Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Maryland to Conduct a Full Sunset Review of the Veterinary Board for the First Time in 30 Years

Good news for Maryland Animal Lovers! For the first time since 1989 legislation will be introduced to provide for a full Sunset Review of the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. The 1989 review found that the Maryland Vet Board was SO biased against consumers that it recommended the board be stripped of its complaint function. They found that the Board was loathe to discipline members of its own profession, and recommended that the complaint process be vested in a separate panel with access to veterinary experts. Sadly for me and for other pet owners, no action was taken on that recommendation, and the board has continued to operate without this important recommended change. Many consumers, myself included, have first-hand experiences with the board's hostility toward pet owners who file complaints, its bias in favor of veterinarians; we observe that the board does not take disciplinary action in some truly horrific cases, and that when they do act, we believe those actions are insufficient to deter future negligence, incompetence, or abuse.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Cruel Cat Killing by Ohio Veterinarian Bea Turk Leaves Owner Speechless, in Tears

"I will never stop reliving this nightmare in my head," said Amy Havranek (as quoted by Cleveland.com), recalling the horrific sight of her 17-year old cat Bobbie having a needle shoved into his heart by veterinarian Bea Turk while he was fully conscious and unsedated. In a related news segment, Havrenak recalled: "Bobbie didn't die. Bobbie laid there, screaming and screaming and screaming . . . and I saw her, she just stabbed him right in the heart [again]. Bobbie screamed, like I have never heard any animal scream before. I almost passed out. I didn't know what to do. I was in a state of shock."

The article further describes Havranek as "horrified by his pained reaction." Not only are "heartsticks" without sedation considered inhumane, they are also against the law in Ohio. And Bobbie was not the only victim.

Honey Pot, a Pomeranian, was also given this particularly cruel method of death by Turk according to board documents.

The Ohio Veterinary Medical Board website now lists Turk as retired. In reality, Dr. Turk entered into a consent agreement to surrender her license. But how long was Turk permitted to perpetrate horrors upon patients?

Prior to these charges Turk had racked up a long record of violations -- particularly concerning since the Ohio Veterinary Board isn't exactly famous for its disciplinary zeal. These included violations dating back to 2010 according to the article, as follows:

  • ". . .dirty medical equipment, packages and shelves throughout the clinic and not having a sink in the surgery area" resulting in a $1,500 fine (December 2011);
  • " . . . 13 bottles of expired drugs, damaged X-ray protection gloves, dirt on the X-ray machine and dirty equipment in the pharmacy and laboratory areas" (May 2012)
  • improper suturing of a Yorkshire Terrier's bladder, and releasing the animal to its owner before it had recovered from the anesthesia, resulting in $1,000 in fines and over $1,000 in investigation costs (February 2010)
  • ". . . Turk was fined $500 and reprimanded for over-anesthetizing Cleopatra the cat to spay her. Cleopatra was sent home still not awake and died the next day." (May 2007)
  • Unsanitary conditions and failure to keep proper anesthesia and medical records resulting in fines in 2001 and 2002.
Over 10 years of shoddy veterinary practice -- why didn't Turk clean up her act? Why didn't she take the Ohio Veterinary Board seriously?

The answer seems clear: None of the actions taken by the veterinary board were effective. But what would have been effective, and what would have saved lives, would have been yanking her license years ago when a clear pattern had emerged. While it is good that the Ohio Veterinary Board finally acted strongly, the fact remains that all those years she was permitted to continue her perpetration of suffering and substandard care. Citizens of Ohio are waking up and fighting back, and the veterinary board must listen. In the words of a commenter on one of the articles, "It is amazing that this woman was allowed to continue to practice for so long, given all the issues brought up during her career."


Brunswick Veterinarian Bea Turk is Losing her License to Practice

Veterinarian Disciplined Vet Stabs Cat in Heart

Turk's Signed Consent Agreement Surrendering License

Change.org Petition: Who's Watching Ohio's Pet Vets? started by fierce and fabulous Ohio Consumer Advocate Marybeth Sheehan

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Dr. James Hunt Jr, DVM, New York: Exposed in PETA Horseracing Probe

The video is, like most PETA videos, painful to watch. Perhaps the most heartbreaking is the abusive, cruel, derisive and exploitative language used by the trainers exposed in this problem against the horses they exploit for a living. "Cocksucker." "Motherfucker." "Rat." Derision and hatred and vitriol against the innocent animals they exploit for wealth -- a betrayal.

But another shocking betrayal is encapsulated in evidence of ongoing and routine Lasix administration by James Hunt, DVM, regardless of medical need or potential harm. While lasix is legal in the United States, it is banned in Europe.

The video says: "Lasix . . . was injected into all of Asmussen's horses who were being raced or timed. PETA's investigator recorded New York's top racehorsing veterinarian admit that the primary reason why Lasix is given to most of the horses is for performance enhancement." Hunt -- on camera -- tells the investigator that all of th horses "run on" Lasix because " . . . It makes 'em lighter." When asked if there aren't some horses who don't need it, Hunt says: "Probably, but it's a performance enhancer."

Although the New York Times stated that Hunt could not be contacted to comment on their story, Hunt's previous comments on this matter leave little doubt how he sees his job as a racetrack vet -- and it doesn't involve the interests of the horses. In fact, it doesn't even involve the interests of the horse owners. Previously the New York Times ran a series, Breakdown at America's Racetracks, including the article "Racing Economics Collide with Veterinarians' Oath." In this article Hunt was reported as arguing that trainers should not have to reveal the medication regimens applied to their horses, stating that veterinarians will honor the trainers' request not to reveal this information because ". . . the trainers are their real clients, not the owners . . . The board must also understand that trainers make nearly 100 percent of all veterinarian decisions regarding the medication of their horses.”

Trainers. You know, those guys who were recorded on video calling "their" horses "cocksuckers," "motherfuckers" and "rats." Those guys are the ones this veterinarian lets call the shots.

The veterinary oath includes the promise to protect "animal health and welfare" and to prevent and relieve animal suffering. Veterinarians also swear that "I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics."

You watch the video yourself. And you see if you think that Dr. James Hunt's behavior is consistent with that oath. As you do so, remember that this is not the first time Hunt has been embroiled in scandals and controversies regarding horseracing industry's treatment of its horses.

There was an interesting comment on this story over at a site called the Paulick Report: "If veterinarians were regulated, you would see an end to many of our problems. . . Vets have no skin in the game when it comes to responsibility. It needs to change." I emphasize -- IF vets were regulated. IF. And it's true that they are NOT regulated.

Watch PETA's Undercover Video Investigation

New York Times Article on PETA investigation

Prior NYT Series Quoting Hunt

Monday, March 3, 2014

Breaking the Rules: Veterinarian Peter Rule's Plentiful Violatons of Veterinary Standards Bring Probation, but No Suspension, from Washington State

The Washington State Veterinary Board's Statement of Charges is chilling, detailing physical abuse of patients, drug diversion, not merely allowing but directing the practice of surgeries by an unlicensed assistant, surgical errors, and more.  These "alleged facts" (quoting the Agreed Order) include a description of how a patient died from blood loss after Rule "nicked" her spleen during a spay; another patient burned; yet another given way way way way too much fluid; another with a "nicked" urethra.  The owner of the dog whose ureter was "nicked" gave a heart-wrenching account of her experience in press reports. 

Here are the Findings of Fact from the agreed order from the Washington Veterinary Board on Peter Rule, DVM: 

"From on or about February of 2007 through July of 2008, at least five (5) members of Respondent's staff observed him diverting tramadol for his own use."  Rule admitted to this on camera in local press coverage of the case, a link to which is provided below. 

"From on or about April 2005 through on or about March 2008, at least three (3) employees observed respondent using unnecessary force, excessive physical restraint, and/or threatening conduct with patients."  This is further described in the Veterinary Board's statement of charges as follows:  

[Rule] was observed  "physically and psychologically abusing patients.  Specifically, [Rule]:

A.  Taunted patients by "getting in their faces" or growling at them;
B.  Slapped or punched their faces; 
C. Pulled their tails; and
D. Tightened his hand around the animal's neck until it lost consciousness."

From on or about April 2005 through on or about March 2008, and in August 2010, [Peter Rule, DVM] aided and abetted the unlicensed practice of veterinary medicine. Specifically [Peter Rule, DVM]:

A.  Allowed at least one (1) unlicensed assistant to perform the duties of a licensed veterinarian on at least five (5) occasions; 
B.  Verbally pressured an unlicensed assistant to perform spay and neuter surgery."

{Comment:  Spay surgery is major abdominal surgery.  One is left to wonder what the outcome of this surgery was -- an unlicensed assistant is not even a licensed veterinary technician, it would be like having an orderly do a hysterectomy.  How do you think that turned out? }

From on or about April 2005 through on or about February 2008, at least one (1) employee observed that [Rule] left the clinic on one or more occasions while patients were under sedation and recovering from surgery, even though no veterinarian or veterinary technician was on the premises." 

"From on or about April 2008 through on or about October 2008 [Peter Rule] provided veterinary services that did not meet the standard of care for the State of Washington.  Specifically: 

A.  On or about April 11, 2008, [Peter Rule, DVM] performed an ovario-hysterectomy on client A's dog Daisy. During the surgery [Peter Rule, DVM] nicked the dog's spleen and could not control the consequent bleeding; the patient bled to death."

B.  On or about May 16, 2008, [Peter Rule, DVM] performed an OVH on Client B's dog Sophie.  The dog was placed on a heating device by an employee of respondent's clinic, which burned the patient's skin." 

C.  "On or about October 28, 2008, [Peter Rule, DVM] performed a spay on Client C's cat Bella.  The treatment involved hydration.  An employee of Respondent's clinic over-hydrated the patient by administering fluids at the rate of 700 ml per hour."  Now, how bad is that?  Well, let's see.  According to AAHA itself, the appropriate fluid rate for a cat is 2-3 ml per kg per hour.  (See AAHANet.org Fluid Therapy Guidelines, page 9).  A cat of 10 pounds is about 4.5 kg.  That equates to a fluid rate of 13.5 ml/hr.  That means the cat received fluids at a rate over 50 times that which it should have been!   The board document does not specify what happened to the cat in question, but without a doubt, this can cause life threatening complications such as pleural effusion.

D. On or about August 9, 2010, while performing neuter surgery on Client D and E's dog Trooper, Respondent [Peter Rule, DVM] nicked the patient's urethra."

Trooper's owner was interviewed on a local TV station about what happened to Trooper, saying she could hear her dog " . . .  yelling and writhing, just being really in great pain."

My experience with the Washington State Veterinary Board is that they are, like many Vet Boards, seemingly very reluctant to publicize or even release upon request disciplinary records.  Why would Rule be different?  Could it have anything to do with what Rule said when confronted with the Board's Statement of Charges?  

Rule said, on camera: "How dare they."  

Perhaps that's one of the only times a vet board actually does something about a vet who's practice is substandard -- when the vet himself thumbs his nose at the board. 

Industry Article on Rule Disciplinary Action

 "Vet to Keep His License After Animal Abuse, Stealing Pain Meds"

"The Veterinarian Who Seemed to Hate Animals"

Friday, March 8, 2013

No Respect for the Dead, No Respect for your Trust: Andrew Manesis Arrested for Dumping Dead Patients Bodies

Bronx veterinarian Andrew Manesis was arrested in spring of 2012 for dumping bodies of dead pets in the brush near the Hudson River. News reports stated that “Andrew Manesis of Animal Clinic & Surgery of Throggs Neck was arrested by Westchester County police following an investigation that began April 5 when the remains of 26 cats, eight dogs and a lizard were discovered in dense brush roughly 10 feet from the Hutch in Harrison, N.Y. .. The pets were wrapped in garbage bags and lobbed into the brush on several occasions from March 2011 to April 2012.”

Pet owners had trusted Manesis to handle their beloved pets remains in a respectful manner, and that’s what they presumably paid for, including one “grieving cat lover” who had paid Manesis to cremate her beloved cat.

What was he handing them back instead of the remains of their pets?

This reminds me of an experience I had while working as a receptionist at a Virginia animal hospital briefly, when a company representative showed up “for a pickup” with a card that said: “We buy bones, meat, fat and gristle.” What was happening to the remains of pets owners entrusted to the hospital to dispose of? I think it’s obvious, and of course, I quit.

How many veterinarians throughout the country disregard people’s emotions about their pets, and sell or dump the dead bodies, all the while pocketing the money they are given for cremation and returning a box of mystery ashes? Or nothing at all? According to the news reports, pet owners had paid $100 to $300 for respectful disposal of their pets remains – surely not to have them tossed as trash.

One thing is for sure: When investigative reports have uncovered disrespectful treatment of human remains, it has received national news attention on night time news magazine shows, and resulted in serious investigations.

Manesis? He was charged in Harrison Town Court with fraud, violation of environmental conservation law and two counts of petit larceny – but all of these charges are mere misdemeanors.

More outrageous still: Although naiive bloggers and news people predicted that the New York State Veterinary Board would take strong and decisive action in this case, we here at Bad Vet Daily are not surprised to see the comment of one recent poster on a news story about this case: “Why is this piece of crap vet still opened?” Well, we can tell you why.

The State Veterinary Board doesn’t care any more about pets, or your feelings, than Andrew Manesis does. Shocking, but absolutely true.






Thursday, March 7, 2013

Vets Who Take Joy in Tormenting and Killing Animals: Stacy Smith’s Illegal Hunting Ground

In December 2012 Tennessee Veterinarian Stacy Smith pled guilty to running an illegal hunting operation on his property, which he opened for hunting of wild hogs.

While the news stories on this focus on the role of illegal distribution and hunting of wild hogs contributing to environmental destruction, I am seriously disturbed by the idea of any veterinarian taking joy and profit in running a hunting ground of any kind.

The message this send to me is “Let’s torment and kill some animals! Yippee!”

And a sadist who enjoys tormenting and killing animals for profit on their illegal hunting grounds is not someone who I would ever want to be a medical care provider for my pets, much less be alone with them “in the back.” I would never ever ever ever trust such a person, nor do I think anyone else should.

It also makes me wonder what is up with all the sadistic veterinarians in Tennessee who enjoy tormenting animals as they/before they kill them, given that Smith joins “Barbarous Baber” on the Tennessee Veterinary Wall of Shame.





Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Is "Dr." Andrew Carlton Covering Up Greyhound Racing's Dirty Secrets?

According to a recent alert by Grey2K USA, Arizona Department of Racing's Chief Veterinarian, Andrew Carlton, is in possession of injury reports for the state's racing greyhounds. Yet the Department repeatedly refuses to release this information to Grey2K USA.

Is Dr. Carlton complicit in a cover up of the horrors of greyhound racing?

Carlton, in fact, is not merely implicated in what may be a coverup of racing injuries causing the suffering of greyhound dogs. Web searches for Carlton reveal that he has a history of complaints. Another veterinarian, Janet Forrer, joined with a retired assistant U.S. Attorney General to file a complaint against Carlton in 2008,alleging that Carlton and two track vets, Betty Menke and Paul Pullen, were in violation of the Veterinary Practice Act. Allegations included: steroids being administered by staff not licensed to do so; lack of records for dogs; and most importantly, lack of oversight by Carlton.

In 2005, also under Dr. Carlton's tenure as the State Veterinarian for the Tucson Greyhound Park, animal cruelty investigators seized 76 greyhounds from conditions described as "deplorable." Dogs seized were found to be suffering from posible urinary tract ailments, kennel cough, and "blood diseases." Many were suffering from severe flea and tick infestation, mange, and possible internal parasites. 31 of the dogs were "very thin"; 21 had sores and 8 had puncture wounds and cuts. While Dr. Carlton was not necessarily implicated in the circumstances leading to their deplorable condition, a concerned animal lover must surely ask the question: "How good could his 'oversight' possibly be if such conditions were allowed to develop under his nose? Does this not indicate dereliction of duty on his part?"

An important fact that we all must realize is that nearly every horror visited upon animals in the United States -- from veterinary abuse/malpractice to vivisection to factory farming to puppy mills -- involves the complicity of veterinarians.

Read the facts. Is this one?

News Release with Appeal for Action from Grey2K

Email documentation proving that veterinarian Andrew Carlton is aware of injuries