Virginia Vet William Will Shows NO LOVE to Patient Kismet

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.

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

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.

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

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?"

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

Multiple Violations in One Year for Michigan Vet, Abolarin Agbona of "Comprehensive Animal Clinic" in Lansing

In 2006, the Michigan Veterinary board filed two administrative complaints against Comprehensive Animal Clinic's (Lansing, Michigan) owner and veterinarian, Abolarin Agbona. In both cases Agbona was found by the Board to have committed acts of negligence and substandard care; in one of these cases the "unsanitary conditions" of Comprehensive Animal Clinic were found to violate public health code.

Case 1: The Case of Zippy the Cat

The Board's administrative complaint states the following:

"On March 23, 2005, at approximately 8:00 p.m., a feline named Zippy presented to [Agbona], who diagnosed Zippy with urinary blockage. [Agbona's] documentation concerning his treatment of Zippy was inadequate. Specifically, Zippy's medical records showed no indication of physical examination findings, history and route of medications administered. The medical records also lacked a summary of x-ray findings, urinalysis results, or procedures performed."

"On March 25, 2005, when Zippy was picked up from the clinic by its [sic] owner, Zippy was covered in urine and feces. Thereafter, Zippy continued to experience problems urinating and the owner sought treatment for Zippy from another veterinarian."

"On September 14, 2005, Complainant's investigator conducted an inspection of [Agbona's] clinic and found that [Agbona] failed to store controlled substances in a securely locked cabinet or maintain an accurate inventory of controlled substances. Complainant's investigator also noted a strong odor of urine and feces upon entering the clinic, and found uncapped needles and syringes on hallway countertops and overflowing Sharp's containers. Complainant's investigator further found that the refrigerator/freezer in the clinic stored medications, but also contained foods intended for human consumption."

The Board found that Agbona's conduct "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 . . . [and] evidences a departure from, or failure to conform to, minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing practice for the health profession . . . " They also found that "the unsanitary conditions of [Agbona's clinic]" violated the public health code.

Case 2: The Case of Koda the Ferman Shepherd
(Do you think they mean GERMAN shepherd? The Board document definitely says "Ferman . . ." Wow, brilliant . . . )
The Board document states that:

"On February 8, 2006, at approximately 10:30 p.m., a Ferman Shepard [sic] named Koda presented to [Agbona] on an emergency basis with symptoms of "bloat."

"On February 8 and 9, 2006, [Agbona] provided substandard treatment to Koda, and [his] documentation concerning his treatment of Koda was inadequate to determine the seriousness of the dog's condition. Specifically, [Agbona's] documentation lacked any mention of fluid therapy, electrolytes, or acid-base evaluations in the medical records. [Agbona's] x-ray of Koda was of poor technial quality so as to render it totally useless, and he failed to refer Koda to another veterinarian. Furthermore, [Agbona] failed to document the results of a gastric lavage." (Gastric lavage meaning pumping out the stomach -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric_lavage.)

"On February 9, 2006, Koda's condition continued to deteriorate and the dog's owners sought treatment for Koda with another veterinarian, who diagnosed Koda with gastric-dilation/volvulus (GVD)" (GVD is bloat.)

The Board found that Agbona's conduct "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 . . ." and that Agbona's conduct "evidences a departure from, or failure to conform to, minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing practice for the health profession . . ."

So, could the failure to diagnose and properly treat Koda for bloat have cost him his life?

It could have, although we do not know whether or not it did, because the board document doesn't say what happened to Koda.

But according to this website (http://www.allpetsmacomb.com/emergencies.html):

"Gastric dilatation volvulus (GDV) or "bloat" is a condition in which the stomach
enlarges with gas and flips/rotates on itself. This results in an increasing amount
of gas that cannot be released from the stomach, respiratory compromise, shock, and
death. Any dog with rapidly increasing abdominal size, respiratory difficulty, and
vomiting or attempted vomiting, should be examined by a veterinarian immediately. . .

"Rapid diagnosis and treatment is essential to a successful outcome.
IV fluids, medication for shock, and surgery to relieve the torsion and empty the gas are necessary for dogs with GDV."

Another website (http://www.animalemergencyservices.com/Canine_Conditions.aspx) says:

"[Bloat]is a life-threatening condition. . . Failure to rapidly treat this condition will result in your pet’s death."

I know if I lived in Michigan, I would NEVER darken the doorstep of "Comprehensive Animal Clinic" or any other place this vet ever worked!

Links: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch_dar_060206_164522_7.pdf