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.

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

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?

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

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

Virginia Vet Mark Johnstone: HOW do you miss THIS?

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.

Dr. Derrick Nelson's "Inadequate" and Substandard Treatment of "Jilly" Results in Nothing More than An Informal Reprimand (Texas)

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

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.

Long List of Violations Results in Nothing More than a Reprimand and Probation for Virginia Vet, Mitzi Elliot

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

Dog Misdiagnosed for 16 Days, Ultimately Dies; Board Says Proper Diagnosis and Treatment May Have Prevented Dog's Death

When Minnie Pearl's owner brought her to see veterinarian Mary Brantley in Farmerville, Louisiana, Minnie Pearl (a dog) had been coughing, had been congested, and had been continuously panting. It was February 8th.

All of these symptoms are consistent with a respiratory infection. But Dr. Brantley didn't do a chest x-ray. She checked for worms, and finding none, told Minnie Pearl's owner that the reason the dog was panting was that she was overweight.

A week later (February 15th), Minnie Pearl's owner brought her back. She was still sick. This time, Brantley said Minnie Pearl had "tracheal bronchitis" and dispensed pills for a cough and an antibiotic. However, again, Dr. Brantley did not perform ANY x-rays -- and did not offer any x-rays -- to see if the infection had gone down into the poor panting, coughing, congested Minnie Pearl's chest.

A week later (February 22nd), Minnie Pearl's owner talked again with Brantley, saying that poor Minnie Pearl was still panting.

INEXPLICABLY, Brantley again told her that the reason her dog was panting is that she was overweight.

On February 24th, Minnie Pearl's owner took Minnie Pearl back to the vet, where she was seen by a different attending veterinarian. This different vet finally did x-rays on Minnie Pearl, and those x-rays "revealed severe pneumonia and possible ascites." Although meds were given to Minnie Pear at that time, 2 days later (February 26th) Minnie Pearl was worse, and her owner took her to an Emergency Clinic. However, one day later (February 27th), Minnie Pearl died.

The Board said: "A radiograph timely performed by [Brantley], or at least offered to the client, would have provided an opportunity for a proper diagnosis and appropriate treatment which may have prevented the animal's death, or at least reducd unnecessary suffering."

The Board stated that "It is unlawful, and constitutes unprofessional conduct, for [a veterinarian] to fail to properly diagnose and treat a patient."

They fined Brantley a mere $250 and placed her license on probation for a year. Brantley was required to pay for the costs of the invetigation -- in the amount of $1,500."

Poor Minnie Pearl went without a proper diagnosis or proper treatment for worsening chest infection/pneumonia for 16 days.

16 days is a good long time to be able to attack a pneumonia -- I ought to know, I had pneumonia many times as a child. Prompt treatment including the right antibiotics and fluids are critical. But Minnie Pearl didn't get any of that.

Instead, 2 out of 3 times that Minnie Pearl's owner consulted with Brantley, veterinarian Mary Brantley attributed Minnie Pearl's breathing difficulties to her being fat.

So what do you think?

Is Brantley merely lazy?

Or is she incompetent?

Or, perhaps, is she amazingly hostile and prejudiced against overweight beings?

I don't know, but whichever it is, I sure would not take my pets to her.