What's YOUR Vet Selling You? (Subtitle: How Vet Boards Cirumvent State Requirements to Revoke Vets License for a Felony of Fraud, Moral Turpitude...

Blink and you'd have missed it. That is what could be said for the Missouri Veterinary Board's revocation of veterinarian Lynn "Nicole" Sutherland Scott's license.

In January, 2006, Scott led guilty to two counts of "Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale" in the US District Court fr the Western District of Missouri. This is a felony offense, and Scott was sentenced to three years probation, a "special assessment" of $200, restitution of $534.75, and a $4,000 fine.

The Board was notified of this in a complaint filed the following November.

In the Board document, it states that:

"Misbrandig or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale is a crime and essential element of which is dishonesty . . . Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale is a crime involving moral turpitude . . . by pleading guilty to two couts of Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale, [Scott] pled guilty to an offense an essential element of which involves fraud, dishonesty, and involves moral turpitude."

The Board's decision stated that they were STATUTORILY REQUIRED by the State to REVOKE Scott's license as a result of this felony conviction. But apparently, those statutes don't say how long they have to revoke it FOR. So, they added that they placed no restrictions on when she could reapply to have her license back.

This document was signed on February 6th, 2007.

Nine -- that's 9 -- days later, on February 15th, the Board issued an order granting her back a probationary license. In spite of her guilty plea to a felony involving dishonesty, moral turpitude, and fraud, in this document giving her back her license, the Board declared her a person of "good moral character."

So much for protecting our pet's food in the wake of the horrible events last year. Someone pleads guilty to adulterating food, is REQUIRED to have their license revoked by the veterinary board -- the agency responsible for enforcement of the very statute that requires the revocation -- and then the Vet Board turns around and reinstates the license just 9 days later.

So, would you go to a vet that has "misbranded" or "adulterated" food, been "dishonest" and committed "fraud" and crimes of "moral turpitude" involving food she is selling?

Well, if you are willing to do so one thing is for sure: The Missouri Veterinary Board won't stand in your way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Findings of Fact

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

Conclusions of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to Missouri, Dr. Gartner.

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