vet Board apparently thinks he should still be able to get his hands on your pet.

LINKS:

Summary of Disciplinary Action -- Florida Board Minutes

Article on how Butan was Marley's vet, citing his violations and his admission of the insulin overdose

Alaska Denies Butan Request for Courtesy License to be Iditarod Vet (oh, that's a humane event . . . NOT!!). 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 . . . "

WATCH OUT!!!! Where is he now??

Butan's Profile at Canal Animal Hospital. Scary stuff.

Manta Business Listing

"Gross Negligence" in Arizona

2009-04-06T17:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Flash's owners brought him to Upchurch on March 19, 2007. He was to be neutered and vaccinated the following day.

"'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."

"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."

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."

However, they note:

"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."

"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."

"[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."

"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."

"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)."

"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."

I presume that visual impairment would be from brain damage due to oxygen deprivation.

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."

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.

The Board placed Upchurch on 1 year probation and ordered her to take 6 hours of continuing education in critical care management.

Dog Dies After Sustaining Head Trauma at the Vets (Sonya McClendon, DVM, Marshall Texas)

2009-03-05T07:34:00.000-08:00

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."

So what do you think REALLY happened?

Here is the vet board's account:

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."

"IN THE CONFUSION?????? IN THE CONFUSION?????" What the hell does that disingenuous phrase mean?

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."

What do you think?

The document goes on:

"'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."

Keep in mind, at this point, these vets had Star for some time.

"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."

Did you get the part about "SEVERE HEAD TRAUMA?"

The board stated:

"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."

CONTRIBUTED TO?????

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????

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?

Poor Star.

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.

Alas, in this life, you were a victim.

A veterinary victim.

How did the veterinary board deal with McClendon?

They gave her a big scary FORMAL REPRIMAND.

They fined her $500.

They ordered her to take a class in animal behavior. (Um, how about anger management?)

They ordered restitution of a measely $111.82. Which McClendon had apparently had the gall to charge Star's owners.

Do you think this is enough for the life of your dog?

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.

All of that -- and does the board take her license? No. Do they give her so much as 1 day active suspension? No.

Way to go coddling those repeat offenders, Texas. How many dogs will she have to kill before you take some real action?

Thank you to Texas Citizen Greg Munson of the Texas Vet Board Watch and Texas Veterinary Records site for calling my attention to this case.

To view the disciplinary record on which this entry is based, go here

UPDATE: Bad Vet Daily has just found out that Sonya McClendon, the vet in this case, allegedly supports the breeding of cats with deformities, providing veterinary services to a breeder called "Karma Cats". See http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/059/RipOff0059206.htm. Many people believe this to be a cruel and perverse operation. For more debate, see http://www.angelfire.com/yt/twistykats/

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.

Here is the case: http://texasveterinaryrecords.110mb.com/TX_2005_Mcclendon_Sonya_2005-05.pdf

Vet Carlton Cuts Up and Cremates Dead Patient Without Owners Permission, Without Notifying Pet Owners of their Pets Death

2009-01-24T09:41:00.000-08:00

Virginia Veterinarian Carlton Elam is living proof that the disciplinary actions of the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine are useless as a deterrant to future violations. How else can you explain a history of violations going back over 25 years?

Moreover, his most recent violation also raises the question: What is a veterinarian trying to hide when he cremates a dead patient without ever notifying the owners that their beloved dog has even died?????

Ask yourself:

If a human died in the hospital, and the attending physician performed an autopsy and then cremated the person, all without ever notifying the family of the death, would that phsyician still be practising?????

This is not the first time I've heard of this kind of thing happening at a veterinary practice. In fact, years ago, I heard a similar story from a veterinary hospital receptionist working here in the Washington DC area: At the practice where she previously worked, she boarded her dog for the weekend. The only thing wrong with her dog was that he was taking Deramaxx for arthritis. When she returned to the hospital she was told that her dog was dead. He had died that weekend while in the "care" of unlicensed, unsupervised veterinary assistants. They refused to allow her to see the body, telling her it would "upset her" too much. They cremated the dog without her permission and handed her a box of ashes.

I would like NOTHING MORE than to give the name of the animal hospital at which she said this occurred; however, for my own legal protection, I cannot do so. However, I can tell you that the hospital was one where the owner had disciplinary action taken on his license in a different case, and one I have written about. Unfortunately, the former staff member never filed a complaint with the vet board or took any other action against the vet, so there is no public record on the case involving the death of her dog. This places me at liability if I name the hospital, whereas if there were public record of this having occurred, I could name the hospital. One more reason you should REPORT these kinds of things. Also, since that hospital had other complaints against it and prior disciplinary action, her reporting of this incident might have resulted in stronger action being taken against them as repeat offenders. Sadly, like so many victims -- particularly those who also work in the veterinary field and are afraid of being "blacklisted", she did not file a complaint. So they blithely go along till this day doing things like that, I'm sure.

Therefore, my deep gratitude goes to the owners of "Bumpie," a dog who fatefully died in the care of Virginia Veterinarian Carlton Elam. You see, they DID file a complaint with the vet board, and THERE IS PUBLIC RECORD which can be republished to warn others about this man. But does it make a difference anyway? Do vets even pay attention to disciplinary actions of the vet board -- unless the vet board actually does something serious like enforce a license suspension or revoke a license? Apparently not . . . which brings me back to Carlton Elam.

What happened to Bumpie? Why did he die at Elam Veterinary Hospital in Powhatan, Virginia? And . . . do Elam's actions after Bumpie's death give us a clue that perhaps Elam was trying to cover something up? Judge for yourself.

In an order dated December 1, 2008, the Virginia Veterinary Board states in its findings of fact that "On February 8, 2008, [Dr. Elam] failed to notify the owner of Bumpie that Bumpie had died the night before."

"Following the discovery of Bumpie's death, Dr. Elam performed a necropsy without obtaining the permission of Bumpie's owner or allowing said owner the option of having the necropsy performed by another veterinarian."

"Dr. Elam arranged for the cremation of Bumpie's remains without receiving permission from Bumpie's owner."

"Dr. Elam failed to record the cremation of Bumpie's remains in the medical record."

Why did Bumpie die? Will we ever know? Don't ask what the necropsy showed, unless you just fell off the proverbial turnip truck!

But this was FAR from Dr. Elam's first violation. And so, the Veterinary Board -- citing the fact that at the time Dr. Elam committed these acts, he was already on probation as a result of a prior Board order (which required him to maintain a "course of conduct" commensurate with the requirements of the code), found him in violation of their prior order, and placed him on "idefinite probation" for a period of not less than 3 years. They reprimanded him and fined him $1,500. But what are the terms of the probation? Will this keep Dr. Elam from doing such a thing?

Apparently not, because he was already on a 3-year probation when he did this!

So -- WHEN EXACTLY -- does the Virginia Veterinary Board suspend or revoke a vets license for violating probation? Can a vet simply continue to commit such acts over and over, and simply get an extended probation each time? Seems so.

You see, in January, 2008 -- just one month before Elam necropsied and cremated Bumpie without even telling the owners he'd died -- The bet board had fined Elam $10,000 in another case. YOU ALMOST NEVER HERE OF A FINE THAT HIGH. They also had said that within a year of that action, they would conduct an unannounced inspection of Elam's facility. Did they?

In their order, dated January 28, 2008 -- mere days before poor Bumpie died under Elam's care only to be necropsied and cremated before his owners found out -- the Board said:

" . . . On or about January 16th, 2006 . . . Client A presented to his practice with 'Coconut,' a canine who was not eating well and was constipated. Dr. Elam documented in Coconut's records that he prescribed 10 mg of prednisone to be taken twice a day for neck pain. On or about January 30, 2006, Coconut was returned to Dr. Elam's practice having lost approximately two pounds and still was not eating. On February 4, 2006, Client A presented with Coconut who was eating small amounts of food. Based on bloodwork, Dr. Elam diagnosed Coconut with Addison's disease."

Over the next several months, Coconut's owners continued to bring her in to see Carlton Elam, and she continued to lose weight.

In early June, however, Coconut's owners apparently finally took her to another vet, who diagnosed Coconut with "hepatocellular carcinoma." The Board said:

"Dr. Elam overprescribed the amount of Prednisone administered to Coconut for treatment of Addison's disease, and failed to diagnose Coconut's carcinoma . . . Although Coconut continued to decline, Dr. Elam failed to offer to refer Client A to a Veterinary Internal Medicine Specialist."

So, Coconut's owners seem to have lost nearly 6 months between the time Coconut exhibited illness and the time they got a correct diagnosis from another vet. Time they could have spent treating Coconut for her cancer, instead of overdosing her with prednisone.

In their original letter to Elam requesting that he attend a conference to review allegations against him, the veterinary board stated that Elam never conducted an ACTH test to confirm his Addison's diagnosis. According to AddisonDogs.com an ACTH test is necessary to confirm diagnosis of Addison's. If Elam did not do this, was he giving Coconut large quantities of steroids for a disease she didn't even have??? According to AddisonDogs.com, "The Merck Veterinary manual recommends a prednisone dose of 0.1 – 0.2 mgs/lb. per day." If Coconut was getting 10 mg twice a day, that is 20 mg per day. That would be an appropriate maximum dose for a 100 pound dog. And that's only if she DID have Addison's -- which it seems was a misdiagnosis. Was Coconut a 100 pound dog???? If not, what are the consequences of a prednisone overdose? According to Wedgewood Pharmacy, "Chronic or inappropriate use of corticosteroids, including prednisone, can cause life threatening hormonal and metabolic changes"; also side effects include: "polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, poor haircoat, GI disturbance, diarrhea, vomiting, weight gain, GI ulceration, pancreatitis, lipidemia, elevated liver enzymes, diabetes mellitus, muscle wasting, and possible behavioral changes." Corticosteroids suppress the immune system. What effect would that have on the survival of a dog with cancer?

As I mentioned, the Board fined Elam $10,000 in that case. This is an unusually high fine, and I believe the reason was . . . he had a long history of violations including:

1983 -- Found in violation of State regulations when he induced labor in a horse and then left her. "There was a difficult delivery, and the foal was born dead." The Board fined him $250.

2002 -- The veterinary board found Elam had failed to maintain adequate records in the case of two patients, "Tor" (dog) and "Christmas Pie" (cat). They fined him $500. However, in my opinion, this appears to be a case in which much more serious things occurred, but the Vet Board just found him guilty of the "lesser" violation of recordkeeping. This is one of the sneaky things Board's do to protect vets. Why do I think this? Because the Vet Board's Notice of "Informal" conference includes allegations that that Elam may have engaged in unprofessional conduct and provided substandard care. This is stated in the Board's notice telling Elam to come to an "informal" conference to discuss the complaint. This notice includes the following information:

"You performed medical tests and procedures, some unnecessary, on your patient "Tor" . . . without obtaining the client's authorization and discussing additional charges. Further, you failed to appropriately diagnose "Tor," and you failed to maintain adequate and complete patient records for him." They go on to give the following specifics:

They go on to say:

"You performed or had performed numerous tests on Tor, some unnecessary, without Client A's authorizatin, in that Client A discussed euthanizing Tor with you upon his admission on November 6, 2000. Additionally, when Client A noted "Tor's" condition was deteriorating on November 7, 2000, she told you she did not want to keep "Tor" alive if he was not going to get better. You denied that Client A ever mentioned euthanasia to you and stated that you provided 'only minimal diagnostic testing and treatment to stabilize "Tor." In fact, billing records indicate you performed internal parasite examinations on November 6 and 7, 2000; complete blood counts on November 6 and 7, 2000, and two (2) blood chemistries on November 7, 2000 in addition to the one performed on November 4 by another veterinarian before "Tor" expired on November 7, 2000."

I remind the reader that the above was included in the ALLEGATIONS, not in the findings of fact, and that the findings of fact do not include substandard care or unprofessional conduct. They include only recordkeeping violations. The question is: WHY??????

These allegations go on to state:

"You performed unnecessary medical tests on your patient, "Christmas Pie" . . .further, you failed to adequately diagnose "Christmas Pie" and failed to maintain accurate patient records for her. Specifically . . . Client A presented Christmas Pie to you for teeth cleaning. Your records indicate that "Christmas Pie" weighed 8.1 pounds, and you administered anesthetic according to that weight.[emphasis added]. "Client A provided previous and subsequent records indicating the weight of the cat has remained stable at approximately 6 pounds prior and subsequent to your December 22, 1999 treatment of her . . . Client A again presented "Christmas Pie" to you on or about July 31, 2000, with symptoms of frequency of urination and excessive thirst. At her request, you performed tests to determine whether the cat had decreased kidney function. Althouth you performed tests that you indicated ruled out anemia, you failed to adequately diagnose the cat's condition or provide a treatment plan after performing additional tests. Further you performed tests based upon your belief that "Christmas Pie" had lost two pounds since December 22, 1999, despite Client A's assertion that the weight you recorded in December was incorrect."

2003 -- The veterinary board investigates a complaint against Elam, and finds no "clear and convincing" evidence that he committed violations.

This, IN SPITE of the fact that the notice available online prior to the board's finding of "no violation" include the following allegations:

" . . . . on April 15, 2002, Client A presented to your practice with "Chloe," a puppy, for a routine spay. You spayed Chloe and sent her home the same day. [The next day] Chloe's sutures ruptured allowing her intestines to be exposed. You took Chloe back into surgery and repaired the incision, but Chloe died later that night. You failed to properly suture Chloe's incision during the initial surgery."

After Elam's history of repeated complaints and findings . . . he still is allowed to practice by the State of Virginia. Here is a screenshot from the Veterinary Board website showing the long list of documents associated with investigations and disciplinary actions taken against Elam:

When will the Virginia Veterinary Board put an end to Elam's trail of tears?

Links:

Order in the Case of Bumpie

Order in the Case of Coconut

Allegations in the Case of Chloe

Order in the Case of Chloe

Order in the Case of Tor and Christmas Pie

Allegations in the Case of Tor and Christmas Pie

Order in the Case of the Dead Foal

WARNING: This vet also goes by the name of Nick Elam and C. Nick Elam.

Leonardo the Dog is Dropped off for Grooming, and His Vet Kills Him

2008-11-28T16:32:00.000-08:00

TEXAS. How would you fee if you took your beloved 6-year old English Sheepdog in to the vet for a simple grooming, and later the vet called you and told you that he had killed him instead?

That is what happened in San Antonio, Texas in 1997, when Leonardo the Sheepdog was taken by his owner to Leon Springs Veterinary Hospital, where he was placed in the decidely NOT CAREFUL hands of veterinarian Doyle Cooper.

The Texas Veterinary Board records state:

". . . Leonardo was placed in a run until the groomer was ready for him. Dr. Cooper did not know that 'Leonardo' was in the building. A short time later, a Great Pyrenees was admitted to be euthanized. Dr. Cooper was in surgery and directed that the dog be placed in a run until the animal could be euthanized later. Instead, the Great Pyrenees was placed in a treatment ward cage. Both animals failed to have an ID card on their doors to determine disposition."

[COMMENTARY: That is the actual text of the vet board document. Here are a couple of things I find very interesting:

a) Isn't it interesting that the staff didn't listen to the vet and that's the source of fault here?? Hmm. Rather than the person in charge? With the whole "Instead . . . [the dog] was placed in a treatment ward cage"? I'm not so sure I believe that, although I'll never know.

b) Also, isn't the "passive voice" choice of the board telling? THE ANIMALS failed to HAVE ID cards on their doors. As they they, themselves, were supposed to grab a
3"x5" card, a marker, and write: Leonardo, Here for Grooming. Great Pyrenees, Here to be Killed. Why doesn't it say WHO FAILED TO PROPERLY MARK the identity of the animals, and WHY THEY FAILED to do so. Carelessness? Lack of procedures, perhaps?

They continue:

" . . . after lunch, Dr. Cooper located 'Leonardo' in the run and euthanized him."

OK, obviously the worst part of all this is the lack of care taken by Cooper to have procedures to make sure he euthanizes the right animal. But isn't it also disturbing, that a sick patient is brought in for euthanasia, presumably because he's suffering, and Cooper goes to lunch first?

But I digress.

"When Dr. Cooper realized he had euthanized the wrong dog, he called Mr. & Mrs. Larsen and explained the facts and circumstances to them."

My interpretation:

FACT: I killed your dog.
CIRCUMSTANCES: We are careless over here.

The document continues:

"Dr. Cooper's treatment of Leonardo did not constitute the exercise of 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 San Antonio, Texas or similar community."

Nah, you don't say?

The document goes on to say that Dr. Cooper reached a legal settlement with the family.

It also says that Dr. Cooper INTENDS TO change procedures at Leon Springs Veterinary Hospital to ensure that this won't happen again.

Not he HAS. Not even HE WILL. He INTENDS TO.

This document is dated December 23rd, 1997.

Leonardo was killed, and this incident occurred on, February 26th 1997.

TEN MONTHS have passed between this incident and the signing of this document.

YET, the document still says Cooper INTENDS TO change procedures. As in, in the future.

Hmmm. That's how low a priority it is to make sure you don't kill the wrong animal?

The veterinary board gave Cooper an official reprimand.

That's it.

No fine.

No suspension.

A reprimand.

Outrageous?

Unfortunately, YES, but not unusual.

And not much has changed in the years since.

Greg Munson, who runs the Texas Vet Board Watch Website, has analyzed Texas' 2008 Veterinary Board Actions.

According to Muson, there were 84 Board Orders issued by the Texas Veterinary Board for FY 08.

67 of the 84 Board Orders (or 80%) were for violations UNRELATED to patient care. These include failure to take enough Continuing Education, drug related violations, administrative violations, and other types.

Only 17 of the 84 Board Orders (or 20%) were related to patient care.

60 total fines were issued. 59 of those fines were issued for violations UNRELATED to patient care (failure to take enough training, drug violations, etc).

Of all the patient-care (or malpractice) related actions, only ONE was given a fine.

Of the 17 patient-care related (malpractice-related) orders, 10 received an INFORMAL reprimand. 6 of the 17 received FORMAL reprimands. 1 of the 17 received a restitution only order.

There were a couple of suspensions, but they were all STAYED, which means that the vet does not lose a single day of work.

And that's just the small minority of cases in which the Texas Board takes action. Infamously, it dismisses 92% of all consumer complaints with NO ACTION whatsoever. This has garnered much public attention of late, and has been the topic of several prime time news segments. You can watch them online:

Vetting Your Vet - KSAT News, November 2008

Bad Vets: KTVT, CBS-11, March 2007:

Find more videos like this on ASPCA Online Community

Does this give you some idea what the veterinary board believes is important? It sure isn't patient safety!

Maybe that's why Dr. Cooper and his ilk think it's OK to "INTEND" to improve your procedures 10 months after killing the wrong dog.

Click here to View Public Record for this Case

Texas Veterinary Board Watch Website

Disciplinary Records for Texas Veterinarians

Iowa Veterinary Board and Veterinarian Paul Armbrecht Agree: It's OK to Hang, Drag, and Kick Pigs

2008-10-18T12:19:00.000-07:00

An undercover video taken in Ohio by the Humane Farming Association shows horrendous, practically unthinkable treatment of pigs and sows. You can see this video for yourself here, if you dare -- But frankly, I recommend that you just take my word for it, because if you have a scintilla of compassion, this will break your heart.

Who could possibly defend this treatment?

Who else, but a veterinarian.

Specifically, Iowa Vet, Paul Armbrecht.

Called to testify IN DEFENSE OF the Wiles Hog Farm where these horrific acts took place, Armbrecht testified that:

Hanging is an acceptable method of killing downed and disabled sows, despite the fact that the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, and the National Pork Board don't list hanging as a humane method of "euthanasia" in their guidelines.
Wiles Hog Farm's practice of dragging, kicking, and dropping sows off a 4-foot ledge was an acceptable means of transporting sows to their deaths.
Killing methods that cause animals to take up to 10 minutes to die are acceptable.
Dr. Armbrecht had observed at least one similar strangulation elsewhere in recent months but failed to report it.

(See Tell Iowa Vet Board: Hanging Pigs is Not Humane!

Well, certainly the Iowa Veterinary Board would take action against the license of a veterinarian who saw a pig hanged (NOT deemed a humane euthanasia method by the AVMA, as though you needed someone to tell you that after watching this) and did not report it, right?

WRONG.

Apparently, the Iowa Vet Board thinks this is FINE, even though it violates their OWN practice act.

Would you like to tell the Iowa Veterinary Board how much they suck?

Click here to sign the petition to the Iowa Vet Board.

This petition says:

"I am horrified to learn that the Board failed to pursue any formal disciplinary action against this man, given his total disregard for laws protecting animals from cruelty and for veterinary standards by endorsing cruel killing by strangulation. Please immediately reconsider your decision."

Unfortunately, it appears that Armbrecht's testimony played a pivotal role in letting some of these slobs and demons -- taped slamming piglets to the floor -- off the hook.

Out of 10 animal cruelty charges filed as a result of this taping, only one resulted in a conviction.

According to the The-Daily-Record.com, only Joe Wiles was found guilty, as a result of "grabbing [piglets] and throwing them by their ears and legs."

The article goes on to say:

"Two charges alleging Joe Wiles, 22, of 1187 Steiner Road, needlessly killed animals and beat others to death with a hammer were dismissed before the judge deliberated. Also dismissed early in the trial was a charge Dusty Stroud was cruel in beating piglets to death by slamming their heads into cement floors.

Stroud, 18, of 814 McKinley St., Wooster, was found not guilty of failing to properly euthanize sick animals and when he did so, was cruel. Stroud was an employee of the farm.

Miller also found Joe Wiles not guilty of the same charge, as well as failing to provide food, water and veterinary care to animals and impounding animals without food or water.

Joe Wiles' father, Ken Wiles, the farm's owner, was found not guilty of failing to provide food, water and vet care to animals."

Why did these charges not result in more convictions? (I mean, WATCH the tape.)

Judge Stuart Miller cited "differing opinions from skilled veterinarians," the article says, in explaining his decision.

A letter to the Iowa Veterinary Board, jointly signed by:

the Humane Farming Association
PETA
the Animal Welfare Institute
the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Li>the Human Society of the United States, and
the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights

stated that "Dr. Armbrecht’s trivialization of the AVMA and AASV/NPB guidelines and his explicit approval of death by strangulation apparently were enough to cause the judge to acquit the defendants on all charges related to the hangings." They appealed to the Iowa Veterinary Board to find Armbrecht in violation of statutes relating to making false or misleading statements and statutes related to livestock neglect (arguing that Armbrecht sanctioned such behavior).

It seems a legion of appeals isn't enough for the draconian Iowa Vet Board.

Or, perhaps like so much else, the Board's lack of action has more to do with cronyism, political influence, and connections than it does about the truth. Why do I say that?

Well, in an ironic and macabre twist, the Iowa State College of Veterinary Medicine publishes a newsletter called "The Gentle Doctor." In a 2004 edition it announced that the Armbrechts were named Family of the Year, in recognition of their "outstanding loyalty and support of Iowa State."

Who knows? But perhaps the Board's lack of action has something to do with Board Member Rexanne Struve.

Rexanne Struve operates a pig-rearing laboratory (chills your blood, does't it?). They produce "specific pathogen free pigs." A synopsis of her company appeared in an Iowa State "Biotech Mixer" program, stating that "Dr. Rexanne Struve has been performing caesarean section pig deliveries in a sterile environment and raising caesarian derived, colostrum deprived (CDCD) piglets . . . Currently the only commercial lab in the U.S. raising CDCD pigs, Struve labs is a respected leader in the swine industry working with biological and pharmaceutical companies . . . [Struve is] the leading supplier of CDCD pigs for the medical industry."

Well, asking Struve to sympathize with pigs suffering at the hands of "Swine Industry" abusers certainly sounds like a lost cause, doesn't it? Can she be objective enough to do her job? Doubtful. An online blog quotes a "Carroll Area Development Corp." member as saying: "Rexanne would like to save local farmers and hog producers."

We know where her loyalties are. Oh, and the same article goes on to talk about Struve hobnobbing with Governor Vilsack. And she wants to transplant pig organs into humans. And she traveled to Taiwan on behalf of the U.S. to advise Taiwan's "swine producers."

Of course several other Board members have Iowa State connections.

Would this Board ever find Armbrecht in violation of anything?

As for Armbrecht himself, I struggle for the words to define his inexcusable excuses for cruelty.

Psychotic?

Sadistic?

Crazy?

Cruel?

In my opinion, YOU BETCHA.

Maryland Vet Frederick Adams: Fails to Return Clients' Pets in Spite of Requests, till Montgomery County Police, Fire and Rescue Finally Break In

2008-10-05T19:29:00.000-07:00

While this case is shocking -- and sad -- what is most shocking to me is the meagre action taken by the Maryland Veterinary Board. Read on, and see if you agree.

This case resulted in three separate sets of charges being filed by the Maryland Veterinary Board against Frederick Adams of "Rocky Creek Veterinary Clinic" in Silver Spring, Maryland. The events that led to these charges took place in February 2006.

To understand this story it is important to know that this vet apparently runs his business out of the basement of his house.

Two of these charging documents begin by noting the following about Dr. Adam's physical condition as it pertains to his ability to perform surgery:

"In a medical report concerning Dr. Adams, dated Thursday, February 16, 2006, authored by Dr. Adams' surgeon, John K. Starr, M.D., and provided to the Board by Dr. Adamas, Dr. Starr, having noted 'the chronic dyeestheeias (sic) in [Dr. Adam's] upper extremities, [the] tremor of [his] right hand, and [his] overall debilitation . . . [opined that Dr. Adams] is no longer fit for surgical practice.' Indeed, Dr. Starr noted in his report that Dr. Adams had shared with him the 'he . . .is unable to continue in his capacity as a veterinary surgeon."

The first of the three charging documents (Docket No. 06-022A] goes on to say:

"Although he had been advised by his doctor that he was no longer fit for surgical practice, Dr. Adams, later that same evening, assumed the care of 'Kita,' an eleven-month old female domestic shorthair . . . to perform an ovario-hysterectomy [spay] on the cat ... At that time [Kita's owner] paid, and Dr. Adams accepted, Sixty Dollars ($60.00) toward the cost of this procedure. The parties agreed that Dr. Adams would keep Kita overnight, perform the procedure the following day, and discharge the cat to [its owner] the following evening, following payment of the remainder of the bill."

The next evening, (when the owner would have expected to pick Kita up), the owner "telephoned Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his aunt in Baltimore had taken ill and that he had to go be with her. Dr. Adams also informed [the owner] that his associate would be at the clinic on Saturday, February 18, 2006 [the next day] and that he could retrieve Kita at that time. Dr. Adams, however, had advised another client . . . that his aunt in Baltimore had taken ill on January 19, 2006 [a month earlier] and had died on January 20, 2006" (a month earlier!)

So, as you would expect, the next day (Saturday) the owner telephoned Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams informed the owner "that his associate would not be going to the clinic that day, and therefore, [the owner] could not retrieve his cat as planned. Instead, [the owner] would have to wait until Sunday, February 19, 2006 [the next day], to retrieve his cat. That same day, however, Dr. Adams perforned a declaw procedure on another cat whose care he had assumed (to whit: Skittles, a female cat . .. ).

NOTE: Remember that this vet's Dr. had decreed that he was not fit to be performing surgery.

So, the next day, Kita's owner called Dr. Adams, several times, and left a message, but never heard from him. "As such," the document says, the owner "was unable to retrieve Kita as planned,.:

Monday, the owner called Dr. Adams, who told the owner that he [Dr. Adams] would be coming home from visiting his sick Aunt that evening.

The next day (Tuesday), the owner called Dr. Adams, but was again unable to reach him. The Board notes that "On or about that same day, however, Dr. Adams, or his associate, discharged Skittles, a female cat that also had been a patient at the clinic, to her owner . . . "

The next day, Wednesday, the owner called Dr. Adams. If my count is right, this is now the SIXTH DAY on which the owner is attempting to get his cat back -- in other words, Kita has been at this place a whole week. However, the Board says, "Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his associate would be at the cinic that evening, and that he could retrieve Kita at that time. Later that day, Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his associate would not be going to the clinic that evening, and therefore, [the owner] could not retrieve his cat . . . "

The next day (Thursday -- a week and a day now) , the owner AGAIN tried to contact Dr. Adams and was unable to reach him. However, the Board notes, on that same day, Skittles owner brought Skittles back to the clinic.

Friday (a week and two days now!) the owner called Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams "informed him that he was attempting to track down his associate and would let him know if she would be at the clinic on Saturday, February 25th, 2006. Later that same day [the owner] unsuccessfully attempted to reach Dr. Adams by telephone."

Well, the next day (Saturday, now we are at 10 days . . . ) the owner called Adams, who informed the owner that he would be back in town the next day (Sunday) "come hell or high water."

So, on Sunday, the owner AGAIN called Adams, leaving messages, but never heard back from him.

On Monday, February 27th, the document says, "Dr. Adams assumed the care of 'Diamond' and 'Polar Bear,' two boxes . . . for complete physicals, vaccinations, and ear croppings. Dr Adams also spoke to [Kita's owner] that evening. Dr. Adams informed [Kita's owner] that his aunt had died (as noted previously, Dr. Adams had advised another client . . . that his Aunt in Baltimore had died on January 20, 2006). Although Dr. Adams was present at the clinic that day, he advised [Kita's owner] that he would have to wait until Wednesday, March 1, 2006, to retrieve his cat. [The owner] told Dr. Adams that this was unacceptable, and that he would be contacting the authorities, whereupon Dr. Adams abruptly ended the conversation."

Umm, does that mean he hung up on the owner?

"Dr. Adams later telephoned [the owner] and left a message stating that [the owner] could retrieve Kita on Tuesday, February 26th."

But Tuesday, the owner was again unable to contact Dr. Adams to retrieve Kita.

On Wednesday, March 1, the owner called Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams told the owner "that he finally would be back in town that day, and that [the owner] could retrieve Kita between 7:30-8:00pm. [The owner] teleponed Dr. Adams to confirm that he would be there, but Dr. Adams did not return his call." He was again unable to get his cat.

Finally, on Saturday, March 4th, "Officer Dana K. Shoup, Montgomery County Police, after receiving a complaint expressing concern about the welfare of certain animals being kept at the clinic, visited Dr. Adams' residence and clinic, located at 8337 Grubb Road, Silver Spring, Maryland. Officer Coakley accompanied her. After knocking on the doors and telephoning the residence and clinic, and getting no response, they made a forced entry, assisted by Montgomery County Fire and Rescue, and found Dr. Adams asleep in his bed."

"Dr. Adams advised that he had been out of town since Tuesday, February 28, 2006, because of a family emergency. After inquiring about Kita and other animals whose care he had assumed, Dr. Adams took the officers to the basement, where the clinic is located."

"Officer Shoup observed Kita in a cage without food or water. Dr. Adams stated that he had made arrangements with his daughter to care for Kita and the other animals, but was not sure if she had been to the clinic because he had not spoken to her for several days. Dr. Adams also advised that he had not been able to check on the welfare of the animals since Tuesday, February 28, 2006, and had not done so when he arrived home earlier that day.

"Dr. Adams had failed to note [Kita's owner's] name and telephone number in the patient's record. For this reason, the Montgomery County Police, Animal Services Division, were unable to notify [Kita's owner] that it had taken possession of Kita. [The owner] located Kita himself by contacting Montgomery County Animal Control."

OK, this is my county. If you knew the euthanasia rate for cats in our local shelter, the fact that this cat -- whose owner had been trying to retrieve her for over a week -- ended up in the hands of animal control would chill your blood.

The Board charged Adams with unprofessional conduct (for accepting this cat for surgery when he was told by his doctor that he was unfit for surgery); for failing to take steps to return Kita to her owner, for failint to provide basic care to Kita (including failure to ensure that she had adequate food and water).

They also charged him with neglecting Kita, and faiing to feed and water Kita according to her requirements.

But this story didn't just involve Kita. Because while Kita was being held against her owners wishes at Adams' clinic, there were other pets there too. Remember the mention of Diamond and Polar Bear, the boxers that Dr. Adams took in on Monday, February 27th (five days before the cops broke in . . . )?

And remember Skittles?

Well, these animals appear in the other two sets of charges against Adams.

First, Skittles:

On January 17th, Adams assumed the care of Skittles (a female cat) for a declaw, a spay, and shots.

The next day, (January 18th) Dr. Adams called Skittles owner and told her that he wanted to keep Skittles another day because she had ripped out the stitches from her declaw procedure and her paws were bleeding. Dr. Adams told Skittles' owner that "he was going to put a cone over Skittles' head to prevent her from licking her paws." But in fact, the Board days, Dr. Adams had never performed this procedure (declaw) on Skittles at all.

The next day (January 19th) Dr. Adams called Skittles' owner and told her that his Aunt in Baltimore had taken ill and that he had to go be with her. Dr. Adams told Skittles' owner he would call her when he got back so she could arrange to come get Skittles.

The next day (Friday, January 20) Dr. Adams called Skittles owner and told her that he would be staying in Baltimore but that he would be back the next day (January 21) and that he could come get Skittles then.

However, the next day (Saturday, January 21) he called Skittles' owner and told her that his Aunt had died the night before, an that therefore, he would not be back that day. Keep in mind that as we already read, a month later he told Kita's owner he was visiting his sick Aunt, and that she died on February 27th!!!

Anyway, on January 21, Adams told Skittles owner that his daughter was caring for Skittles.

The board says: "In a serious of telephone conversations with Dr. Adams over the next several days, [Skittles' owner] attempted to arrange for the return of her cat, but to no avail. When asked why his daughter would not be available to discharge Skittles, particularly since she was supposed to be caring for the cat, Dr. Adams stated that he could not contact her."

"On or about Thursday, January 26th, 2006, Dr. Adams informed [Skittles owner] that his aunt's burial would take place on Saturday, January 28th, 2006 and that he would be returning home on Sunday, January 29th, 2006 and that she could retrieve Skittles at that time."

Guess what happened though? Any guesses by now? YOU GOT IT . . .

"On or about Sunday, January 29, 2006 Dr. Adams informed [Skittles owner] that he would not be returning home that day because he did not have his car. He noted that he was meeting an Attorney on Monday morning, January 30, 2006, and that he would call her following that meeting."

This goes on another couple of days, and then the document does not say what communication transpired between Adams and Skittles owner between February 1 and February 15. The document says, "On or about Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Dr. Adams met with [Skittles owner]. Following a conversation she had with Dr. Adams, [the owner] agreed to let Dr. Adams keep Skittles so he could perform the requested surgeries" (spay, declaw).

The document goes on to say that he did perform the declaw (poor Skittles!) but he did not perform the spay.

On March 4th, when the cops broke into his house, Skittles was one of the animals they found, "in a cage without food or water."

The charges in this case were: unprofessional conduct for providing false information to his client (saying he had done the declaw when he talked to her on January 18th, even though he had not); for failing to take steps to return Skittles to her owner; for leaving Skittles without adquest food and water; for peforming surgery even though his doctor had deemed him unfit to do so. They also charged him with neglect for failure to feed and water Skittles based on her requirements.

Now on to Diamond and Polar Bear, the Boxers. According to the charging documents, when their owners brought them to Adams on February 27th, they paid Adams $700 toward their care and treatment, which was to include physicals, vaccinations and ear croppings. The document says that at intake Adams agreed to discharge Diamond and Polar Bear on Wednesday, March 1, following payment of the "remainder of the bill."

Of course, no surprise now, right? When the owners called on Wednesday night, Adams said he hadn't performed the services yet, because "he had been presented with an emergency case . . . a German Shepherd who had been struck by a car . . . " (What, no dying Aunt? All out of Aunts?)

He agreed to do the procedures and discharge the dogs on Friday, March 3rd. The owner called Adams on Thursday, March 2, and Adams did not answer. The owner couldn't leave a message because the mailbox was full. (Must've been Kita's owners' messages!)

Again, they called Friday and no answer.

On Saturday, the owner went to the clinic, and no one answered the door.

It was later that day that the cops broke in. The document says that "Officer Shoup observed Diamond and Polar Bear in one cage, covered with feces. She also observed that the dogs were without food or water. She noted that the dogs appeared malnourished."

By the way, Dr. Adams had never done the ear croppings. Wonder what happened with the $700?

In this case, Adams was charged with unprofessional conduct for accepting animals for surgery even though he had been informed that he was "no longer fit for surgical practice"; he was also charged with unprofessional conduct for failure to ensure care of Diamond and Polar Bear. He was also charged with neglect and failure to feed and water them according to their requirements.

Whew! Makes you wonder what would have happened if the cops HADN'T shown up, doesn't it?

So here we have a bunch of animals locked in cages without food or water, not being returned to their owners day after day in spite of repeated inquiries, "false" statements, and numerous charges of unprofessional conduct, and charges of neglect.

You'd think the board would take strong action, wouldn't you?

Instead, the Board dismissed the charge related to peforming the declaw surgery. (That was just one of several alleged instances of unprofessional conduct). For the rest of these charges, the Board suspended Dr. Adams license to practice for six months, BUT STAYED THE ENTIRE SUSPENSION.

That's right. Not ONE SINGLE DAY OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION WAS ENFORCED BY THE MARYLAND STATE VETERINARY BOARD IN THIS HORRIFIC CASE.

They prohibIted Dr. Adams "indefinitely" from practicing surgery, boarding and hospitalizing animals. But they explicitly asserted that Adams retains his ability to treat outpatients, although stating that the owner must be present.

Now, here is my question:

Was this man supposed to hold all those pets all that time? Of course not.

Did he make false statements to a client? According to the Board's document, yes he did.

Would any veterinarian with any kind of compassion for animals leave them in cages without food and water and/or covered in their own feces? Perhaps, but only if something were very wrong with either mentally or physically or both, IN MY OPINION.

So given all that, what reasonable expectation can the board have that Adams -- who retains his license -- is going to practice within these limits established by the board? He broke numerous rules and regs that were obvious in the first place. This was not one case, but THREE cases involving FOUR patients. Given that do you really beleive he will heed these purported restrictions on his license?

Moreover, do you think the BOARD believes it?

What they should have done, in my opinion, is ACTIVELY SUSPEND HIS LICENSE -- not allow him to practice. WHY did they not?

Was it sympathy for Adams?

Where is their sympathy for these animals?

Where is their sympathy for Maryland pet owners, and as importantly, for this mans patients?

The Board's Vision, according to its website, is:

"A State in which the public can be assured of safe practices by all licensed veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and veterinary hospitals."

Can Adam's clients be assured of safe practices by him, given the above?

I mean, he took $700 from a client and subsequently, those dogs were found in a cage without food and water and covered in their own feces, according to the charging documents. What kind of treatment is that?

To my knowledge, (and this is an educated opinion, because I have personal experience with the Maryland Board) they do NOT proactively send investigators to do unannounced checks on whether or not their "restrictions" are being adhered to. And even if they did announced inspections, good luck scheduling a meeting with this guy, looking at the incredible and torturous saga the owner of Kita went through trying to retrieve their cat.

They placed Adams on probation for 3 years.

NO FINES.

AND THEN . . .

They ended their decision by saying that in a mere six months from the order, Dr. Adams "may seek modification of this consent agreement and apply for reinstatement of his surgical priveleges and for the right to hospitalize and board animals." They did state that Adams would have to provide proof that he is mentally and physically fit to have those priveleges reinstated.

I remain baffled by their anemic response to this case.

The Maryland Board's website also states that their mission includes:

"effective discipline of veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and operators of veterinary hospitals under its jurisdiction, when warranted . . ."

Well, certainly you must agree that the prerequisite of "warranted" was met in this case.

But is what the board did "effective"?

Frankly, I think it's a joke, a joke that is anything but funny. Kita could easily have ended up euthanized as an abandoned animal in the hands of animal control, from what I can see. All while her owner has been calling practically daily to get her out.

And what would have happened to all of those pets had the cops not forcibly broken in? I think the ultimate outcome of inadequate or no food and water, over another couple of weeks, is clear.

ASK YOURSELF THIS: What if this had happened at a DAYCARE center?

Do you think that DAYCARE center would still be operating?

Ummm, I wonder if animal cruelty charges were ever filed against this guy?

South Carolina Vet Robert Moorhead: " . . . engaged in incompetent or negligent conduct"; does surgery on dog's leg without taking x-rays first

2008-09-13T09:40:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting that "bad vets" tend to maintain licenses in multiple states. Usually, these states are contiguous or near each other. But Robert M. Moorhead, DVM, had licenses in Colorado and South Carolina in recent years.

I also find it interesting how many "bad vets" either are involved, or get involved, in the horse business, after a history of violations on smaller companion animals.

In early Fall 2001, a pet owner brought his dog to Moorhead's clinic, after the dog had been struck by a car.

Moorhead did not have an x-ray machine at his clinic. But that didn't stop Moorhead from diagnosing the dog's injuries and proceeding with surgery, which he did the next day. According to the board document, Moorhead "performed an open reduction in which he inserted a pin into the femur and wrapped the break with wire mesh inside the leg."

Subsequently, the pin Moorhead had placed in the dog's leg started to come out. Moorhead then "removed the pin" (?? did that involve another surgery??) and "placed the dog's leg in a soft cast." The following month, the dog started to develop an open sore. The owner took his dog back to Moorhead, and Moorhead did ANOTHER surgery. According to the Board document, this time Moorhead:

"removed bone chips from the leg and inserted two pins from the stifle joint and into the femur."

Two months later (December), Moorhead examined the dog and sent him for x-rays at another clinic. The document does not say what these x-rays showed. It does not say what Moorhead saw on them, or if he even ever reviewed them.

Subsequently, on Christmas Eve, the owner ended up taking his dog to the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary Emergency clinic. On January 4, the dog's leg had to be amputated,

"because the leg had never healed, the hip joint had been broken, and the knee joint had been destroyed by the pinning procedure."

So, I'm sure that many of the same questions that come to my mind are in yours right now, such as:

"Was the dog's hip broken from the original accident, and Moorhead missed it and failed to do anything about it? If so, is this because he had no x-ray equipment and decided he could simply diagnose all the dog's injuries on exam alone? Or, did the dog's hip subsequently break because of stress from walking with a broken, improperly or inadequately pinned leg?"

"Was incompetent treatment on the part of Moorhead responsible for, or a contributing factor to, the dog ultimately having to have his leg amputated? Had he received more competent treatment, would he have been able to keep his leg??

The South Carolina Board found that Moorhead had failed to keep adequate records when he saw the dog in September and October. They go into some detail about the recordkeeping violations in their decision, including Moorhead's failure to document the type and amount of anesthesia given the dog.

Interestingly, they slip another citation into the document, referencing only the code violated. But unlike the recordkeeping violation, the South Carolina Vet Board doesn't bother to tell the reader what that section of code pertains to. Of this violation, the document says only:

"The Respondent has violated S.C. Code Ann. 40-69-140(1) (2001) in that the Respondent violated regulations of the Board, specifically, Regulation 120-6.1."

Hmm, what in the heck is 120-6.1?

Why do they gloss over that, without quoting what that violation is about, whereas -- by contrast -- they go into detail about the meaning of the recordkeeping violations?

This is supposed to be a public record. Yet, I believe, the way the Board has drafted this (and other) findings of fact, is a deliberate attempt to protect the offending vet, and a deliberate attempt to "hide in plain sight" the worst violations. To hide this from the public, specifically the pet owning public. To keep them from having this information as the basis of making decisions about Moorhead as a vet.

They know that most readers won't spend the time it takes (which can be SIGNIFICANT) to search through the South Carolina Code, find this section, and reference it so that they can interpret what it means.

But, this sneaky little citation is the most important one. And thanks to the Colorado Veterinary Board -- where Moorhead was also licensed -- we know what this violation means.

In 2004, the Colorado Vet Board disciplined Moorhead as a result of his South Carolina violation. Their order states:

"The South Carolina Board also found that the respondent . . . engaged in incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of veterinary medicine by failing to take preliminary radiographs to determine the best method of fracture repair in order to facilitate a complete return of function of the patient's leg."

Well, thanks, Colorado Vet Board: If it weren't for you, we might never have known the SC Board found him incompetent or negligent.

Just goes to prove that public records aren't always all that accessible to the public in all senses of the word.

However, we can't thank either the South Carolina Board OR the Colorado Board for taking anything like serious action in this case.

The South Carolina Vet Board suspended Moorhead's license to practice, but IMMEDIATELY stayed the suspension. "Stayed" means that not even one day of the suspension was enforced.

They put Moorhead on probation for 2 years with terms that include providing "quarterly reports of four cases" (presumably of his own choosing) to the Board, including one surgical case and four medical cases.

They also required him to retroactively RE-CREATE records for this case.

In other words, after finding him to have been negligent or incompetent, they are disciplining him by ordering him to do another surgery and submitting information about that.

They did, at least, order him to get an x-ray machine before doing this (or any other) surgery and to take 10 hours of continuing education in orthopedics and anesthesia, respectively.

And after finding him in violation of recordkeeping in this case, they are not merely inviting him, but ordering him, to retroactively create records for this patient nearly 2 years after-the-fact.

Gee, wonder how factual truthful, and accurate those records will be????

They fined him $500 and the costs of the investigation.

Colorado also suspended his license and immediately stayed the suspension, enforcing not one day of it.

They put him on probation for a little over a year or until the South Carolina order's provisions were met.

Oh, about that horse thing:

A websearch of Robert M. Moorhead finds this:

Robert Moorhead listed at Carolina Sport horses

Gee sport horses? I bet they have their share of orthopedic injuries. I'd be concerned about their care.

Links:

South Carolina Board Order

Other:

Colorado Orders:

Charles Maben Thompson: Sympathizer with Cruelty

2008-09-07T20:14:00.000-07:00

The vets in this country who practice veterinary medicine in a negligent, incompetent, or cruel way are in and of themselves a problem -- a pervasive disease in this country that kills and injures countless companion animals and devastates their human loved ones.

But there are vets worse than they. And these are the vets who excuse and protect them.

Such is Charles Maben Thompson, President of the Tennesee Veterinary Board.

Gallatin Tennessee Veterinarian William Baber -- in my opinion an evil man if ever one walked this earth -- was profiled in this blog in February of this year.

Read about him here.

To recap, Baber was a vet employed at the county shelter who killed shelter animals by taking them fully conscious and shoving a needle with lethal fluid directly into their hearts, often while they flailed. There is video of him stepping on a cat to keep it still enough for him to shove a needle into its chest while it desperately struggles.

Here is undercover video of him:

http://www.wsmv.com/video/14496229/index.html?taf=nash

This method of "euthanasia" is considered inhumane by the AVMA.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep08/080915y.asp

In spite of the fact that this story broke in November 2007, and Baber was charged with animal cruelty -- unsurprisingly to those of us who monitor veterinary boards all over the country -- not ONLY didn't the Veterinary Board take Baber's license away, the President of the Veterinary Board, C. Maben Thompson (Charles Thompson), had words of support and sympathy for Baber in a recent AVMA magazine article -- not for the poor tortured animals. Disgusting.

Baber was charged -- NOT by the vet board, but by local authorities -- with 12 misdemeanor counts.

Pathetic evil Baber is quoted in this article as saying "If you [the board] had a problem with it [heart shots on fully conscious animals], why didn't you say something to me?"

Um, Baber, evil moron, YOU should have had a problem with it, soulless demon that you are. YOU should have seen your own cruelty. YOU should have had a heart.

Maybe thats why you like to shove needles into the hearts of struggling animals so cruelly -- you are jealous, they actually HAVE hearts, which you don't.

But back to Thompson:

In this AVMA interview, Thompson says:

"I don't think there was ever intent by Dr. Baber—this is my personal opinion—to harm those animals,"

It is my opinion that this man is a lying sack of you-know-what. He knows damn well Baber intended to harm those animals. The AVMA considers this practice inhumane and anyone who watches these videos can clearly see how inhumane it is. You would have to be blind, deaf, and moronically stupid not to see this for what it is and KNOW that he KNEW exactly what he was doing. And I believe you do KNOW QUITE WELL.

Further, it is my opinion that these people -- both Baber and Thompson -- are nothing less than SOCIOPATHS, because sociopaths have no remorse or sympathy for others, including victims. They lack conscience. They rationalize everything and believe that they and/or their "profession" in this case are above normal morality or any rules or accountability at ALL.

Many of us have observed, and come to believe, that the veterinary field is rife with sociopaths. What a welcoming profession. Everyone adores you and thinks you wear a halo just because you are a vet. They deliver their pets to you in total trust. But behind closed doors you can do any cruel thing you want, and your victims can't talk. Not only that, your entire profession protects you. If you maim or kill, there is ZERO accountability and your colleagues will rush to your defense. You can weild a scalpal with impunity. You can step on poor homeless cats and shove needles into their hearts while they struggle. You can hit a dog and claim it was "necessary restraint." You can ignore suffering and then go lie to the owner and say you "did everything you could" and then hand them a bill for your cruelty. What a fabulous world in which a sadist and sociopath can have free reign.

This is the culture of cruelty and culture of deny and defend the abusers that RUNS the veterinary industry, folks.

But Thompson didn't stop talking there. He kept on. Did he express some regret or sympathy for those poor aninmals? No he did not.

Instead, he expressed sympathy, and seemingly solidarity, with Baber, saying:

" . . . he has suffered a great deal."

Oh poor man.

He further went on about how hard it is for vets to keep up with all the new informaton and guidelines that come out for their practices.

NO ONE NEEDS TO READ A NEWSLETTER OR GUIDELINE TO KNOW THAT THIS IS CRUEL. How outrageous, to make these kinds of excuses for the WORST of the WORST in your profession rather than to DO YOUR JOB and TAKE THAT MAN'S LICENSE AWAY.

Bad vets are bad vets, but the worst of the worst are those who are "leaders" in the profession, who set the standards (like Thompson) and who are entrusted to enforce regulations, but who in fact refuse to do so, excuse cruelty, and implicitly and explicitly send a message to ALL vets that IT IS OK TO ABUSE ANIMALS BECAUSE YOU ARE A VET AND YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND WE WILL PROTECT YOU.

Disgusting.

Inexcusable.

Evil.

Charles Maben Thompson, DVM

AVMA article: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep08/080915y.asp

Oh, and by the way: This article announces the disturbing news that Baber is now in private practice.

2 Counts of Substandard Care and 5 Recordkeeping Violations for Maryland Vet Richard Springer

2008-08-29T19:38:00.000-07:00

This entry is about Richard Springer, of Brandywine Animal Hospital in Clinton, Maryland.

In early 2005, an owner brought "her dog 'Baby,' a four-year old male Yorkshire Terrier, to Dr. Springer for veterinary care, believing that her dog was constipated. According to the Veterinary Board's charging documents, in her complaint against Dr. Springer, [the owner] noted that Baby had been 'acting strangely' and yelped whenever he was picked up. In his written response [to the complaint] Dr. Springer noted that Baby was presented for 'pain.'

"In his written response to [the complaint], Dr. Springer also noted the following: (a) Baby had never been to his office and had no history of being seen by a veterinarian in two years; (b) On physical examination of Baby, the noted 'a large fecal mass in [dog's] posterior colon"; (c) On visual examination of the dog's oral cavity, he noted a 'moderate tartar accumulation on most teeth, gingivitis, and probable periodontal disease'; (d) He could not obtain an accurate body temperature for the dog rectally; (e) Because of the dog's medical history, he made a differential diagnosis of canine disk diease, and decided to take an abdominal radiograph;" . . .

OK, pay attention to the next part . . .

"(f)Baby 'defecated and urinated freely and became temperamental when placed in a right lateral [recumbant position]; (g) Baby 'bit freely into the X-ray gloves'; (h) He noted that the radiograph was 'negative for obvious disk disease,' but showed a large air density in the [dog's] posterior colon;' and (i) He made '[a] diagnosis of colonic obstruction due to fecal impaction," and injected cortisone for inflammation, and then discharged the dog."

The Board goes on to say that the information Dr. Springer provided in response to the complaint did NOT appare in the patient record. They say that Springer did not record Baby's medical history and condition, did not record his diagnosis, did not record his treatment or the medications given to Baby, and did not record the "progress and disposition" of the case.

They further noted that Springer failed to meet standards for taking x-rays. Specifically they said that "For diagnostic purposes, a minimum of two radiographic views is highly recommended. For radiation safety purposes, the radiography should be limited to the specific area of interest. Neither standard was met . . . "

The Board adds -- pay attention here, and ask yourself what the implications are . . .

"Dr. Springer noted that Baby was an excited, fractious patient. In such cases, tranqualization or sedation of the animal may be necessary, unless contraindicated, to secure the radiographs, patient comfort, and handler safety."

So -- since he did get x-rays -- how then, did he get this fractious patient to lie in the right position and hold sufficiently still without any sedative? And what might his method of achieving this have to do with Baby's fractured jaw - if anything at all?

The Board continues:

"Having diagnosed that Baby was suffering from colonic obstruction due to fecal impaction, Dr. Springer's workup should have included a more focused examination to rule out colonic, rectal, or prostatic pathology. In the absense of an underlying disease, treatment should have included digital evacuation of the rectum-colun an/or administration of mild enemas. Dr. Springer has not provided any information indicating that he performed any of these procedures. Dr. Springer administered cortisone to treat inflammation, but such drug may have been contraindicated under these circumstances."

The Board also notes that Springer made no plan to treat the periodontal disease he identified.

The document goes on to say:

"When [the owner] went to the hospital's kennel area to help retrieve Baby from his cage, she noted that her dog's mouth was bleeding and in an open position. [The owner] asked Dr. Springer about this, and he told her that Baby was "Okay," that the dog had just cracked a tooth. If Dr. Springer examined Baby's mouth, he failed to note the severity of the injury the dog had sustained."

"After arriving home, Baby would not eat or drink . . . [the owner] also noted that that dog was unable to close his mouth. [The owner] called Dr. Springer and informed him of this problem, and asked that he examine her dog. Dr. Springer directed [the owner] to take Baby to Southern Maryland Referral Center located in Waldorf, Maryland."

The owner took Baby to another hospital, where the vet told her that Baby had a fractured jaw. He was sent to an emergency clinic where a "mandibular fracture" (broken jaw) was repaired.

Most of this detail does not appear in the "Consent Agreement," however.

The Board fined Springer $1,850. They suspended his license for 2 weeks, BUT STAYED THE SUSPENSION, which means that NOT ONE DAY of the suspension was enforced.

They placed him on probation for 6 months, but that probation is pretty meaningless, since the only term of the probation is to obey the regulations he already should have been obeying in the first place.

So -

How did Baby's jaw get broken?

And why did Springer tell Baby's owner that Baby was "Okay" and only had a cracked tooth when she arrived at the vet hospital to see her dog Baby bleeding from his mouth which was apparently hanging open?

Did Springer really not KNOW that Baby's jaw was fractured? (How unobservant, or ignorant, would he have to be not to know that?)

Or did he know it but just not say?

If the latter, why? Does it have anything to do with uh, Baby's "fractious" ness?

Dr. Kenneth Beasley's Chilling Texas Record

2008-08-21T18:24:00.000-07:00

Houston veterinarian Kenneth Beasley has three Standard of Care violations on his record. And to read the details is chilling.

On or about May 30, 1997, Kenneth V. Beasley, D.V.M., was presented with “Sandy” a five year old male Dachshund mix, at the Camden Veterinary clinic in Houston, Texas . . . [the owner] presented “Sandy” because the dog was not feeling well and had problems walking.

On or about the same day, Dr. Beasley examined “Sandy” and made a diagnosis of a heartworm infection and congestive heart failure. Dr. Beasley did not test for heartworms.

On or about the same day, [the owner] told Dr. Beasley that she would like to take the dog to her regular veterinarian for a second opinion and then temporarily left the examination room.

On or about that same day and upon [the owner’s] return to the examination room and shortly thereafter, Dr. Beasley told Ms. Estrada that he had given “Sandy” an injection of Ivermectin to treat the heartworm infection. The patient record of “Sandy” records a .1 cc injection of Ivomec. [The owner] did not agree to this treatment prior to its administration by Dr. Beasley. Sandy’s heart condition may have existed before the injection of Ivomec.”

[What the heck is that last statement supposed to mean? Ummm, whatever. Wait till you
hear the conclusion of the necropsy . . . oh, yeah, the dog dies.]

“On or about that same day, Dr. Beasley prescribed and dispensed Ivomec to [the owner] for the continued treatment of “Sandy’s” heartworm infection.

“ . . . Sandy began vomiting after being returned home. [The owner] subsequently presented “Sandy” to Charles Evens, D.V.M. and explained the treatment prescribed by Dr. Beasley. Dr. Evan’s examination of “Sandy” revealed a severe heart murmur, mild dehydration, anemia, and a heartworm infection. The dog was treated for the dehydration and anemia.”

“On or about June 1, 1997, “Sandy’s” condition continued to deteriorate and he was presented to David Wainwright, D.V.M., VCA Spring Branch Animal Hospital, Houston, Texas, as an emergency patient. The dog was presented with a history of red tinged urine. Dr. Wainwright’s examination revealed moderately severe dehydration, and mucus membrane pallor. A packed cell volume was completed (16%) to determine the extent of anemia. Dr. Wainwright administered subcutaneous fluids, Reglan, Cimetidine, and Prednisone. Doxycline was dispensed for home administration. A blood transfusion and hospitalization were recommended.

“On or about June 2, 1997, “Sandy” was examined by Tom Dayton, D.V.M., at Parker Road Animal Hospital, Houston, Texas. Dr. Dayton’s examination revealed a temperature of 100 degrees, grade IV heart murmur, pale mucus membranes and congested lungs. During treatment by Dr. Dayton, “Sandy” began having seizures and died.

“ . . . a necropsy was performed by Dr. Dayton and revealed the following: A visible lesion confined to the chest cavity, with heartworms in the pre and post vena cava, right ventricle and right article. All arteries of the lungs were impacted with heartworms. Dr. Dayton determined the cause of death to be an immediate kill of adult heartworms causing them to block the right aorta and arteries causing congestion in the lung tissue and high blood pressure with death.

“The product monographs for the various Ivomec injectables states that these medicines should not be used to treat dogs, and that such treatment may result in fatality.”

You’d think Beasley would be more careful with that drug after his previous run in with the vet board just a few years earlier, which also involved this same drug. But apparently not.

A few years earlier, the following occurred:

An owner “took his male collie ‘Laddie’ to the Camden Veterinary Clinic, operated by Kenneth V. Beasley, D.V.M., for yearly vaccinations and a heartworm check.

‘Laddie’ tested microfilaria [heartworm] positive. Dr. Beasley did not vaccinate ‘Laddie’ at that time but opted to treat for heartworms.

“Dr. Beasley administered one injection of ½ cc of Ivomec (ivermectin 1%) mixed with 2 cc of Albon with B12. Dr. Beasley dispensed to the owner 3 cc of Ivomec mixed with 2 ounces of Vi-Sorbin, to be given to ‘Laddie’ one dropper full, once a day for a month.

“The label attached to the medication dispensed . . . did not include the name, address and telephone number of the clinic, the dispensing veterinarian’s name, the client name, the quantity and strength of the product and precautionary statements, as required by Rule of Professional Conduct . . . By failing to properly label the medication . . . Dr. Ware violated Rule of Professional Conduct 573.40.

“By administering ½ cc Ivomec, equivalent to 5,000 ug, to ‘Laddie’ without weighing him, Dr. Beasley exceeded the 200 ug/kg toxic range for a collie weighing 22 kilograms. The medication was sufficient to cause toxicity in an ivermectin sensitive dog. Dr. Beasley also failed to advise his client to observe the collie closely for at least 8 hours after treatment because of the sensitivity of collies to ivermectin. This activity violated Rule 573.22, Standard of Humane Treatment.”

So are you guessing the same thing that I am guessing? That Laddie died too?

But we’re not done yet with the record of Dr. Beasley.

Because this still wasn’t Dr. Beasley’s first very sad and shocking violation.

In 1992 an owner brought his seven month old Chow mix, “Lady” to Beasley.

Lady couldn’t walk, and “She passed considerable amounts of bloody fecal material. Dr. Beasley diagnosed the dog with parvo and suggested euthanasia.”

“Dr. Beasley’s patient records reflect he administered an unknown amount of Benselmin wormer with Vi-Sorbin, orally; an unknown amount of Vitamin B12, Vitamin K, and Atropine. Dr. Beasley also dispensed 20 250 mg Ampicillin capsules. The patient records do not include dosages of medications administered and details necessary to substantiate diagnosis . . . Although Dr. Beasley instructed [the owner] to give “Lady” a mixture of 3-4 ounces of ½ Gatorade and honey every hour or so as often as possible, until the dog started eating, he failed to treat “Lady” for parvo with the same skill, care and diligence that would have been performed by the average veterinarian under same or similar circumstances. In particular, Dr. Beasley failed to give an adequate volume of parenteral fluids."

“The label on the container of Ampicillin dispensed by Dr. Beasley to [the owner] contained the following information only: “Lady, 1 capsule twice daily.” The label did not contain name and address of veterinarian; the client’s name; species; name, strength and quantity of drug dispensed.

“The activities described . . . violated Rule 583.22, Professional Standard of Humane Treatment, and Rule 573.22, Patient Record Keeping . . . “

For informaton on how parvo really should be treated, here are some resources:

Veterinary Partner.com re: Parvo

One woman's story about saving her parvo pup

Animal Health Channel on Parvo

Collies -- a breed susceptible to Ivermectin reactions

More ivermectin info

"Don't use Ivomec as heartworm preventative for dogs"

Marvistavet -- includes notice on dangerous use of Ivomec in dogs (Ivomec is for larger animals like farm animals)

Vet Margaret Metry of Virginia: A Cat Comes in for a Grooming, and Never Makes it out Alive

2008-08-19T20:44:00.001-07:00

How would you feel if you took your beloved pet into the vets for just a grooming, and instead of picking up your well groomed pet, ended up picking up her lifeless mortal remains?

That is what happened to the pet owner who took her cat Ciara in to be groomed at the Colonial Heights Veterinary Hospital in Colonial Heights Virginia in March 2007 and placed her under the care of veterinarian Margaret Metry.

According to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued by the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine:

". . . an individual brought 'Ciara,' a feline in for grooming. Dr. Metry informed the individual that the Ciara would have to be sedated for the procedure."

[umm, sedating a cat for grooming?????]

"Dr. Metry failed to ensure that Ciara was properly monitored after sedation as the cat was placed back in its carrier, which prevented proper monitoring of the animal's health."

That's all this document says. So how do I know Ciara died?

Because in the previous notice of informal conference, the Board says:

"You failed to ensure that Ciara was properly monitored after sedation resulting in no one noticing that Ciara had stopped breathing until she was removed from her cage. She could not be resuscitated."

Can you imagine how heartbroken her family must be?

The Board found that Metry had violated 54.1-3807(5) of the Virginia Code and 18 VAC 150-20-140(7), both of which relate to unprofessional conduct.

And to add insult to injury, all the Board did was give the vet a reprimand.

No fine.

No suspension.

Dead cat, totally needlessly as far as I can see.

And nothing more than a reprimand.

How terribly sad.

Links to disciplinary records:

Notice

Order

Michigan's Khalid Tirmizi: "Negligence or Failure to Exercise Due Care . . ."

2008-08-05T17:11:00.000-07:00

In January 2007, The Michigan Board of Veterinary Medicine entered into a Consent Order with Michigan Vet Kalid Tirmizi, as the ultimate result of a complaint filed against him in May 2005. Ironically, this very Consent Order simultaneously said that the Disciplinary Subcommittee "finds that the allegations of fact contained in the complaint are true,;" while nontheless dismissing one of the two allegations in the complaint. ??? How do you dismiss an allegation that you find to be true???? OK . . . .

As for the substance of the complaint . . .

Tirmizi was practising as a vet at Bloomfield Pointe Veterinary Hospital in Pontiac Michigan.

On November 21, 2003 . . . [dramatic pause for effect here . . . these events took place in 2003, and this order was signed in 2007. WHAT TAKES SO LONG???] . . .

"a. At approximately 2:30 p.m., a six-year-old feline owned by J.G. . . . presented to the Facility with a blue tongue, respiratory distress of unknown etiology and drooling from the mouth. The feline had been a patient of [Bloomfield Pointe Veterinary Hospital] for six years. [Tirmizi] performed a minimal physical examination and administered .25 cc of acepromazine along with atropine, dexamethasone, oxygen and intravenous fluids.

b. At approximately 6:00 p.m., [Tirmizi] called J.G. requesting that he pick up the feline because the facility was closing and it did not have overnight care available.

c. When J.G. arrived at [Bloomfield Pointe Veterinary Hospital] [Tirmizi] demanded payment for veterinary services performed and advised J.G. that he should euthanize the feline or take it to Oakland Veterinary Emergency Group, hereafter Oakland, in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

d. Subsequently, J.G. brought the feline to Oakland. Upon arrival at Oakland, a physical examination was performed and a chest x-ray was done. After a diagnosis of severe pulmonary edema and heart failure, efforts to stabilize the feline failed and the feline was euthanized on November 22 at approximately 2:30 a.m."

OK, so before we read what the board decided, let's think about all of this.

Tirmizi performed only a MINIMAL exam on a cat having so much difficulty breathing that his tongue was blue. Since he didn't perform a thorough exam, do x-rays, etc. then I assume he didn't know the cat was in heart failure. Which is not a good thing, because pets in cardiac failure have a difficult time processing fluids. And Tirmizi put this cat on fluids. Ultimately, the cat had severe pulmonary edema. Now, I don't know for sure, but I surmise that the IV fluids Tirmizi would have made pulmonary edema worse if the cat had it already, or even could have caused it in the case of heart failure.

I have no idea why he gave the drugs he gave (dexamethasone, acepromazine, atropine) but one thing is for sure: None of these appear in the recommended treatments I've found for heart failure in cats.

http://members.aol.com/jchinitz/hcm/treatmnt.htm

http://www.2ndchance.info/cardiomyopathy-cat.htm

http://www.petplace.com/cats/congestive-heart-failure-in-cats/page1.aspx

Now for what the Board found:

In their original complaint, the board said that:

Count 1: Tirmizi's "conduct, as set forth above, evidences a violation of general duty, consisting of negligence or failure to exercise due care, whether or not injury results, in violation of section 16221(a) of the Public Health Code . . . "

Count 2: Tirmizi's "conduct, as set fort above, evidences a departure from, or failure to conform to, minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing practice for the health profession, whether or not actual injury to an individual occurs, in violation of Section 16221(b)(i) of the Public Health Code."

However, when they entered into the Consent Agreement with Tirmizi, which wasn't signed until January 2007, they dropped/dismissed the second "standard of care" violation, in spite of language in the beginning of the document which states (without specifying exceptions) that "the allegations of fact contained in the complaint are true . . ."

For the remaining violation (negligence statute) they fined Tirmizi $1,000 and put him on probation for a year.

Links and references:

Michigan Bureau of Health Professions Announces Disciplinary Action against Tirmizi -
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/mdch_dar_020207_187694_7.pdf

Florida Vet Arrested for Animal Cruelty and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

2008-08-04T21:10:00.000-07:00

Southside Animal Clinic Veterinarian John Farah was arrested in Callahan Florida and charged with animal cruelty and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill, after he shot a dog.

When he shot the dog, he was at the Crawford Hunting Club in Callahan -- engaging in the favorite pastime of those animal-loving vets -- Hunting! Looking forward to shooting and killin him some animals, no doubt.

Teresa Wingate was out walking her dog CoCo, in an area near her home, adjacent to the Club grounds. Unfortunately, CoCo wandered under the barbed wire fence surrounding the club, and the dog was shot. The woman (owner) began screaming, and her husband heard her and came out.

Farah then appraoched them, with his shotgun.

According to the Times-Union, Keith Wingate (the husband) told investigators that he felt threatened because Farah became "irate and held the rifle in a way that pointed at him."

Confronting the dog owners, Farah denied shooting the dog. But according to the FirstCoastNews Article, "the sheriff's department determined he was the shooter."

So, I guess that also makes him dishonest, right?

Hmmm. A vet who likes killing animals and who doesn't tell the truth. Doesn't sound like someone you ever want to take your pets to, does it?

Links:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012308/met_239063826.shtml

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=100546

Alabama Vet and Auburn University Researcher Clinton Lothrop: His Experiments on Animals Led to PETA Undercover Investigation

2008-08-03T14:31:00.000-07:00

Is Clinton Lotrhop guilty of animal cruelty?

One thing's for sure: Regardless of the answer to that question, in the eyes of the law, he NEVER will -- never could -- be found guilty of animal cruelty. Why? Because he's an animal researcher, and they are EXEMPT from cruelty statutes in his state. But there is another thing about Lothrop that makes him different from many veterinarians who conduct research on animals: He also accepts paying clients for veterinary care. Experimental and expensive procedures that, according to PETA, have yet to save a life, and have separated pet owners from thousands of dollars ($14,000) while forcing them to pay for what is arguably the torment of their own precious pets who they want nothing more than to save.

So, is it animal cruelty?

Well, watch the PETA undercover investigative video of the lab he ran, and then make up your own mind.

You can watch the video here.

When you do -- keep in mind that some of the animals "treated" at this lab were owned companion animals -- loved by their families, who had turned to Lothrop in desperation for help with their dogs kidney failure. Lothrop's program offered kidney transplants, but PETA alleges that in addition to a transplant, the animals entrusted to Lothrop also got mistreated, tormented, and became victims of cruelty motivated by greed and experiments done with little regard for the animals well-being. PETA alleges that Lothrop et al were offering these procedures to companion animals in part to avoid being held to the Animal Welfare Act standards that apply to lab animals. In other words, that Act would have required them to treat lab animals at a higher standard than they treat paying clients' animals.

The video tape includes footage in which lab workers can be heard making comments, and which shows video of the dogs themselves.

One of the most horrible aspects of this video is the treatment of Cutie, a clients animal. Cutie’s owner had turned to them in hope that they could offer Cutie a kidney transplant that would help her.

But instead, this video shows rough, insensitive – and in my opinion abusive – treatment of the dog whose life was entrusted to them. Cutie's treatment is described in more detail on "stopanimaltests.com."

On tape, a technician describes how bad Cutie feels:

“I honestly thing that they should euthanize her because this is horrible, she vomited three times, she regurgited three times . . . she feels like crap.“

Another staffer admits:

“I don’t know if it’s [the procedure] been in her best interest . . .” but adds that from a “selfish” standpoint, it’s benefited her because she’s gotten better at using the dialysis equipment by using it Cutie.

You’d think they’d be grateful to cutie for their learning and treat her gently as they patient, especially as bad as she felt. But they didn’t. The video shows them holding Cutie on a table. Grasping her muzzle, one staff member angrily says to Cutie:

“If you keep doing that I’m gonna smack you in the head. Cutie, Hey, Stop! . . . Quit. Hey Hey Hey .. . whats this up front, what am I doin to your front here.”

Another mumbles:

“Damn bitch.”

These things are being said and done to a sick, dying dog. This is a dog so sick that she is vomiting repeatedly. As they staff member said, she felt "like crap." She would later die during a dialysis treatment, according to the investigator.

Yet, they speak meanly and gruffly to her, threaten to hit her, and call her a "Damn Bitch."

WHO, I ASK YOU, IS THE DAMN BITCH?

This is how they treated their patient, Cutie. This was Lothop’s lab. While I don’t know which voices on the video may be Lothrop’s, it all took place at his lab.

They had no more respect for their paying clients than they did for the dogs. One man (who appears to me to be Lothrop himself when I compare the picture of Lothrop on the Auburn website with the man on the video -- you see for yourself) explains that clients are charged for surgeries even if they are botched and the patient days, saying:

“If your surgeon fucks up your surgery he’s still gonna charge your ass.”

Explaining the difference between what he says to clients whose dogs die after his transplant surgery, and what he REALLY wants to say, an experimenter says:

“I’m sorry . . . [but what I really want to say is] Now get the FUCK out of here."

Staff are then heard laughing.

Is this the kind of treatment you want your pet to have?

People -- I gotta tell you, this is how some vets and their staff feel about you. They not only don't care about your animals, they have hostility toward them, and they mock you and think you a fool as they take your money and do horrific things to your pet.

And apparently, the kind of treatment that took place in Lothrop’s lab is emblematic of the WORST that is out there.

Does Lothrop have a problem with the way his staff treat patients? I see no evidence that he sees anything wrong with it.

Moreover, staff are heard instructing the investigator to keep their mouths shut about misuse of federal funds.

Then, a man (who once again, appears to me to be Lothrop himself based on comparing the video with the Auburn website pic) talks about how he moved funds around

"I had a set-up where I could just roll [federal grant money] into another account . . . where I was the only one that [knew about it] . . . and you could just sit on it."

Although the Morris Animal Foundation who provided some funds for the kidney transplant program audited the program and subsequently barred two experimenters (they don’t say if one of them is Lothrop) from receiving funds from their foundation, Lothrop continued to treat "client" dogs after that.

All of the pets brought their by clients for kidney transplants died during or shortly after these treatments, the article says. These desperate pet owners paid in many cases $14,000 for the procedure. Yet, see for yourself the kind of "care" they received.

He is still at Auburn, and still receiving referrals as a “veterinary expert.”

I have no reason to believe that his, er, philosophies about patient care have changed. Nor his ethics.

Why do this outrageous man and the other outrageous individuals working at this horrible place still have JOBS??????????

In my opinion, it is because well-funded university labs and renowned veterinarians -- even those whose ill treatment of animals is on video -- will never be touched by our government, not even those agencies whose very mandate it is to regulate them.

Animals have no votes, no money, no lobby. They have only you.

And apparently, these goons think nothing of exploiting you, the pet owner, and treating your animals badly. Understatement.

Case in point:

How did this ill treatment of animals at the lab come to light?

Did the University uncover it and do something?

Nope.

Did the US Department of Agriculture, which licenses this lab, take action on complaints thus leading to this investigation?

Nope.

It took PETA to do this.

OK, so PETA, right? I am ready for emails about them taking animals out of shelters, euthanizing them in trucks, and throwing their bodies in dumpsters. I find that horrific. I condemn it. I don't agree with it. Of course.

For good reason, PETA has its detractors among professed animal lovers.

But the fact remains that they are one of the only organizations that do these kinds of investigations. And these things must come to light.

The very institutions that are supposed to be ensuring proper treatment of our animals in settings like these appear to deliberately look the other way, if not give implicit assent, to this treatment. Only when a PETA or an HSUS acts on tips and FILMS the truth does anything get done. So give credit where it's due and ask yourself:

What's wrong with our government? What's wrong with our systems?

In a letter to the United States Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture, (web file dated Aprilo 2006), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) appealed to the Secretary to initiate an investigation of Clinton Lothrop, his colleague Glenn Niemeyer, and Auburn University's Scott-Ritchey Research Center within the School of Veterinary Medicine.

In this letter, PETA's Mary Beth Sweetland, Senior Vice President of Research and Investigations, wrote:

"A PETA investigator was hired as a research assistant in the laboratory of Drs. Clinton D. Lothrop and Glenn Niemeyer and worked there from February 14, 2005 to October 28, 2005. On Monday, February 28, 2005 our investigator began taping his days inside Lothrop's canine lab.

Enclosed with this cover letter you will find . . . . a complaint alleging violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) . . . [and] a DVD that shows alleged violations of the AWA that were caught on tape."

The letter's introduction outlines the alleged violations including:

Failure to provide prompt and appropriate veterinary care and euthanasia
Failure to avoid or minimize pain and discomfort during procedures
Failure to provide exercise and socialization
Failure to provide structurally sound housing for dogs
Failure to properly clean dogs enclosures
Failure to properly train employees
Failure to keep proper records
Fraudulent use of clients dogs in experimental procedures
Fraudulent use of Federal funds

PETA's shocking allegations include the following:

". . . a diseased, geriatric dog who was suffering from blindness and mobility and respiratory problems was used in experiments that researchers believed would kill him . . . "

". . . a dog who was in an advanced state of kidney failure was left to die for over a week before he was finally euthanized . . . "

" . . . a dog who underwent full-body irradiation was housed in a tiny cage, where she could not avoid her own vomit and excrement; and litters of puppies who were used in experiments by Iams died over a six-month period from an outbreak of canine brucellosis."

This document further describes bone-chilling allegations of Lothrop's treatment of the animals. Citing statements of a research assistant, Sweetland quotes:

". . . a research technician [recounted] witnessing dogs 'screaming' in pain when large needles bored through their bones; Lothrop conducted a bone marrow extraction on a dog using a needle with a burr on it, breaking the needle on the dog's bone and repeating the painful procedure; vet students described Lothrop's incompetent manner of drawing blood from animals, imitating stabbing motions while explaining: 'Lothrop harpoons them . . . He sticks [the needle] in and he's like, 'OK [the vein] could be over here . . . alright, well, it's not there, how about over here?"

The letter contains numerous other startling allegations, including that Lothrop has been breeding dogs with genetic mutations at his home and them bringing them into the lab to experiment on them; they also assail Lothrop and colleague Micheal Tillson's canine kidney transplants, which have been offered to and performed on companion animals at a cost, they say, of approximately $15,000 each. PETA alleges that all of the dogs who underwent this procedure "died horrible deaths within a very short time of undergoing the transplants - a result expected by Lothrop and Tillson, who seem to be exploiting clients dogs in an attempt to sidestep AWA [Animal Welfare Act] requirements and who are certainly using client funds to bolster what they refer to as their 'slush fund.'"

Lothrop and Tillson ran the kidney transplant laboratory. Tillson was married to a woman who works for Iams. Iams cruel animal experiments have long since been revealed.

Shocking, isn't it? Why would Big Wig, Famous Vets working at one of our nations few veterinary schools actually be tormenting dogs?

It might shock people to know that in many veterinary programs in the United States, veterinary students are required not merely to TORMENT animals as a part of their training, but also to needlessly kill them in what are called "terminal surgeries.

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights compiled a report in 2000 on the use of animals in our nations veterinary schools. While this report was for the 1998-1999 school year, and one would hope things have improved since then, nonetheless these types of surgeries continue.

In that year, veterinarians in training at Auburn University conducted 267 "Terminal and Detrimental" surgeries on animals.

"Detrimental" procedures were those procedures that caused short-term or permanent, minor or major harm to an animal without the goal or possibility of improving the individual animal's health or well-being. Examples included, but were not limited to, surgery on healthy animals; invasive medical diagnostics without the medical justification for performance or intent to treat abnormal findings; terminal procedures on healthy animals . . . protocols that involved the killing of an animal to be used as a cadaver for a procedure(s)."

"Terminal procedures were those procedures that resulted in the death of the animal, regardless of the health of the animal or the outcome of the procedure . . . "

In spite of these shocking revelations, Lothrop continues to be highly regarded in his field and continues to hold a Sr. Scientist position at the Auburn's Research Center.

And I would assume that he has not been charged with animal cruelty, in spite of this tape.

You see, our laws make sure that vets can be as cruel as they wanna be -- veterinarians are exempt from animal cruelty laws in a majority of U.S. States. While my reading of Alabama's cruelty statutes does not lead me to conclude that Alabama is one of them, there is another reason that Lothrop and his goons would be exempt:

The cruelty statutes in Alabama exempt: "Academic and research enterprises that use dogs or cats for medical or pharmaceutical research or testing."

You see, the people with the money always make sure that the laws can't be applied to them.

Advice to pet owners:

When you take your pet to an expensive, educational veterinary center where experimental treatments are offered, ask yourself: Is it possible that my money is underwriting cruelty -- not only to other pets, but also to my own.

And once you've asked that question, try to do some research to indeed arrive at an answer, before your beloved animal gets the treatment Cutie and the other doomed patients got.

In particular, if anyone ever recommends you seek help from Auburn University, read PETA's summary of the "10 Things That are Very Wrong at Auburn," and think again.

1. Dog guardians are misled about their animal companions’ almost non-existent chance of survival and the pain and misery that they will have to endure from the irradiation and surgery.
2. The kidneys of “mismatched” dogs are switched, and the dogs die.
3. Transplant veterinarians mock grieving guardians behind their backs.
4. AU veterinarians charge approximately $14,000 for each surgery and put the money into a “slush fund.”
5. AU staff members do not know how to properly perform kidney dialysis treatments (using a dialysis machine) for which clients are charged vast sums of money, so the staff members don’t know if the dog’s blood is being cleared of toxins.
6. Dogs used in kidney transplant experiments suffer greatly without receiving proper veterinary care or euthanasia.
7. Dogs go insane from being kept for years in cages without being walked or given any attention.
8. Dogs come down with heartworms because they are not given a basic preventive medicine.
9. A government grant for an unrelated experiment is used to conduct dog transplants.
10. Dogs in critical condition are left unattended."

Now for my opinion:

The people shown in this video, including Lothrop, are clearly, evidently, OUT-and-OUT SADISTS who, in a just universe would suffer the torments of the inner circle of hell for their horrendous torment of innocent animals and their soulless mockery of the people whose money they take and who love their pets.

I did, however, say in a just universe. Which we clearly do not live in.

I believe these people are MONSTERS. They aren't good enough to lick the toenails of the poor animals they torment. Every breath they take is a waste of good oxygen.

Links:

Video of horrific things being done at Lothrop's Lab

PETA's letter to the USDAhttp://www.stopanimaltests.com/pdfs/AU_USDA_Cover_letter.pdf

PETA Press Release http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=9071

Announcement that Morris Animal Foundation had Barred Auburn Researchers from Future Funding http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/834958

Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights -- Statistics on the Needless Killing of Animals at Veterinary Schools

Alabama Vet Board Watch Site. This site is maintained by a consumer who lost her pet after a surgery conducted to find an intestinal obstruction that wasn't there. This surgery had, according to her site, been originally recommended by Lothrop. Although Lothrop is not the subject of the complaint, this pet owner alleges that this surgery contributed to the death of her dog. The veterinary board dismissed the complaint. Read and judge for yourself.

Clinton Lothrop's Page at Auburn. Take a good look at him, then watch the video of the chamber of horrors, see if you can pick him out.

More experiments conducted by Lothrop

Cat experiment - Quote: "We reconstituted four cats that had been lethally irradiated with autologous bone marrow that had been infected with the N2 or SAX retroviral vector"

Harold Hill and Alpine Veterinary Hospital in Alpine CA: Inspections show "serious health threat to animal patients, their owners, and staff"

2008-07-26T10:11:00.000-07:00

Shockingly, in spite of a history of prior violations, and several inspections which showed shocking and dangerous conditions, this story ends with the California Veterinary Board re-instating the suspended operating license of Alpine Veterinary Hospital, and then "staying" a revocation of that license, allowing the business to keep operating, albeit "on probation." I think that the history of this place should give serious pause to any one who lives in the area, uses this business, or ever even has thought of doing so.

Why?

First of all, at the time of these violations, Harold Hill had been the managing veterinarian at Alpine Hill since April, 2004. He already had a history of violations.

In 2002, he was cited for "violation Business and Professions Code sections [which relate to] fraud, deception, negligence or incompetence in the practice of veterinary medicine" and "failure to properly register a place of practice." He was fined only $300. In 2004 he was cited for violation regulations pertaining to both record-keeping AND ANESTHESIA. In keeping with the veterinary boards' often baffling history of punishing subsequent violations even more lightly than the one before, he was fined only $250 for that latter violation.

Then came the inspections.

In September 2005 a complaint was filed with the Veterinary Board stating that Alpine Veterinary Hospital was very unsanitary.

The Vet Board sent an inspector, who found that:

". . . the facility was far below the minimum standards and a serious health threat to animal patients, their owners, and the staff that worked there. The condition wa2so poor that it could not be remedied without substantial work and renovation."

Moreover, at the time of the inspection, there was NO veterinarian on the premises, and the inspector observed a unlicensed staff member performing veterinary medicine without a license.

As a result of this inspection, on November 16th of that year, an "interim suspension" was issued to both Harold Hill, DVM, and Alpine Animal Hospital itself.

The inspector went back for a recheck on November 25th, finding that "the condition of the facility was still below the minimum standards and a serious health threat to animal patients, their owners, and the staff . . ." Hill was again not present at the facility, and it is noted that he had not been there for months, and no one knew how to reach him.

What were the details of the dangerous and unsanitary conditions? Here are some excerpts:

"The surgical room was extremely unsanitary . . ."

"The floors, tables and counters in the surgical room were unsanitary. Paint was peeling off the walls and there were holes and leaks in the ceilings, dust on everything, and clutter everywhere . . . "

"The reception room was unsanitary and the lighting was too dim . . . "

"Non-surgery related items were left in the surgical room and there was no proper place for surgery . . . "

"There was no emergency light in the surgical room . . . "

"Oxygen equipment . . . was not properly maintained."

"The exposure and developing techniques for x-rays were unnacceptable . . . "

"There was no centrifuge for adequate blood preparation to ensure qulaity readings, there were also no other available basic and/or emergency lab tests on site, therefore, the laboratory services were unnacceptable . . . "

"Exercise runs . . . have wood floors . . . "

"Emergency drugs were not properly maintained . . . need to replace expired drugs . . . "

"Resuscitation bags were not properly maintained . .. Need to buy ambu-bag."

"Failed to post sign indicating 'no staff on premises overnight' . . . "

"Improper x-ray identification . . . "

"Improper hazardous waste disposal . . . "

"Inadequate anesthetic monitoring . . . "

"Failure to follow proper sanitary surgical procedures . . . "

". . . the consultant observed employee Dawn McKinney practising veterinary medicine without a license. The consultant observed Ms. McKinney perform an examination, provide treatment, and prescribe medication for the dog. The consultant confirmed that Ms. McKinney is not licensed by the California Veterinary Medical Board to practice veterinary medicine, nor is she certified as a Registered Veterinary Technician . . . "

There is more . . . but do you need more?

It seems odd to me that anyone walking into this place wouldn't have had a huge feeling of danger and walked right out with their pet. However, some people are very trusting, or may have had the kind of relationship with this place that caused them not to realize what was happening over time. And surely, no one who took their pets there knew the dirty little secrets of the surgical suite.

This story ended with Harold Hill surrendering his license, but Alpine Hospital is still in business.

Would you EVER go there? I sure woudln't!

California Vet Board Newsletter Announcing Disciplinary Action

VCA Vet Marjorie Field Wraps Dogs Throat and Head Too Tightly; Dog Dies of Suffocation (Michigan)

2008-07-22T19:36:00.000-07:00

This is one of those rare cases that actually made it to court.

Here is an excerpt from the opinion of the court:

"Plaintiff [John Koester] left his dog at defendant VCA's kennel for a weekend. Plaintiff left explicit instructions not to use a collar on the dog because of a salivary gland problem for which VCA had previously treated the pet. Upon returning for the dog, plaintiff noticed that the dog's neck area was swollen. Within a few days, when the dog continued to exhibit swelling in the neck area, plaintiff returned to defendant VCA. Defendant [Marjorie] Field, a veterinarian, treated the dog by draining its enlarged gland and bandaging its neck and head. When plaintiff returned to pick up his dog after the procedure, he noticed that the dog appeared to have trouble breathing and asked defendant Field whether the bandages were too tight. Field responded that the dog would be fine once it calmed down. Later that same day, plaintiff left the dog alone for ten to fifteen minutes to run an errand. When plaintiff returned home, he discovered the dog laying motionless on the floor, having apparently choked to death. An autopsy determined that the dog suffocated to death because the bandages were wrapped too tightly."

Unfortunately, the Court did not award Koester the damages he sought for emotional distress. However, the facts of the case are there for all to see.

What kind of emotional distress do you think he suffered, contemplating his dog suffocating to death? Strangled to death by bandages wrapped too tight? What kind of emotional distress would YOU suffer?

So, here is another question: Did vet Marjorie Field move to Ohio after this case, and did she continue to practice NEGLIGENTLY?

A web search of "Marjorie Field, DVM" brings up 2003 minutes from the Ohio Veterinary Board, discussing investigation into a complaint against "Marjorie Field, DVM."

Links:

Case Details, Koester vs. VCA Animal Hospital

Citation among list of animal law cases

Actual Case Document

Maryland Vet Jayne Tung Recommends Euthanasia Base on her Wrong Diagnosis

2008-07-09T21:08:00.000-07:00

In April of 2007, 11-year old Irish Setter "Maire" was brought to see Dr. Jayne Tung.

The Maryland Vet Board states that "Dr. Tung misread a radiograph of "Maire" on April 13, 2007 . . . [and] as a result of her improper reading of the radiograph, Dr. Tung incorrectly diagnosed "Maire" as having cancer, and . . . Dr. Tung recommended that "Maire" be euthanized and did not discuss alternative treatment options with "Maire's" owner . . . Dr. Tung . . . [did not conform] to the minimal standards of care and treatment which are customary among veterinarians in this State."

Like so many Maryland Vet Board findings, this document leaves the reader with many questions.

Was Maire euthanized by her owners based on this misdiagnosis and the resultant recommendations of Dr. Tung?

Was she therefore euthanized unnecessarily?

The board refers to alternative treatment options . . . for what????? The cancer that Maire didn't have?

I am sure that if Maire didn't have cancer, her owner(s) would certainly have wanted to explore alternatives other than DEATH.

The Maryland Board fined Dr. Tung $600. Although they suspended her license for 2 weeks they "stayed" the entire suspension -- meaning that it was not enforced and she would not have missed a day of work. They placed her on probation for only 6 months.

A web search today on Dr. Tung didn't turn up an veterinary hospital affiliation on the first couple pages of results.

It did, however, turn up an association with our illustrious FDA. (Office of Surveillance and Compliance, to be exact.) Ah, the famously competent protectors of our pets' food supply, and our own. I bet they run out and hire every vet prone to misdiagnosis. Seems Tung isn't so good at surveilling -- at least not surveilling patient ex-rays; and not so good at complying -- with standard of care that is.

No wonder the fabulous FDA wanted her.

Alabama Vet Jerry Handley Fakes Burglary, Sets His Clinic on Fire Killing 2 Dogs and 5 Cats in the Ruse

2008-07-05T21:54:00.000-07:00

This is a story that epitomizes how vets can lie -- lies so bald-faced, so immoral, that one is left to ask: "Is this man a sociopath?" Lies in which the vet is the hero or martyr, whose heart bleeds for animals, when the truth is -- he is a killer of animals.

This is also a story of how eager the veterinary community, and the press and community at large are, to buy into this false heroic image of veterinarians.

On April 24th, Alabama veterinarian Jerry Handley reportedly called his wife, saying he'd been shot by an intruder to his animal clinic, Handley Animal Clinic. The wife called 9-11, and when officers arrived, the building was ablaze.

The account of events was told in the publication "DVM 360," and the hero-making characterization of the approach is evident, as they paint the portrait of Handley:

DVM 360 wrote:

"Dr. Jerry Handley grabbed the gun from his truck before entering his rural Alabama practice by way of the back door, already ajar. . . . he never expected to encounter a man 6 feet tall and weighing at least 230 pounds. The intruder smelled of grease, like a mechanic, with dark hair and a tribal tattoo on his right bicep, Handley says. 'I was shocked. I didn't know anyone was there, to be honest. I just walked in,' Handley recalls of the April 24 attack that reduced his practice to ashes and nearly killed him. "Just when I realized something was wrong, someone from behind hit me in the back of the head." The blow from a second intruder stunned 51-year-old Handley, giving the assailant time to snatch the veterinarian's gun and shoot him in the arm and leg."

Painting himself as an animal-loving victim, in this article, Handley is quoted as saying: "I thought I was going to die," Handley says. "I kept blacking out. Fire was all around me. I could hear my cats crying, I just couldn't get to them." Eight animals — seven owned by Handley— died in the blaze."

Except . . . Handley's account of what happened was a fiction.

Handley later admitted that he had staged the whole thing. There never was an intruder -- and he'd shot himself as a part of this charade. He poured gasoline throughout his clinic, with two cats and five dogs inside, and set fire to it.

According to the Gadsden Times, as quoted on PetAbuse.com, the local Sheriff said that Handley may have done this to collect insurance money.

In spite of Handley's willful actions, the Sheriff is quoted in the article as having said: "He didn't intend for it [the fire] to get the animals."

OK, riddle me this: After the insane whoppers this man has told, can you please explain to me how he can have 7 animals caged inside his clinic, pour gasoline all over his clinic, set fire to it, shoot himself in the arm and leg . . . and yet he claims he "never intended" to kill the animals?

Are we still so DESPERATE to paint vets as heros, victims and martyrs, that someone is going to believe that ludicrous disclaimer after these horrible acts and mind-bogglind lies?

Perhaps even more disturbing to me than Handley's actions themselves are the fawning, idolatrous tone of the original veterinary article retelling Handley's outlandish tale, and the fact that the Sheriff and his community are even now, after the horrible truth has come out, still seemingly inclined to continue believing his statements, and extend their sympathies to him.

This man set fire to his own clinic, nearly pulled off a total scam, lied such lies that I frankly believe he must be a sociopath, and most importantly, killed 7 animals in a fire he set.

Will he be held to account for this travesty?

Jerry Handley has been charged with 7 counts of felony animal cruelty, second degree arson, and a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report. On May 30th, Handley was released on $100,000 bond and ordered to a mental health facility.

Handley will be arraigned on July 31st.

Links:

DVM 360 Article with Update

PetAbuse.com Articles and Updates

Robert Hewitt, South Carolina: Just a Record-Keeping Violation? Or something more. . . .

2008-07-01T20:01:00.000-07:00

As I have mentioned previously here, often times veterinary boards choose to find veterinarians in violation of record-keeping statutes, when -- by reading the facts of the case in the document -- one is left to wonder if more serious things may not have occurred. This is the case with South Carolina Vet Robert Hewitt, of Hewitt Animal Hospital in Florence, South Carolina.

In 2004, the South Carolina Vet Board issued Findings which included the following:

"A canine by the name of Nikki was presented . . . [to Hewitt] . . . for treatment . . . [Hewitt] recommended and performed surgery on the animal, removing a splenic mass." Nikki was discharged later that day and her owner was told to come back the next day for IV fluids. "When the owner returned one or two days later, another veterinarian . . . [said that Nikki] did not require fluids at that time. The owner of the animal testified that the animal's condition worsened, and after not being able to contact [Hewitt] she took [Nikki] to the veterinarian who was providing weekend coverage for [Hewitt]. It was recommended by this veterinarian that [Nikki] remain at his clinic overnight and when the owner returned the following day to retrieve [Nikki], [Nikki] died shortly after after the owner arrived."

"The State alleges that [Hewitt] recommended and performed surgery on [Nikki] without first performing an adequate pre-surgical examination. Additionally, the State alleges that [Hewitt] failed to record in the patient's records some of the procedures that were performed, and failed to provide the animal with adequate post-surgical care. To substantiate the allegations, the State presented testimony from several witnesses, including an expert in the area of small animal veterinary medicine . . . the State's expert also opined that [Hewitt] failed to perform an adequate pre-operative evaluation of [Nikki], and that this failure fell below the standard of care." The document goes on to say that Hewitt asserted that he did perform a pre-operative exam, but just didn't record it in the records.

Hmmmm.

As a result of these assertions on the part of Hewitt, the Board did not find that he failed to perform an adequate pre-surgical exam. They said: ". . . the Board is concerned about the post-surgical care provided by [Hewitt]. However, the Board does not believe that any post-surgical negligence by [Hewitt] rises to the level where discipline is warranted."

They found him in violation of record-keeping only.

They gave him a penalty of $200 and required him to pay investigative costs of $1,000.

Interesting, the State fails to agree with its own experts.

Links:

South Carolina Board Order in the Case of Robert Hewitt

The Colorado Vet Board Sucks: Tells Konishi -- Yeh, Go Ahead and Retroactively Create Medical Records!

2008-06-25T17:45:00.000-07:00

In human medicine, it is estimated that only a very small percentage of those individuals harmed by medical errors or malpractice ever file a complaint or sue.

I feel certain that the same is true in the veterinary realm.

As a rule, something pretty bad has to happen for a pet owner to go through the time and trouble to file a complaint with a vet board -- a process which holds no promise of recompense, but is done to call attention to what the complainant believes to be practices that are dangerous for pets.

So, as I read the Colorado Veterinary Board's "Stipulated Letter of Admonition" admonishing veterinarian Benjamin Konishi, the question that I ask is: "What happened to the horse to compel the owners to file a complaint????"

The answer may be in the board's comments, brief and cryptic as they are:

" . . . the Board found that you failed to properly keep records. The board also found that you treated a horse whom was laterally incumbent [sic], which increased the animal's vulnerability to aspiration and pneumonia as a consequence of the treatment."

Did the horse get aspiration pneumonia as a consequence of the vet treating this horse while he was "laterally incumbent" (I'm quite certain this should have been RECUMBENT. No, the vet board doesn't seem to have a great command of english . . . .)

This seems to me to be implied.

The Colorado Vet Board found that Konishi had violated two statutes of the Veterinary Practice Act. They cited the numbers of those statutes in the "Letter of Admonishment" -- "C.R.S. 12-64-111(1)(a)" and "C.R.S. 12-64-120(3)(b)". Of course, no consumer would know what those numbers meant -- and in this document, the board doesn't bother to tell them. You would have to cross-reference this document with the actual statues to know what violations they found Konishi committed. This is one of the reasons the Colorado Vet Board sucks -- this document is very unfriendly to the viewing public, not forthcoming with information.

Here is what those violations mean --

The first violation -- the violation of 12-64-111(1)(a), means that Konishi committed:

"An act or omission which fails to meet generally accepted standards of veterinary practice.”

The second violation -- the violation of 12-64-120(3)(b), means that Konishi violated the provision that states:

“All practicing veterinarians . . . shall maintain accurate records for every new or existing client-patient relationship . . . Animal patient records shall justify the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment administered or prescribed and shall be legible, written, printed, or prepared electronically as unalterable documents. Records shall be prepared in such a manner that any subsequent evaluation of the same animal patient would yield comprehensive medical, patient, and veterinarian identifying information. Records shall be maintained for a minimum of three years after the animal patient’s last medical examination.”

Here is another reason why the Colorado Vet Board sucks:

In spite of finding Konishi in violation of these statutes, and implying that his actions put the horse at risk for pneumonia, the board had only two requirements for Konishi:

The second was that he complete 6 hours of continuing education in acute abdomen diagnosis. (Hmmm, does that mean he also misdiagnosed this animal???)

The first was very outrageous. The vet board ordered Konishi to "Write records in connection with this case within 12 months."

EXCUSE ME???????? You are finding him in violation of record keeping rules and then you tell him to RETROACTIVELY CREATE RECORDS for the case that spurred the complaint and you give him a YEAR TO RETROACTIVELY CREATE RECORDS?

EXCUSE me, he was supposed to have records that are UNALTERABLE . . .already.

The statute says that the record must "justify the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment administered or prescribed . . . " yet they state that he administered the treatment while the horse was "incumbent" which increased his risk of pneumonia -- so either he lies in the records he creates and makes it look like he didn't do those things, OR he violates this statute all over again by failing to meet its "justification." Also, the board ordered him to take a class in diagnostics. Did he misdiagnose this patient? If he did, and you are asking him to RETROACTIVELY CREATE A RECORD UP TO A YEAR LATER, does he RECORD his misdiagnosis??? (If he does, then he violates the statute because he won't be able to justify the diagnosis . . .). But if he doesn't, THEN HE'S CREATING INNACURATE RECORDS!

This is all they did. No fine.

And an incomprehensible order to retroactively create non-existent patient records that either do, or do not, accurately describe what actually occurred.

Pfft.

With friends like the Colorado Vet Board, Colorado's pets sure don't need any enemies.

Disciplinary Action vs. Benjamin Konishi:

Links

Colorado Regulatory Decisions:

Board Orders

Colorado Veterinary Practice Act

Video on the Perils of Veterinary "Care"

2008-06-22T21:35:00.000-07:00

Jan Rasmusen, canine health advocate and educator, author of the award-winning book "Scared Poopless" has released a compelling video that I recommend to all readers. While this blog post isn't about a particular bad vet, Ms. Rasmusen's video covers most of the common instances of vet care gone wrong, including over-vaccination, the veterinary profession's conscription in the pharmaceutical and pet food sales industry, and the perils posed to pets left overnight without qualified supervision at clinics all over the country -- just to name a few.

This incisive short and educational piece looks at "profit-driven and outdated methods of care."

Ms. Rasmusen articulately points out one of the chief reasons our pets become so vulnerable in the hands of vets -- our own trust in those vets. Rasmusen says:

"Most of us trust our vets wholeheartedly, because we see dog care as too complicated for mere mortals, we happily abdicate our responsibility as our
pets advocate in favor of our vet's perceived wisdom."

To hear many good reasons why you shouldn't abdicate that responsibility, watch the video.

You can also visit Rasmusen's website at http://www.dogs4dogs.com.

Tennessee: Charles Thompson; Tiffani Rogers; Joseph Kendrick; Janet Jones; Bryan Bondurant; James Lyons; Ron Wilson; and Elizabeth Miller

2008-06-16T20:33:00.003-07:00

These people are the WORST OF THE WORST. They are the BAD VETS (and a tech, and a bureaucrat)who make all the other BAD VETS possible.

They are the members of the Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medicine, and they JUST GAVE THE HORRIBLE BUTCHER BILL BABER his license back!

These people are sending EVIL VETS out into the community -- in this case a vet who has been CHARGED WITH ANIMAL CRUELTY FOR ACTS of CRUELTY AND INSENSITIVITY THAT strain human comprehension.

Baber -- former Gallatin TN Shelter vet -- was videotaped in the shelter performing illegal and inhuman euthanasias -- directly shoving needles of deadly solution into the beating hearts of fully conscious struggling animals. FULLY CONSCIOUS, I REPEAT.

Having previously suspended his license, and having called him an "eminent threat to public safety" just months ago, this group of people NAMED ABOVE have decided to LOOSE the HORROR that is BILL BABER back onto the innocent animals of Tennessee.

To understand the HORROR that is BILL BABER (William Baber), you must watch this video:

Video
Video -- Story on the HORROR SHOW that is WILLIAM BABER the EVIL VET

I warn you: This video shows a cat struggling as it is pushed down onto the floor using a catch pole, then shows Baber stepping on this cat -- fully conscious and struggling -- after which he bends over to shove the needle in her heart, while the animal is is fully conscious, freaking out, and stuggling!

It also shows, torturously, dog after dog after dog, walking into Baber's death room, tail wagging, eyes trusting, only to be hoist upward by an assistant and held, chest exposed, flailing, as Baber callously and emotionlessly shoves a needle of solution directly into their hearts.

One witness says that the heart shots were sometimes done so fast that he missed the heart.

“They scream, I’ve actually just seen them stagger everywhere, underneath his feet, down the hallways, finally [they] just collapse.”

In another interview, a source said:

“He hits them with the needle. They flip. They flop,” said a source who didn’t want his identity disclosed to the public. “They’re just basically going nuts. They’re yelping.”

I have blogged about Baber here before:

http://badvetdaily.blogspot.com/2008/02/todays-bad-vet_21.html

Below are more links for you at the end of this post.

If you do only one thing this week,

WRITE THE MEMBERS OF THE TENNESSEE VETERINARY BOARD and tell them what EVIL they do by giving this heartless, cruel, horrifying, facsimile of a human a VETERINARY LICENSE TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR ANIMALS.

They have given him a LICENSE TO KILL AGAIN.

Here is the address of the Tennessee Board of Veterinary Examiners:

227 French Landing, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37243

Each and EVERY one of them is PERSONALLY culpable for EVERY cruelty to be perpetrated by William Baber, because they have the power to stop it, and they choose not to.

IT IS THESE PEOPLE FOLKS -- THESE PEOPLE -- who make ALL the other BAD VETS possible.

Links:

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/12905/TN/US/

http://info.tnanytime.org/tngov/?p=1247

http://www.tvmanet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=61

http://www.tvmanet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=61

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7327403

http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/veterinarian_abusing_animals2

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/feb08/080215d.asp

http://support.tennessean.com/blogs/?p=5852

http://badvetdaily.blogspot.com/2008/03/cat-stabbed-in-heart-with-euth-needle.html

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080418/MICRO060301/80417076/-1/ARCHIVE01

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/MICRO060301/80428009/1516

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080418/MICRO060301/80417076/-1/ARCHIVE01

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/MICRO060301/80428009/1516

http://onlovinganimals.blogspot.com/2008/01/william-baber-tennessee-vet-gone-wild.html

Holistic Hocus Pocus For Bleeding Dog Earns Connectict Vet Mark Danetz' Treatment the Adjectives "Negligently" and "Unskillfully"

2008-06-09T17:52:00.000-07:00

In 2002, Connecticut Vet Mark Danetz (currently of Clinton Veterinary Hospital) saw a dog named "Carob," who had progressed from vomiting to vomiting blood.

Danetz did bloodwork on Carob, which revealed that Carob had a low platelet count, also called "thrombocytopenia."

There is no mention in the document of any treatment being given to Carob at that time.

Four months later, Carob's owner brought Carob back again. This time, he had a nosebleed. According to PetPlaces description of thrombocytopenia, this is one of the things to look for.

PetPlace says:

"When the concentration of platelets becomes too low, bruising and bleeding may occur. Dogs with blood platelet concentrations of less than 40,000 per microliter of blood are at risk for spontaneous bleeding . . . The severity of bleeding associated with thrombocytopenia depends on how low the platelet numbers fall . . . In general, the lower the platelet count, the more likely bleeding is to occur . . .

Small red spots on the white parts of the eyes (sclera), the gums or the skin

Bruises on the skin (ecchymoses)

Nose bleeds (epistaxis)

Bloody urine

Bloody stool

According to PetPlace, there are numerous tests that may be done to identify the cause of thrombocytopenia. The causes range from tick-borne diseases like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever or Erlichiosis; to cancer or autoimmune disease.

But according to the vet board document, Danetz didn't order any diagnostic tests when Carob was brought in with a nose bleed, in spite of his prior history of low platelets. Instead, he prescribed an "herbal, holistic agent."

The document says:

"In providing care and treatment to Carob, respondent negligently and/or unskillfully: prescribed an herbal/holistic agent without proper diagnosis of Carob's condition; failed to conduct diagnostic testing in relation to the symptoms presented; failed to ensure that the results of blood work were accurately transmitted to [Carob's owner]; and/or failed to properly diagnose and treat Carob."

The Board placed Danetz on probation for a year. They also ordered a random review of his cases by a supervisory veterinarian.

So WHAT happened to Carob?

DID he have cancer? A tick-borne disease? An immune problem? Did his lack of treatment by Danetz cause serious health consequences for Carob? What happened to his nosebleed?

What was the "herbal," "holistic" remedy Danetz gave?

What BAD thing happened to Carob that inspired his loving owner to file a complaint with the vet board?

Now, I'm not saying that holistic remedies are always hocus pocus. But they are no substitute for needed diagnostics.

Links:

Pet Place Info on Thrombocytopenia (low blood platelets) in dogs

Minutes referring to Consent Order signed by Board and Danetz

Michigan Vet Michael Curley: Vet Board Says He Altered Records, but Dismisses 2 Out of 3 Charges

2008-06-08T12:49:00.000-07:00

This is the kind of unreal, outrageous things vet boards do:

On the one hand, they affirm that their allegations against a bad vet -- in this case, Michigan Vet Michael Curley -- are true. On the other hand, they SIMULTANEOUSLY DISMISS CHARGES AGAINST HIM.

It's convoluted: Let me see if I can help you follow it. Hopefully, at the end of the story, you will see what I see: A slimy vet, and a spineless vet board that rolls over and wallows in the slime rather than protect their state's beloved pets.

On March 28, 2007, the Michigan Department of Community Health, acting for the Michigan Board of Veterinary Medicine (the "vet board") filed a complaint against Michigan vet Michael Curley, of the Red Barn Veterinary Clinic in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

In this complaint, the vet board said (emphasis added):

"On June 13, 2006, [Curley] performed an initial examination of an 11-year old German Shepherd with a history of degenerative myelopathy, and dispensed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. [Curley] failed to document the chief complaint, examination results, or reason for dispensing medication."

"On July 31, 2006 [the Vet Board] received an allegation against [Curley] which included a copy of the canine's medical records from the clinic."

"On October 5, 2006, pursuant to a signed release, [Vet Board] received a copy of the canine's medical records from the clinic. A review of the records indicated that [Curley] had altered the canine's medical records to indicate that the examination was a second opinion and that x-rays and bloodwork were recommended."

As a result of these assertions, the alleged the following violations:

"Count I: [Curley's] conduct, as set forth above, evidences a violation of general duty, consisting of negligence or failure to exercise due care, including negligent delegation to or supervision of employees or other individuals, whether or not injry results, in violation of section 16221(a) of the Public Health Code . . . "

"Count II: [Curley's] conduct, as set forth above, evidences a departure from, or failure to conform to, minimal standards or acceptable and prevailing practice for the health profession, whether or not actual injury to an individual occurs, in violation of section 16221(b)(i) of the Public Health Code . . ."

"Count III: [Curley's] conduct, as set forth above, evidences a lack of good moral character, in violation of section 16221(b)(vii) of the Public Health Code . . . "

Are you with me? You get what the Board was saying in this complaint?

Think they were saying that Curley ALTERED records . . . oh wait, that was the exact word they used, "altered" -- we don't have to guess, that IS what they were saying.

Why would a vet do that? To COVER HIS ASS in a veterinary complaint? Ya think? Ya think that would make him UNETHICAL??????

So get this -- The Vet Board's disciplinary subcommitte then entered into what is called a "Consent Order" with Curley. It means that both parties (the Board and the Vet) agree what will be done as a result of the complaint.

In this Consent Order, the Board says that Curley AGREES that the Disciplinary Subcommittee will treat the allegations as TRUE, but that he doesn't admit to them. The document goes on to say that "IT IS HEREBY FOUND that the allegations of fact and law as se forth in the complaint are true . . . "

YET, in the same document, while affirming the truth of the allegations in their complaint, the Board DISMISSED their charges of violations in Counts I and III of the Complaint, (the ones pertaining to lack of good moral character and negligence). They only issued action on Count II, which was the one pertaining to standard of care.

Is your head turning on its axis? The allegations are true . . . but we are dismissing charges. Does that make any sense to you?

I guess it shows how seriously the Vet Board takes altered records.

Yes, they fined him $750.

They put him on probation for six months.

They ordered him to take continuing education in veterinary recordkeeping.

(I wonder if the name of that class is: "How NOT TO GET CAUGHT the Next Time You Alter your Patient Records to Cover your Ass."

What do YOU think of the practice of vets altering patient records?

Would you go to a vet who did such a thing?

Resources (I can't vouche for these -- Just some things to read . . . )

Support group for families of dogs with degenerative myelopathy:

Degenerative Myelopathy Support Group

Ideas on Treating Degenerative Myelopathy

Yahoo Group

Spotlight on Virginia: Only 20% of Complaints Against Vets Result in Violation Findings

2008-06-03T18:11:00.001-07:00

Given our focus on a Virginia case today, I thought it would be informative to post some information about the Virginia Veterinary Board.

According to minutes of the Board's 5/14/2008 meeting, from July 1, 2007 though April 2008 the Virginia Veterinary Board closed 183 cases, only 36 of which resulted in findings of violation. Another way to look at that is: 80% of all complaints filed against vets in the state of Virginia are dismissed.

Virginia Vet Mark Johnstone: HOW do you miss THIS?

2008-06-03T17:46:00.000-07:00

This one from Virginia has me scratching my head, wondering: How do you MISS something like this? Perhaps by not doing a very good job of examining the patient? Ya think?

In 2006, Virginia Vet Mark Johnstone saw a dog named "Tiki." Tiki had blood coming from both his nose AND his mouth. "Tiki was also recumbent [lying down] and had a foul odor coming from his mouth," the board document says.

After seeing Dr. Johnstone, Tiki "failed to improve," so his owner took him to another veterinarian. The second veterinarian saw that Tiki had "a stick wedged in his hard palate, between the right and left upper molars. Once the stick was removed, there was an ulcer present and a hold in the oral nasal cavity."

Stating the obvious, the vet board added:

"Dr. Johnstone failed to locate the stick during his physical examination of Tiki."

The Board found that Dr. Johnstone had violated regulations against unprofessional conduct, specifically that he had violated VAC 150-20-140(6) and (7). In finding that he had violated the latter provision, the Board found that he had "[Practised] veterinary medicine . . . in such a manner as to endanger the health and welfare of his patients or the public, or being unable to practice veterinary medicine . . . with reasonable skill and safety."

They ordered him to go back to school to learn how to give physical exams -- but just a 3 hour class.

That's it.

I'm a little baffled at how you don't look around in a dog's mouth to find that thing when he is bleeding and stinking from the mouth. ????

How DO you miss that?

Click here to read the order.

Colorado Vet Matthew Aaronian: Misdiagnosis; Unnecessary Procedure; and Refusal to Release Animal to Owner Due to an Unpaid Bill, and Maybe Worse

2008-05-31T13:48:00.000-07:00

Colorado is one of those states where the veterinary board says lots of nothing in its written decisions. They give very little indication of what happened to the animal as a result of the actions described. But reading between the lines, the "Stipulated Letter of Admonition" issued to Colorado Springs vet Matthew Aaronian raises HUGE RED FLAGS. Let me tell you what is in this document and how I interpret it.

This document, dated March 26, 2007, says:

". . . the Board determined . . . [that] you failed to meet the generally accepted standards of the practice when you misdiagnosed a condition and performed a procedure that was medically unnecessary . . . . The Board also found that you violated C.R.S. sections 12-64-120(1) and (2) when you withheld records from the animals owner because the owner had an outstanding bill. Finally, the Board found that your policy of deeming an animal abandoned if a bill remains upaid for seven days violates C.R.S. section 12-64-115, and that you failed to give proper notice of your intent to deem the animal abandoned as required by C.R.S. section 12-64-115. The Board found that these facts comprised evidence of violations of the practice act . . . the Board hereby admonishes you . . . "

The Board hereby admonishes you????? Is that IT?

Oh, not quite. They ordered him to "complete six hours of POVMR approved continuing education in radiographs, specifically in acute abdomen diagnosis and treatment . . . "

Uh oh. Let's do some reading between the lines, shall we?

We have a reference to a misdiagnosis.

We have a reference to an "unnecessary procedure" -- probably surgery.

We have an order to take training in acute abdomen diagnosis and treatment and radiographs (x-rays).

Reading between the lines, I'm betting that this vet opened up the pet's abdomen based on a misdiagnosis and that it had something to do either misinterpreting x-rays or not taking them at all.

Then, we have reference to an unpaid bill. (Probably for the UNNECESSARY "PROCEDURE").

The Board also says that the vet deemed the "animal abandoned" because the bill (which included charges for the UNNECESSARY SURGERY, I'm betting) went unpaid seven days. It also says that Aaronian failed to give the owners [proper] notice that he was going to consider their animal abandoned, and that he refused to release the records.

Not a good sign, folks.

With respect to abandoned animals, the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act says:

"(1) Any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding, or other care which is unclaimed by its owner or his agent for a period of more than ten days after written notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, is given to the addressee only at his last known address shall bedeemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society or animal shelter or disposed of as such custodian may deem proper."

Dispose of, folks, I'm thinking means KILL.

But you see, it seems this animal wasn't abandoned at all. The vet never gave "proper" notice to the owner that he was going to consider the animal abandoned because of the unpaid bill or portion thereof which seemingly included costs for an UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE (presumably, surgery).

So, I'm betting that what happened in this story is that this veterinarian euthanized this animal after having performed unnecessary surgery on it . . . because he was PUNISHING the owners for not paying their bill or for not paying it in its entirety including costs for UNNECESSARY SURGERY RESULTING FROM HIS MISDIAGNOSIS -- that's my conjecture. Reading between the lines, that is what I am led to conclude. If you know different, you just let me know.

This is what I mean about having to read between the lines of these documents, and I always assume the worst.

Links:

Click to go to Colorado Regulatory Agency Website

Better yet, read for yourself right here:

UPDATE! ALERT!!!

Since I doubt there are two Matthew Aaronian vets (although it could be possible), I am pretty sure this is a picture of him. He's on the left.

Here is another, probably earlier one.

If you are living in CALIFORNIA, memorize that face, and if you see him, I'm advising you to take your pet and run fast and far in the opposite direction. These vets who get disciplined in one state seem to have a habit of moving to another, and it seems Aaronian is no different: There is now a Matthew Aaronian practising in Atascadero, CA.

He also seems to have applied for (and been granted) a license to work as a vet supporting the Iditarod in Alaska in 2007. Stellar event that was to be associated with. During that race, one of the "mushers" (Ramy Brooks) was disqualified for hitting his dogs with stakes. One of that man's dogs died and two other dogs died. (Just FYI, three dogs also died in the 2008 Iditarod.

Well, Aaronian affiliating himself with that event is not surprising, is it?

For more on the Iditarod, visit www.helpsleddogs.org.

Unless of course, there is more than 1 veterinarian named Matthew Aaronian. Nah . . . how likely is that?

-- Stefani Olsen

Dr. Derrick Nelson's "Inadequate" and Substandard Treatment of "Jilly" Results in Nothing More than An Informal Reprimand (Texas)

2008-05-30T17:52:00.000-07:00

Yet another astounding, devastating case from Texas which results in nothing but an "informal" reprimand from the Texas Veterinary Board.

In 2004, the owner of "Jilly", a Pekinese, noticed that she had been vomiting, she wasn't eating, and she seemed to have jaw pain. She took Jilly to the Animal Clinic of LaPorte, Texas, where Jilly was "treated," if you can call it that, by Derrick Nelson, D.V.M.

When Nelson examined Jilly, he decided that she had severe dental disease. He suggested that Jilly have surgery to remove "the tooth" (it says "the tooth" as though there was one tooth primarily in question) and any other "bad teeth, [clean the remaining teeth, and coat the teeth with a substance that would help prevent
decay."

During the surgery, Nelson removed 13 teeth. The document says that "He noted that the dog's jaw was somewhat loose." Dr. Nelson told Jilly's owner that she was recovering well.

So, later in the day, Jilly's owner came to pick her up. When Jilly was discharged, her owner was given an antibiotic and painkiller (butorphanol). THE BOTTLE SAID THAT JILLY SHOULD BE GIVEN 2 ml every 12 hours.
The board document said that Jilly's owner was told by her sister-in-law who WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CLINIC that "it would be okay to give [Jilly] 1 ml every six hours but not more than 2 ml in 12 hours."

Once home, Jilly wouldn't eat and was vomiting. The next day, Jilly was "weak and lethargic." She had vomiting and diarrhea. Jilly's owner gave Jilly the dose of painkiller. The next day, Jilly was "unresponsive" and had diarrhea and vomiting. Jilly's owner called the clinic, and was told by a technician that "the painkiller dose of 1 ml every 6 hours was too much." But the BOTTLE ITSELF IN FACT SAID THAT JILLY's OWNER SHOULD BE GIVING HER 2 ml EVERY 12 HOURS.

Then, Jilly's owner brought Jilly back to the clinic, where Dr. Nelson told her that the "dosage amount on the painkiller bottle(2 ml by mouth twice daily) was a mis-communication."

Ummm, how can it be a miscommunication? THE BOTTLE SAID THAT, IN TEXT, RIGHT ON THE BOTTLE?

MISCOMMUNICATION MY ASS. The instructions given to this owner in writing on the bottle told the owner to GIVE AN OVERDOSE TO HER DOG.

The document says that "Dr. Nelson believed that the patient was 3-4% dehydrated and administered subcutaneous (SQ) fluids (50 ml LR solution)." The board document SAYS that Jilly was "force fed" and that "Dr. Nelson saw her walk around during the afternoon."

[Do you believe that? I don't!]

Later, Jilly was allowed to go home. But when her owner got her there, she was still vomiting, and still had diarrhea. Worse, she was "shaking and unresponsive."

Jilly's owner's daughter called Dr. Nelson to tell him of Jilly's condition.

Jilly's owner "then decided to take Jilly to the emergency clinic, but before she could do so, the dog died."

The Board said that: "On presentation . . . the patient was clinically dehydrated, at least 6-8 percent. Dr. Nelson's administration of 50 ml of fluids SQ to the patient over a six-hour period was inadequate to address the dehydration. The dog should ahve been placed on IV fluids and monitored closely based on the following, in addition to the dehydration: (a) the dog's age (14) demanded a greater degree of therapy; (b) the patient had a history of recent vomiting, diarrhea, and not eating, and an inability to metabolize and excrete pain medication;" [which, they neglect to emphasize, she had been getting REPEATED OVERDOSES OF thanks to the instructions clearly printed on the bottle -- you know, those little words in black and white that Nelson calls a "miscommunication?"] ". . . and (c) the patient had recently undergone major dental surgery. Dr. Nelson did not determine during the day if the fluid therapy was effective, except to observe that the dog was walking around."

[OH PUHLEASSE!! WALKING AROUND MY A*%!]

The board said that "Dr. Nelson's actions or ination does not represent the same degree of humane skill, and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used . . ."

They found that Dr. Nelson violated the Professional Standard of Humane Treatment.

And then they hit him with a whopping disciplinary action . . . a mere informal reprimand.

Wow, bet he learned his lesson.

New York Vet Shawn Michael Demmerle and the Use of Unlicensed Staff to Administer Medications

2008-05-28T21:11:00.001-07:00

Those of you familiar with my own case will know that my cat was given an insulin overdose by an unlicensed, unsupervised person. (See my website The Toonces Project for details.) I have a special interest in the dangerous and seemingly widespread practice of veterinarians using individuals who are not qualified (based on veterinary regulations) to perform veterinary duties requiring clinical skill. Worse yet, many veterinarians allow these individuals -- who are unlicensed veterinary assistants -- to perform these duties unsupervised.

This is very dangerous, and that is the reason why I take seriously any cNomplaint or judgment about a vet allowing unlicensed assistants to perform veterinary duties that should only be done by properly trained, certified, staff.

In New York, the Division of Professional Licensing issued the following "Specifications of Professional Misconduct" against veterinarian Shawn Demmerle:

"On or about November, 2004, while employed as a veterinarian by the Sullivan County, New York SPCA in Rock Hill, New York, [Demmerle] permitted an unlicensed person know as 'Tammy' to administer rabies vaccines, an activity requiring a veterinary medicine license, to several animals."

Like many board documents this one does not mention whether any harm came the animals as a result of this. However, a complaint was filed --- and usually some negative consequence must occur to inspire the filing of a complaint.

What could happen?

Well, an inadequately qualified person could draw up the wrong dose, causing an overdose that could seriously injur or even kill a pet. Or, an inadequately trained and unqualified person could fail to recognize symptoms of a adverse reaction in the animal, which in turn could also lead to serious health consequences and even death. (An example of this is the case of Kodi the Pug.)

In his 2006 press release, veterinarian John Robb of the “Protect the Pets” website warned that unlicensed staff performing duties that should only be performed by licensed veterinary technicians or veterinarians themselves poses a grave risk, which can lead to "tragic injury or even death of our beloved pets.”

He went on to add: "I have witnessed first hand horrific examples . . . Soap solution was accidentally placed in the eyes of pets scheduled for surgery, resulting in the sloughing of the surface layers of their corneas. Or urine being mistaken for a drug and being injected into the intravenous line of a pet."

So, this kind of thing can be a very big deal, and a life-endangering practice.

In the case of New York Vet Demmerle, the Professional Licensing Board suspended Demmerle's license for 1 year, but stayed the entire suspension (that is, it was not enforced); instead they placed his license on probation for 1 year and ordered him to pay a fine of $2,000.

Vets Behaving Badly: Pennsylvania Veterinarian Opens Fire in Church, Witnesses Say,

2008-05-27T20:44:00.000-07:00

News sources report that Pennsylvania (Lehigh Valley) veterinarian opened fire at a church fundraiser this month. George is reportedly one of 32 shareholders at Valley Central, a veterinary referral service in Lehigh County. He is now charged with 1st degree murder.

According to news reports, "George was heavily armed when he opened fire killing Malak Michael."

Links:

Read and watch local news story online

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

2008-05-21T17:57:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, guess what?

They reprimanded her.

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

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

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

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

Links:

Board Disciplinary Action Against Mitzi Elliott

Death of a Donor Cat in Hands of Colorado Vet Heather Steyn

2008-05-19T17:12:00.000-07:00

On April 16, 2007, the Colorado Board of Veterinary Medicine issued a "Stipulated Letter of Admonition" to veterinarian Heather Steyn, DVM, of VCA Ft. Collins Animal Hospital. This letter says (emphasis mine):

" . . .the Board determined that the blood collection practice in this case, which resulted in the death of the donor feline, was substandard. The Board found that your substandard treatment constituted a violation of the practice act. Specifically, the Board hereby admonishes you for a violation of C.R.S. section 12-64-111(1)(l)."

So, the substandard method of blood collection from this case RESULTED IN it's death -- that is clearly stated by the Board. (Boards so rarely establish causation, that I feel that is important to point out.)

C.R.S. section 12-64-111(1) is:

"l) Unprofessional or unethical conduct or engaging in practices in
connection with the practice of veterinary medicine which that are in
violation of the standards of professional conduct generally accepted
standards of veterinary practice as defined in this article or
prescribed by the rules and regulations of the board;"

The Board fined Steyn $500 and ordered her to take 6 hours of education in remedial critical care, but considered the latter requirement satisfied by classes she had already taken. (???) They ordered her to write a three- to five-page paper on blood collection practices.

A web search on Heather Steyn's name indicates that she is actually the MEDICAL DIRECTOR of the VCA Ft. Collins in Fort Collins, Colorado. Just this month she was
offering discounted services on services including semen collection, evaluation and freezing.

So here is my question, if the MEDICAL DIRECTOR is engaging in violations of regulations against "unprofessional" or "unethical" conduct or that which is "a violation of the standards of professional conduct" then . . . what can you expect from the rest of the staff?

Poor, poor donor kitty. R.I.P.

Links:

To see the disciplinary document for yourself,

1. Go to the

Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies website;
2. Select "Division of Registrations Board/Program Action Documents;
3. Click Logon
4. In the drop-down box on the next page, select: "REG Licensing Board"
5. In the drop-down box on the next page, where is says: "State Board of" - select "Veterinary."
6. Look for unique ID 30146 and click on the hyperlinked text (as of today, this is on the last page of the results, so you will need to click through the documents to go all the way to the end).

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

2008-05-18T14:55:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

This judgement was upheld on appeal in the year 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

Information on the Kenny v. Lesser appeal

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

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

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

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

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

2008-05-17T14:42:00.001-07:00

How do you like your vets?

Perhaps hopped up on methamphetamine and cocaine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want more ridiculousness?

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson was required to inform her employers.

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

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

Oh, and they ordered her to stop taking drugs.

Wonder how that will work out?

Links:

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

Do you want to know where Johnson is currently practising?

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

Supposedly, she handles emergencies.

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

2008-05-16T19:58:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

Here is the story this document tells:

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

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

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

"Dr. Petree's failure to x-ray and correctly diagnose and treat [Molli] does not represent the same degree of humane care, skill, and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession . . . for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Progression of Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

They reprimanded Dr. Petree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glickman recounts this story:

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

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

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

Links:

Texas Vet Board Document/Findings of Fact on Janice Petree

Dog Connections and Glickman's Notes on Bloat

Bloat Info and List of Breeds Most at Risk

Veterinary Info Network on Bloat

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

Marvistavet Site on Bloat

California Veterinarian Larry Romine Ordered to Surrender License; Veterinary Board Alleges Romine Committed Negligence; Botched Spay

2008-05-15T16:23:00.000-07:00

Yet another botched spay story from California.

In June, 2007, veterinarian Larry Romine was ordered to surrender his license in the State of California to settle a complaint brought against him by the veterinary board. As a part of the settlement agreement, Romine admnitted that the Board "could establish a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation" if further proceedings were conducted. These charges dealt with Romine's treatment of a 5-month old rat terrier female named "Roxy."

Roxy's owner brought Roxy to the Kaweah Veterinary Clinic, operated by Romine, in Visalia, California, to have her spayed.

Two days after hte surgery, Roxy's owner brought her back in to the clinic, because Roxy was lethargic and unsteady on her feet. The staff at Romine's clinic told her that "Roxy's condition was likely due to the affects of the anesthesia, and she was instructed to prevent Roxy from drinking any fluids for the remainder of the day."

But the next day, Roxy was worse. In distress, she was vomiting any time she tried to drink fluids. Her owner then took her to a different clinic -- an emergency clinic.

The examination revealed "a build up of fluid in her abdomen, with indications of kidney damage."

The next day, Roxy was seen at yet another hospital, for more evaluation and testing. Exploratory surgery was done on Roxy, and they found that Roxy appeared to have been born with only one kidney, and that a three-inch section of the right ureter (which carries urine from the kidney to the bladder) had been surgically removed "during the same surgical procedure removing her right ovary, right ovarian horn, and uterus." In other words, when he did the "spay", Romine cut the ureter leading from Roxy's ONLY kidney.

In addition, the document said, Roxy's left ovary and left ovarian horn were still intact. Which means that not only was she butchered by having her right ureter cut, but the spay wasn't even finished.

Not that the latter issue mattered much, because "due to the inability to repair damage to Roxy's one kidney and ureter, she was euthanized."

The board asserted that Romine had commited negligence, both in removing the section of the ureter, and in not removing the left ovary and left ovarian horn.

In addition, they said that another element of negligence was that Romine had "failed to recognized symptoms consistent with post-surgical abdominal pain and clinical depression" when Roxy was brought back to him after the spay.

(Gee, "depression????" I'd be depressed too, if someone cut my only ureter . . .making it impossible for my body to clear urine and essentially causing me to be unable to continue living. Depressed? Ya think?)

In addition, when Roxy was brought back to him after surgery, he "failed to perform a physical exam" on her.

Other "causes of dicipline" cited by the board included their failure to make entries in Roxy's record describing the surgical procedure performed, the sedatives or anesthetics used, and the name of the surgeon who did the butchery, uh, I mean, operation.

Other record keeping violations were cited.

In addition, the board said that an inspection of the hospital showed that Romine:

Did not have a dedicated froom for surgery;
Did not have emergency drugs or equipment in the room where surgeries are performed;
Did not have a notice telling clients that 24-hour supervision is not provided;
Did not dispose of expired drugs; he did not record the names of patients or prescribing veterinarians in the drug log;
Did not have a properly functioning anesthesia machine in the surgery room;
Did not have an autoclave device (for sterilization);
Did not wear appropriate attire in the surgery room;
Did not enter his initials on exam records;
Did not have equipment for monitoring patients under anesthesia in the surgical room;
Had stored "products intended for human consumption" in the surgery room refrigerator.

The board noted that Romine had previously bee cited for failing to comply with minimum standards of veterinary care.

South Carolina: When Lousy Vet Boards Tell You a Vet is Bad, but Don't Give You much Detail: Case in Point - "C. Kenneth Banks Jr., DVM"

2008-05-14T17:37:00.000-07:00

South Carolina is one of the vet boards that puts the disciplinary records of vets online. You can find these records at:

http://www.llr.state.sc.us/POL/Veterinary/index.asp?file=finalorders.htm

The problem is that like some other states, they give you no detail about what occurred.

So, here is my advice: When in doubt, ASSUME THE WORST.

Take the case of "C. Kenneth Banks, DVM". He was disciplined by the South Carolina Veterinary Board in November of 2006.

The Board's findings state:

"[Banks] admits that he failed to meet the requisite standard of care in his treatment of a female canine, named "Bella" as alleged in the formal complaint . . . [he also] admits that as a result of the previous admissions herein, [he] has violated S.C. code Ann. 40-69-140(11) and (12) (Supp. 2004), as alleged."

So, I go look up S.C. code, right?

Check it out:

http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t40c069.htm

Well, get a load of the title of Section 40-69-140:

"SECTION 40-69-140. Prior criminal record.

A license may be denied based on a person's prior criminal record only as provided for in Section 40-1-140."

??????

So, does this guy have a prior criminal record

Or perhaps, the section violated was one which cites "negligent" practice of veterinary medicine. For, according to this website (South Carolina Administrative Law Court Decisions, S.C. Code Ann. §40-69-140(12) states:

"The board may deny, suspend, revoke or restrict the license of a veterinarian or reprimand or discipline a licensee for . . . (12) engaging in conduct determined by the board to be incompetent or negligent in the practice of veterinary medicine…"

This is all very confusing to the layperson, without the Board enumerating the nature of the violation and specifying statutes violated in plain english rather than referencing sections of code that are modified whenever revisions are passed.

But perhaps obfuscating the truth is EXACTLY what the vet board hopes to do.

This is exactly how UNHELPFUL to the public the South Carolina Vet Board's "public" records are - and I believe that is entirely deliberate.

Bad Vet Robert Feher of Brewer Animal Clinic in Brewer Maine: Disciplined 3 Times by Board

2008-05-13T20:08:00.000-07:00

The website of Brewer Veterinary Clinic says that veterinarian Robert Feher has a "special emphasis on surgery – specializing in Orthopedics and intricate, detailed surgeries." Oh yeah? Let's take a look at Feher's record, and then you decide: Do you want his surgical "special" treatment for your pet?

Feher has a long record with the Maine Veterinary Board. If you know anything about Veterinary Boards, you know that they pretty much are loathe to discipline a vet, and rarely discipline a vet once, much less three times. What does it take to incite a vet board to actually discipline a vet three times? How bad does it have to be?

In 2000, the Maine Veterinary Board found that Feher had committed "GROSS NEGLIGENCE" in his treatment of a golden retriever in his care.

In 2002, the Maine Veterinary Board found Feher's behavior constituted "incompetence in the surgical repair of the fractured femur."

And in 2006, the Board found that he "failed to share the results of the subject dog's abnormal pre-operative blood work with the dog's owner prior to performing surgery on the subject dog, and that he failed to perform appropriate pre-operative blood work or urinalysis prior to the subject dog's second surgery." (I do NOT have a good feeling about what probably happened to that dog . . . )

Is this what you want for your pet? Gross negligence? Incompetent surgeries? Cutting into your pet repeatedly, on more than one occasion, and failing to discuss your pet's abnormal bloodwork with you before hand (pre-existing conditions that show up in bloodwork can indicate increased surgical risks) or failing to do pre-opeartive bloodwork or urine at all???????

This is the guy that wants to do "intricate, detailed surgeries" on your pet.

I'm thinking that's an offer you want to DECLINE.

In 2007, the State of Iowa's veterinary board also disciplined Feher. Feher, who went to vet school in Iowa, is also licensed in that state, and Iowa fined him $500 for failing to report to them the disciplinary action taken against him by Maine (which he is required to do).

Here are the excerpts from the Board documents, available online:

FEHER, Robert C.
License Number: VT503
License Type: Veterinarian
Case Number: VET-113
Disposition: Consent Agreement dated 7/13/00
Summary: Licensee admitted to gross negligence in his treatment of a client's golden retriever by failing to take x-rays and failing to treat the dog as aggressively as circumstances required. Licensee was issued a $1250 civil penalty and was ordered to pay $250 for investigative costs incurred by the board.

FEHER, ROBERT C.
License Number: VT503
License Type: Veterinarian
Case Number: VET-155
Disposition: Consent Agreement dated 12/2/02
Summary: Licensee admitted that a surgical procedure on a puppy failed to meet the standard of care, and that such conduct amounts to incompetence in the surgical repair of the fractured femur. Licensee agreed to a censure and a $500 civil penalty. Licensee also agreed to obtain 12 hours of continuing professional education in orthopedics.

FEHER, ROBERT C.
License Number: VT503
License Type: Veterinarian
Complaint Number: 2005-VET-2049
Disposition: Consent Agreement dated 8/1/06
Summary: Licensee admitted that he failed to share the results of the subject dog's abnormal pre-operative blood work with the dog's owner prior to performing surgery on the subject dog, and that he failed to perform appropriate pre-operative blood work or urinalysis prior to the subject dog's second surgery. Licensee agreed to a censure and also agreed to obtain eight hours of continuing professional education in the field of internal medicine.

Links:

See Maine Disciplinary Records here

Wrong Side Surgery in Connecticut: Louis B. Pieper, DVM

2008-05-10T20:09:00.000-07:00

If you are familiar with the kinds of medical errors that occur in human medicine, you may have heard of "wrong side surgery" -- you know, when the surgeon is supposed to operate on one side of the patients body, but operates on the other instead. In recent years, many steps have been taken to try to reduce this for humans: For example, they will have the patient mark the surgical site while still conscious.

What steps will be taken by the veterinary industry to reduce or eliminate wrong side surgery on our pets? Because . . . IT HAPPENS. Here is an example:

In Connecticut, in June of 1997, while operating as a vet at Barnum Animal Hospital in Bridgeport, veterinarian Louis Pieper operated on the left hind leg of his patient, a dog named "Slider."

Just one problem: It was the the RIGHT side leg that he was supposed to operate on.

Pieper was fined $1,000 by the vet board.

His license was placed on probation and the board ordered him to "develop a system in his office to ensure that the correct body part is identified prior to surgery."

Links:

http://www.dir.ct.gov/dph/hcquality/Physician/047-VETERINARIAN/047-001371/19970702047014.pdf

Blaine Firmin "Loses" Client's Cat, Who has Never Been Found

2008-05-06T17:32:00.000-07:00

This is one of many stories about vets losing their patients. This one in Louisiana.

Blaine Firmin is a vet in Slidell, Louisiana. On December 8, 2006, a client brought his cat, Little Man, in to see Firmin because of an injury to the Little Man's leg.

It was determined that the cause of the injury was a cat bite. Apparently because he had two other cats at home, the client agreed to leave Little Man at the clinic for healing.

The client had an agreement with Firmin that he would pick Little Man up on August 12, four days later.

The Louisiana Veterinary Board's Findings of Fact state:

"Little Man escaped and/or was lost in or at the facility and in spite of attempts to locate him, Little Man has never been found.

[Firmin] is negligent in allowing the animal to escape and/lor losing the owner/client's cat which was entrusted to him for treatment.

[Firmin's] conduct is not in keeping with the standard of care required by the LA Veterinary Practice Act and the Rules promulgated by the Board."

The Board fined Firmin $250 and ordered her to pay the Board's investigative costs of $1,500.

Here is my question:

Little Man is gone. Firmin says that Little Man escaped or was lost, but all we know is that Little Man is gone.

Now, I want you, the reader to understand that I have absolutely no evidence that anything different happened to this cat. The following is merely conjecture -- but no doubt, I am merely giving voice to the same fear the owner probably has about what happened to Little Man.

What goes on an awful lot at vets offices?

Euthanasia.

And I know that the dead bodies of euthanized pets, when unclaimed by owners, are often sold to rendering companies or otherwise disposed of.

What IF Little Man was euthanized by mistake, and his body was picked up at the next regular pickup of dead bodies?

That also would be a possible cause of Little Man being gone without a trace.

And certainly, if I was a vet whose office had done that, I would probably say that the cat was lost, rather than say that the cat was killed by mistake and the body disposed of.

Please understand that I have no way of knowing whether or not that is what happened here -- and after all, the "legal" findings of fact say that the cat was LOST, or escaped. But no explanation for this escape or loss is given, nor was there apparently a witness to it. He's just . . . .gone.

So I am merely giving voice to what I know must be this owners worst fears about what might have happened to Little Man.

Wouldn't that thought cross your mind, too, if you were them?

For another heartbreaking story about dog who went to the vets and was "lost" but who has never been seen again, nor has his body been found anywhere, see Toasty's Story. Toasty's website also has lots of resources on veterinary malpractice.

Also, read our prior blog post about how the Airport West Animal Clinic in Washington allowed their client's beloved Italian Greyound, Bambee, to escape. In that case however, we DO know that the dog escaped -- because her dead, half-eaten body was found by her owner in a field.

http://badvetdaily.blogspot.com/2008/03/washington-vet-loses-bambee-italian.html

Nebraska Veterinarian Jay Stewart Accused of Injecting Race Horses with Alcohol

2008-05-04T21:11:00.001-07:00

In light of this past weekend's racing tragedy, with the death of the filly Eight Belle's in the Kentucky Derby, I thought it was time to pause and consider the role veterinarians play in the seedy side of horse racing.

Here is just one example . . .

According to an Associated Press article from January 2007, Jay Stewart, the President of the Nebraska Veterinary Medical Association, was accused of injecting race horses with alcohol 75 times.

Stewart was charged with four misdemeanor counts of attempting to influence a race.

Specifically, Stewart was alleged to have administered intravenous vodka shots to horses at Fonner Park in Grand Island.

The article quotes the Executive Director of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium as saying that alcohol is ostensibly used to calm horses before they go into the gate. He noted that this practice could pose safety hazards to the horse, other horses in the race, and the jockeys due to the effect of alcohol on the horse.

Links:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/news/story?id=2736333

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2007/January/24/Trial-for-veterinarian-accused-of-injecting-horses-with-vodka-begins.aspx

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1000&u_sid=2321606

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1000&u_sid=2321606

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E4D81E30F933A15752C0A9619C8B63

Stewart is not the only Bad Vet featured here involved in the horse "industry."

For others, check these prior blog posts:

Louis Grasso

http://badvetdaily.blogspot.com/2008/04/todays-bad-vet_23.html

Heather Kerr
http://badvetdaily.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-do-we-do-with-drugged-out.html

Do the shady types gravitate to the racing industry?

Poor horses.

R.I.P., Eight Belles

CASE UPDATE:

Further investigation reveals that the charges against Stewart were dropped when three witnesses, scheduled to testify against him, could not be "located."

These witnesses were Armando Martinez, Kelli Martinez, and Jodi Lopez. Armando Martinez is a rider on the Nebraska racing circuit, and Lopez and the other Martinez own horses.

Witnesses can't be located to testify.

Involved in the industry.

Sounds a little mafioso, doesn't it?

San Antonio, Texas Veterinarian Scott Weeks Accused of "Indecency with a Child"

2008-05-02T20:34:00.001-07:00

More vets behaving badly.

Allegedly.

San Antonio, Texas Vet Scott Weeks (owner of Pet Medical Center in San Antonio) was accused of "frequently touching an 11-year-old boy over the past several years" when he was arrested in 2006, according to a June 2006 San Antonion Express News Article.

If those accusations were true, wouldn't you call it something more than "indecency?" If true, does this not constitute child sexual abuse?

The article states:

"The boy told his mother and investigators that Weeks had masturbated him over recent years . . ."

The article concludes:

". . . the affidavit . . . said Weeks is a 'continuing threat' to the boy and other children, particularly because of his job."

I find that interesting. I would like to know how being a veterinarian causes a person to be a greater threat to children. Is it because children love animals and therefore will want to be close to the veterinarian? Is it because veterinarians come in contact with many children as they treat family pets?

That is an interesting thought -- that persons suspected of molesting children etc. would have greater access or post a greater threat if they are veterinarians.

Very interesting.

If anyone knows what the outcome of this case was, let me know.

Links:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA060106.vet.EN.40f511e1.html

http://www.ksat.com/news/9303110/detail.html

DC Veterinarian Peter Glassman (Owner, Friendship Animal Hospital) and his Unlicensed Veterinarians

2008-05-01T16:44:00.000-07:00

All Veterinary Boards (except maybe Idaho's) are bad. Bad meaning: They don't protect the consumer. They dismiss unbelievably high percentages of complaints, their disciplinary actions are laughable and TOTALLY not serious enough to be any kind of deterrent, by and large; they take the vet's word for it over the clients nearly always . . . in general, vet boards ain't worth you-know-what.

Texas and other vet boards have dismissal rates (the percentage of complaints that are filed and no action taken) of approximately 90%. This high dismissal rate earned the Texas Vet Board a 2-part consumer investigation from a Dallas-based TV station. It's hard to imagine that another vet board would beat them out for WORST VET BOARD IN THE COUNTRY, but there is one that is worse.

It's DC's vet board.

In years of complaints, the DC Vet Board found only in one case that the violations were worthy of action, and EVEN THEN, they did nothing, claiming they had no legal authority to act. Yup, folks, not only are DC residents experiencing "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" but they've got no protection for their pets from bad vets.

In 2007 I made a public records request with the DC veterinary board for all public records related to consumer complaints against veterinarians from the year 2000 to the present. They sent me an envelope with 16 documents in it. Of those 16 documents:

11 were letters to complainants telling them that NO ACTION would be taken on their complaint, as follows:

1. ". . . insufficient evidence of violations of a nature or severity that would support a revocation or suspension of license."

2. ". . . insufficient evidence of violations of a nature or severity that would support a revocation or suspension of license."

3. ". . . insufficient evidence of violations of a nature or severity that would support a revocation or suspension of license."

4. " . . . the Board . . . finds no violation . . ."

5. " . . . the Board . . . finds no violation . . ."

6. " . . . the Board . . . finds no violation . . ."

7. " . . . the Board . . . lacks jurisdiction . . . "

8. " . . . the Board . . . finds no violation . . ."

9. " . . . the Board . . . finds no violation . . ."

10. " . . . the Board . . . finds no violation . . ."

11. " . . . the Board . . . finds no violation . . ."

Of the remaining documents, four (4) were letters stating that an investigation would be conducted. I assume that each of those letters is related to one of the above 11 cases.

The complaints dispatched without action include a complaint filed by the DC Humane Society. The HUMANE SOCIETY reported a vet -- yet still they took no action.

The final document, describes the one and only time that the Board found violations worthy of action -- that was the case of Glassman. But before we discuss that, let's put it in perspective:

Assuming that the four letters announcing investigations are related to one or more of the 12 cases dispatched by the board (11 dismissals and the one Glassman case), then this gives the DC Veterinary Board an abysmal record surpassing even that of the notoriously awful Texas Vet Board. Specifically, the Board found NO violation in 11 out of 12 cases, or 91.6667 percent -- call it 92%. BUT, even in the one case where they found violcations (the case of Glassman and Friendship Animal Hospital), THEY FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION, on advice of their lawyer (more later). That means that 12 out of 12 cases were dispatched WITHOUT ACTION -- 100%. Drumroll PLEASE . . . because this makes

THE DC VETERINARY BOARD THE WORST VETERINARY BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES.

BAR NONE.

Lousy as they ALL are, DC takes the cake. NO other vet board has DONE NOTHING 100 PERCENT OF THE TIME.

Back to Peter Glassman of Friendship Animal Hospital, and why I think he is a BAD VET.

That ONE case in which the vet board found violations and took steps toward disciplinary action was a complaint against Peter Glassman, DVM, owner of Friendship Animal Hospital, just off Wisconsin Avenue in DC's Friendship Heights Neighborhood.

Friendship is the most famous, and arguably also infamous, of DC's animal hospitals, and is the ONLY 24-hour hospital in the city. In 2005, the Washington City Paper ran a long, front-page article about them, pretty damning of both Friendship's actions in a particular case and the DC Vet Board itself. (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/cover/2005/cover0527.html)

According to the City Paper Article:

"According to DCRA records, Friendship has been quite prolific in racking up complaints. When the newly constituted veterinary board met in November 2003, there were eight complaints waiting for its review. Of the eight complaints, five involved veterinarians at Friendship, which is a high-volume clinic. An investigation in 2001 also found eight people practicing veterinary medicine at Friendship without a license. Glassman is quick to mention that there were 'mitigating circumstances,' pointing out that the board concluded that those offenses weren't actionable ones."

Well, that's kind of true, and kind of not true. Here is what I found:

According to a memorandum from J. Sinclair Long, Assistant General Counsel, and Legal Counsel for the DC Veterinary Board (dated May 14, 2004, and provided to me in response to my public records request), the DC Veterinary Board did indeed make a move to take some action against Glassman for having 8 unlicensed veterinarians working at Friendship in 2001. The memo states:

"The Board of Veterinary Examiners has requested preparation of a consent order in repect of Dr. Peter Glassman, owner of Friendship Hospital for Animals, a District of Columbia veterinarian clinic. It is alleged that, during the period of approximately January 2001 to December 2001, Glassman employed eight unlicensed veterinarians in violation of District licensing law. The Board has requested a . . . that Glassman remit a fine of $1,000 for each violation, or $8,000 in total. Glassman is apparently amenable to the proposal."

Ah, you gotta love the game of "Mother-May-I" the Vet Boards play with vets.

"Bad Vet, May I Discipline You?"

"But of course, only a little though."

"Oh, thank you, we are so grateful to you."

[Vomit break]

But, seems like the DC Vet Board ITSELF, decided that was too harsh, even though Glassman himself was "amenable" to the fines. The memo goes on to say: "Alternatively, it has been suggested by staff, for reasons appearing below, that the Board conclude the case with the issuance of a letter of reprimand."

But here is the kicker: Even that meagre action -- a simple letter of reprimand ("BAD vet, no biscuit!") -- is, according to the VET BOARD'S LAWYER, illegal.

Yup, the Vet Board has no legal authority under District Law to write a letter of reprimand to a vet, or to fine a vet.

Law only allows the vet board to either suspend a license, or revoke it. And since NO VET BOARD IN THE COUNTRY hardly EVER revokes or suspends a license, this means that even in the MEASELY 8% of cases where the DC vet board finds cause to act (violations), they can and will take NO ACTION unless the violations are bad enough to revoke or suspend the vet's license. And that almost never happens anywhere. So nothing will be done.

It seems that there are regulations pertaining to the vet board which would allow it to reprimand a vet; put a vet on probation; limit the vets license; make him/her take classes, get therapy, or take an exam. But there is a STATUTE which is higher than the regulations and trumps the regulations. This statute is in the DC Official Code 3-509 (2001) which states that "the Mayor may suspend, revoke, refuse to issue, or restore a license issued . . . if the Mayor finds that the applicant or holder thereof . . . has knowingly employed a person who is practising veterinary medicine unlawfully."

Apparently, this wasn't the last time Glassman used unlicensed vets. In the City Paper article "More Than a Feline," published in summer 2005, the story of a couple whose cat was seen by a Friendship vet in 2003 is told. This cat had chronic kidney failure, and the vet -- a vet named Tawnia Zollinger, who was UNLICENSED at the time -- gave her a Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatory (NSAID) drug called ketoprofen. Literature indicates that ketoprofen is -- like other NSAIDS -- contraindicated in patients with kidney failure. According to the article, after starting this drug the cat's kidney disease progressed rapidly into an acute state, and she died (at another veterinary hospital).

According to the article, the owners "spent the rest of the week contacting veterinarians all over the country, more than a dozen in all. Every single one of them agreed that Coco should never have been given ketoprofen, especially for 15 days."

The article also describes the treatment the cat's (Coco's) owners received at the hands of the veterinary board -- and it's horrifying. The link is below, and you should read it.

Why else do I think Dr. Peter Glassman is a bad vet?

In June 2007 I testified at a Joint Public Hearing of the Committee on Health and the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, to support provisions of an Animal Protection Act. The provisions that I spoke in support of would have allowed an owner to recover LIMITED non-economic damages when a pet dies because of gross negligence committed by a veterinarian ($2,000 cap), or intentional acts committed in bad faith by a veterinarian (i.e., not euthanasia) that kills the pet ($7,500 cap).

Glassman showed up with another vet, fighting this provision. Glassman argued, primarily, that subjecting veterinarians to the spectre of such damages would cause the price of vet care to rise due to increased insurance rates. This argument has been debunked by many, and seems quite disingenuous -- that is, I don't believe it is a sincere argument.

First of all, vets pay approximately $300 a year for $1 million or more in insurance coverage -- more than enough to cover such claims. Second, these claims rarely succeed and would likely succeed only where OVERWHELMING and conclusive evidence exists.

But finally what would he have to fear -- unless his vets are deliberately/in bad faith killing pets, OR committing gross negligence? I mean, those potential damages would only apply to him or any of the vets at his practice IF they were committing GROSS NEGLIGENCE that resulted in the DEATH of their patients, or worse still, doing things on PURPOSE ("intentional acts . . . in bad faith" that kill patients?????)

Last but not least, his online blog gives the lie to his claims that he cares about holding costs down for the consumer.

In his blog, Glassman discussed how marking up the costs of prescription drugs, saying:

"Everybody likes to make an easy buck here or there and for many years - let's be honest - that's the gravy train that vets have enjoyed. Who cared if you didn't REALLY make money in surgery when you were marking up heartworm preventive 200%?"

And commenting on his own blog, he added:

"With some exceptions we previously marked up drugs 100% and added a $5.00 Rx fee."

He acknowledged that to compete with online sources like PetMeds, they have now had to reduce their markup to 50% and still charge the $5.00 fee for filling prescriptions.

In his blog, and with his "product" "Pet Portals" -- he is focused on MARKETING and INCREASING REVENUES of veterinary practices -- that is, GETTING MONEY AWAY FROM THE CONSUMER.

Does this sound like a guy who is genuinely concerned about the impact of passing on costs to pet owners? I think that concern was feigned. I think he's all about getting as much money out of your pocket as he can. With little space and attention being given to issues of quality of care based on his blog (where he talks about "marketing" and "branding" and revenue) and his statements at the DC hearing, my observations tell me that Glassman is all about making money and fighting any attempt to keep vets accountable for quality of care.

Links:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/cover/2005/cover0527.html

http://www.davidcatania.com/publicdocuments/b17-89%20agenda2.pdf

http://www.petitiononline.com/DCAPAA/petition.html

http://dvm.typepad.com/peter_glassman/2007/03/drug_competitio.html#comments

Arizona Veterinarian Barbara Guminski May Have "Ligated Both Ureters" During Spay; Dog Euthanized When Can No Longer Urinate; Court Absolves Vet

2008-04-30T16:35:00.000-07:00

For this post, I must remind ALL readers that the things I say here are MY PERSONAL OPINIONS based on review of publicly available documents. In this case, I think Barbara Guminski -- an Arizona Vet -- is a BAD VET. Apparently, so did the notoriously lax Arizona Veterinary Board, when they heard a complaint against her in 2002, and subsequently found her in violation of the Veterinary Practice Act. However, the Superior Court of Arizona -- specifically, the "Honorable" Judge Michael Jones -- did not agree with the Board (and does not agree with me that BARBARA GUMINSKI IS A BAD VET). But surely, if you are a concerned pet owner, you can't read the account of this case and ever feel comfortable allowing her to operate on your pet . . . CAN YOU????

Well you shouldn't, because not only is this case horrifying, but it's not the first time that EVEN THE notoriously lax Arizona Vet Board decided Guminski had violated standards.

Take a look:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LowerCourtAndAdminAppeals/docs/adminAppeal/a/LC2003000387001DT.pdf

In 2002, owners of a Great Dane took their pet to the Spay and Neuter Clinic, where "Dr." Guminski was working, to have their pet spayed. Since this dog is not given a name in the court document, for the sake of having a reference, I will refer to her as "Lovey" -- for I am sure, to her owners/pet parents, that is what she was.

So, they took "Lovey" the Great Dane to be spayed by "Dr." Guminski.

The following morning, "Lovey's" owners took her to an emergency clinic, where she was seen by a vet named Jackman. Dr. Jackman noted that "Lovey" was not urinating.

The following day, "Lovey's" owners took her back to the Spay and Neuter Clinic, where they saw a different vet -- Dr. Morrison. "Lovey" had not urinated since the surgery. She was also ill.

According to the court account, Morrison confronted Guminski, saying that he was concerned that Guminski might have tied off both the ureters by mistake.

Jackman performe surgery, and found that "Lovey's" kidneys were enlarged, and there was no urine in her bladder. (Apparently, the ureters carry the urine to the bladder from the kidneys . . . )

He recommended that "Lovey's" owners euthanize her to spare her suffering, and they did.

They also filed a complaint with the vet board.

Now, getting the Arizona Vet Board to take action against a vet is no small feat. Arizona's Vet Board is notoriously awful, from a consumer perspective. To get a clear picture of exactly how bad the Arizona Veterinary Board is, getta load of this -- taken from the wonderful (though heartbreaking) website, http://www.aligus.com. The references to the "Audit" refer to the State's review of the Veterinary Board's effectiveness:

"In the Arizona audit, the dismissal rate of complaints had been as high as 90 percent. Veterinary consultants retained by the Auditor General of the State of Arizona reviewed complaints from fiscal year 1996 and found that as many as one out of every six complaints dismissed should have resulted in some discipline. The Board dismissed a complaint against a veterinarian who inserted a feeding tube into a cat's lungs instead of its stomach. The cat died when food was injected through the tube. The Board dismissed a complaint against a veterinarian who euthanized a dog without the proper consent. In a Board meeting, even though the veterinarian admitted making the error, the Board still dismissed the complaint.
Source: http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/PAD/97-7s.htm.
Since January 1, 1998 more than half of the complaints before the Arizona Board were dismissed. In an average year, one license is revoked and usually this is for drug abuse by the DVM, not animal mistreatment. Most penalties are for failure to notify the board of an address change. Only two Tucson-area veterinarians faced probation or more serious discipline in the past five years for animal care or client interaction. The board's own records are incomplete, inconsistent and inaccurate
Source: http://www.azstarnet.com/star/sun/30629VETS2f2fdst-jmd.html, June 29, 2003 "

Here is the piece of information on the Arizona Vet Board that I find most damning, taken directly from the report which can be found at
http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Veterinary%20Examining,%20State%20Board%20of/Performance/97-07/97-7.pdf

"While investigating one complaint, the Board investigator found that the veterinarian in question was euthanizing animals with household bleach and other cleaning chemicals, and disposing of the animals in plastic bags while they were still alive. Although the investigator submitted a report regarding these allegations in December 1995, Board members were not made aware of this situation until it was brought to their attention by auditors in November 1996 . . . a review of the investigation file in 1997 found no evidence of investigative action [in this case] since December 1995."

So, I'm figuring you need to have pretty compelling evidence to move the Arizona Vet Board to action, and it is no small feat getting them to do so.

So, back to the Vet Board's findings in the case of "Lovey." The vet board found that Guminski violated the practice act, specifically, sections of the Practice Act related to Unprofessional or Dishonorable Conduct (A.R.S. 32-2232), subsection 11, pertaining to "Malpractice, gross incompetence or gross negligence in the practice of veterinary medicine."

They voted to place Guminski on probation for 4 years, and to order her to take 28 hours of continuing education.

Quite conservatively, I believe, the Board stated in it's decision that:

"Tying off the ureters during a routine spay is below the standard of care since tying off ureters is not part of a spay."

Wow. Understatement of the century. Kinda akin to:

"Piercing both of the patients lungs during heart bypass surgery is below the standard of care since piercing both of the patients lungs is not a part of heart bypass surgery."

So, Guminski -- who had already admitted she may have "ligated" [tied off] "Lovey's" ureters, appealed this decision.

And won.

In making her argument on appeal, the court document indicates, Guminski argued that "Lovey" bled SO MUCH that she couldn't see what she was doing. She called the bleeding "irrepressible." She said she had to "feel" her way around in "Lovey's" abdomen, rather than rely on sight -- presumably implying that is how she may have made the mistake of tying off "Lovey's" ureters carring urine from her kidneys to her bladder rather than the uterine horns she was supposed to tie off.

She also said that when she saw "Lovey" was bleeding this much, she "called for her technician to scrub-in" and attempt to assist her in "controlling the bleed."

Question 1: Why was she doing this surgery withouth a technician already scrubbed in to assist?

Question 2: Was this individual licensed?

Question 3: If no one was there but her and her "technician", why does the Dishonorable Judge Michael D. Jones take this account as FACT? This account of her being faced with SO MUCH IRREPRESSIBLE bleeding that she couldn't see what she was doing?

The court document also states as a fact that Guminski told the owners to take "Lovey" to an emergency clinic for overnight monitoring. I wonder whether or not the owners account sustains this assertion? Or is this another case of Courts accepting as fact the word of a vet against a client EVEN when there is a dead dog on the table [figuratively]?

Essentially, the Dishonorable Judge Jones found that because "Lovey" bled so much, it wasn't a "routine spay" saying: "An abdomen flooded by an incessant bleed, to the extent that a veterinarian surgeon has to use her hands to feel for ligatures, is far from a 'routine spay.'"

OK, I'm an idiot layperson too, and even I can see how stupid that statement is. The ligatures were what she was SUPPOSED to place on the uterine arteries, NOT the things she needed to feel for. She was allegedly "feeling" for pieces associated with the reproductive tract and found ureters instead. Not ligatures. Which wouldn't have been there until she put them there. ON THE URETERS, supposedly, which is not where they were supposed to go.

Jones stated that the "standard of care" was "not relevant" to the "emergency situation" faced by Guminski. Presumably, or rather -- Guminski's account verified only by Guminski herself and the "technician."

Emergency. Standard of Care Irrelevant. Remember those words, and forever associate them with the names of the Dishonorable Michael Jones and the Bad Vet Barbara Guminski.

Hey, how about a Bad Judge Daily. Any takers?

Of particular interest: Guminski apparently tolerates no rebuke from the Vet Board.

In 1999, Guminski was placed on probation by the vet board, as the result of a complaint filed about her treatment of a cat. Guminski asked for another hearing and the Board denied her. Then, Guminski filed for judicial review of the Board's decision to deny her a rehearing. The trial court dismissed her complaint for untimely filing, and she then appealed that decision as well, but the appeals court said "we find no merit in her argument."

Does she seem like a weasely sort of person to you? She does to me. She will say anything to get out of being held accountable, won't she? I bet that is why she says "Lovey" was bleeding so badly she couldn't see.

Oh -- no, not weasely. That's the wrong word. It's an insult to weasels. Sorry, cute little weasels. Maybe . . . slimy? Unnaccountable? Irresponsible?

A web search on Guminski associates her with Bethany Animal Hospital in Phoenix.

Links:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LowerCourtAndAdminAppeals/docs/adminAppeal/a/LC2003000387001DT.pdf

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/arizonastatecases/app1/cv/cv000446.pdf

Other Links:

http://www.vetmed.lsu.edu/eiltslotus/Theriogenology-5361/canine_surgery.htm
Quote: "If you ligate both ureters, the dog will go into anuric renal failure."

http://www.petplace.com/cats/hydronephrosis-in-cats/page1.aspx

http://www.x-cd.com/therio06/pdfs/1.pdf
Quote: "Accidental ligation of a ureter, which can result in hydronephrosis or atrophy of the kidney, is easily preventable by careful identification of the uterine horns, uterine body, and cervix prior to ligation of the uterine body, and avoidance of ligation of any extraneous peribladder fat which may contain a ureter."

http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/citation/139/19/471

Other cases where vets ligated ureters:

http://www.lsbvm.org/news_04_04.htm
http://badvetdaily.blogspot.com/2008/02/negligence-in-nevada.html

http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/courses/vcm667/labs/abdom_ug/127900.html
X-rays of a dog who had one ureter ligated (tied off during a spay); it's right kidney had to be removed.

Interesting Vet Student Discussion which Includes the Issue of Ligated Ureters:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=6157433

What Do We Do with the Drugged Out Veterinarian, Installment #3

2008-04-28T19:20:00.001-07:00

This one from Texas.

Because . . . old habits die hard.

In June 2007, the Texas Board of Veterinary Medicine issued Findings of Fact stating that:

"The Board . . . opened a complaint against Erik Gallegos, D.V.M., San Antonio, for possible illegal prescription of a controlled substance, hydrocodone, for self-use . . . Dr. Gallegos admitted that he had a substance abuse problem and that he had attempted to obtain the hydrocodone for self-use. He also admitted that he had taken buphrenophrine from his clinic for self-use."

Dr. Gallegos surrendered his DPS and DEA certificate. Gallegos entered a peer assistance program for "substance abuse recovery" and signed a 5-year contract to participate in the program and be subject to periodic drug screening.

But 6 months after signing this contract and surrendering his DEA license, Gallegos again tried to obtain hydrocodone for personal use. The Texas Department of Public Safety filed criminal charges against him.

At that time, all the Board did was fine him $500, reprimand him, and give him a "stayed" suspension (that is -- a suspension that is not enforced).

Lo and behold, the Texas Veterinary Board "Notes" released in April 2008 cited yet another violation and enforcement action against Gallegos. The Notes say: "The Board found that Gallegos violated rule 573.62, Violation of a Board Order/Negotiated Settlements, Disciplinary Action: Dr. Gallegos received a 60 month suspension, all of which was stayed and probated, must submit to random drug testing, and a formal reprimand."

Question: When in the heck will the Texas Vet Board ever ENFORCE a suspension? How many times can a vet do the same thing over and over and get NO more severe discipline than the time before?

Isn't this the exact same disciplinary action they took the last time, and yet the guy keeps it up?

Links:

http://www.thetooncesproject.com/images/TX_2007_Gallegos_Erik_2007-28.pdf

http://www.tbvme.state.tx.us/Board%20Notes/04-2008%20Board%20Notes.pdf