Bad Vet Robert Feher of Brewer Animal Clinic in Brewer Maine: Disciplined 3 Times by Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Findings of Fact

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

Conclusions of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to Missouri, Dr. Gartner.

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