TEXAS. How would you fee if you took your beloved 6-year old English Sheepdog in to the vet for a simple grooming, and later the vet called you and told you that he had killed him instead?
That is what happened in San Antonio, Texas in 1997, when Leonardo the Sheepdog was taken by his owner to Leon Springs Veterinary Hospital, where he was placed in the decidely NOT CAREFUL hands of veterinarian Doyle Cooper.
The Texas Veterinary Board records state:
". . . Leonardo was placed in a run until the groomer was ready for him. Dr. Cooper did not know that 'Leonardo' was in the building. A short time later, a Great Pyrenees was admitted to be euthanized. Dr. Cooper was in surgery and directed that the dog be placed in a run until the animal could be euthanized later. Instead, the Great Pyrenees was placed in a treatment ward cage. Both animals failed to have an ID card on their doors to determine disposition."
[COMMENTARY: That is the actual text of the vet board document. Here are a couple of things I find very interesting:
a) Isn't it interesting that the staff didn't listen to the vet and that's the source of fault here?? Hmm. Rather than the person in charge? With the whole "Instead . . . [the dog] was placed in a treatment ward cage"? I'm not so sure I believe that, although I'll never know.
b) Also, isn't the "passive voice" choice of the board telling? THE ANIMALS failed to HAVE ID cards on their doors. As they they, themselves, were supposed to grab a
3"x5" card, a marker, and write: Leonardo, Here for Grooming. Great Pyrenees, Here to be Killed. Why doesn't it say WHO FAILED TO PROPERLY MARK the identity of the animals, and WHY THEY FAILED to do so. Carelessness? Lack of procedures, perhaps?
They continue:
" . . . after lunch, Dr. Cooper located 'Leonardo' in the run and euthanized him."
OK, obviously the worst part of all this is the lack of care taken by Cooper to have procedures to make sure he euthanizes the right animal. But isn't it also disturbing, that a sick patient is brought in for euthanasia, presumably because he's suffering, and Cooper goes to lunch first?
But I digress.
"When Dr. Cooper realized he had euthanized the wrong dog, he called Mr. & Mrs. Larsen and explained the facts and circumstances to them."
My interpretation:
FACT: I killed your dog.
CIRCUMSTANCES: We are careless over here.
The document continues:
"Dr. Cooper's treatment of Leonardo did not constitute the exercise of the same degree of humane care, skill, and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession in good standing in San Antonio, Texas or similar community."
Nah, you don't say?
The document goes on to say that Dr. Cooper reached a legal settlement with the family.
It also says that Dr. Cooper INTENDS TO change procedures at Leon Springs Veterinary Hospital to ensure that this won't happen again.
Not he HAS. Not even HE WILL. He INTENDS TO.
This document is dated December 23rd, 1997.
Leonardo was killed, and this incident occurred on, February 26th 1997.
TEN MONTHS have passed between this incident and the signing of this document.
YET, the document still says Cooper INTENDS TO change procedures. As in, in the future.
Hmmm. That's how low a priority it is to make sure you don't kill the wrong animal?
The veterinary board gave Cooper an official reprimand.
That's it.
No fine.
No suspension.
A reprimand.
Outrageous?
Unfortunately, YES, but not unusual.
And not much has changed in the years since.
Greg Munson, who runs the Texas Vet Board Watch Website, has analyzed Texas' 2008 Veterinary Board Actions.
According to Muson, there were 84 Board Orders issued by the Texas Veterinary Board for FY 08.
67 of the 84 Board Orders (or 80%) were for violations UNRELATED to patient care. These include failure to take enough Continuing Education, drug related violations, administrative violations, and other types.
Only 17 of the 84 Board Orders (or 20%) were related to patient care.
60 total fines were issued. 59 of those fines were issued for violations UNRELATED to patient care (failure to take enough training, drug violations, etc).
Of all the patient-care (or malpractice) related actions, only ONE was given a fine.
Of the 17 patient-care related (malpractice-related) orders, 10 received an INFORMAL reprimand. 6 of the 17 received FORMAL reprimands. 1 of the 17 received a restitution only order.
There were a couple of suspensions, but they were all STAYED, which means that the vet does not lose a single day of work.
And that's just the small minority of cases in which the Texas Board takes action. Infamously, it dismisses 92% of all consumer complaints with NO ACTION whatsoever. This has garnered much public attention of late, and has been the topic of several prime time news segments. You can watch them online:
Vetting Your Vet - KSAT News, November 2008
Bad Vets: KTVT, CBS-11, March 2007:
Find more videos like this on ASPCA Online Community
Does this give you some idea what the veterinary board believes is important? It sure isn't patient safety!
Maybe that's why Dr. Cooper and his ilk think it's OK to "INTEND" to improve your procedures 10 months after killing the wrong dog.
Click here to View Public Record for this Case
Texas Veterinary Board Watch Website
Disciplinary Records for Texas Veterinarians
Showing posts with label Texas Veterinary Board. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas Veterinary Board. Show all posts
Friday, November 28, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Longview Texas Vet Janice Petree Fails to Diagnose or Treat Bloat in Spite of Being Told That Owner and ER Vet Suspected Bloat
Molli was a Boxer. Deep chested dogs like Molli are at highest risk for BLOAT -- a life-threatening, emergency medical problem. Also, bloat, otherwise known as GDV, is cited (link below) as the SECOND leading cause of death among dogs, second only to cancer.
The Veterinary Information Network (VIN) states that aggressive and early treatment of bloat is very important, and that with this early and aggressive treatment, 80% of dogs now survive the medical emergency that bloat presents. (Another veterinary website estimates that the survival rate is 90% with appropriate, aggressive and early surgery). Moreover, VIN says: "earlier the veterinarian gets started with treatment, the better chance there is for survival."
So, although bloat is very life-threatening, it is also common, and it is also easy to diagnose: a simple x-ray will help diagnose bloat.
It is very hard to imagine that a veterinarian, presented with a dog like Molli -- a deep chested breed prone to bloat -- who is showing the "hallmark" symptom of trying to vomit but being unable to vomit, and who has been tentatively diagnosed as likely suffering from bloat based on a phone consultation with an EMERGENCY vet -- would apparently set aside that possibility, and fail to do x-rays, and send the dog home with the owner with medicine for the much less serious problem of "gastritis" -- but that is exactly what Texas vet Janice Petree did, according to Texas Vet Board documents.
Here is the story this document tells:
"[Molly's owner] noticed a slight swelling in [her] abdomen . . . The dog seemed to want to vomit but produced no vomitis. The swelling increased. [Molli's owner] contacted the Animal Emergency Clinic in Shreveport [Louisiana]. Consulting by phone, the veterinarian at the clinic said that the dog likely had "flipped stomach" (gastric dilatation and volvulus or GDV). The veterinarian could not immediately see the dog ad referred [Molli's owner] to the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic (ETPEC) in Longview, Texas. About an hour later, [Molli's owner] and "Molli" arrived at the ETPEC where the dog was examined by Janice Petree, D.V.M.
After examining the dog, Dr. Petree opined that "Molli" did not have GDV, but was suffereing from gastritis. [Molli's owner] questioned Dr. Petree about her diagnosis in light of the dog's symptoms, but Dr. Petree was firm that the problem was gastritis since the dog was not showing all the expected symptoms of GDV. Dr. Petree administered an injectio of Centreme and some Centrene tablets to take home. Dr. Petree said she could take x-rays, but reportedly said they were unnecessary and she would not take x-rays of her own dog under comparable conditions. [Molli's owner] took his dog home."
"Shortly after arriving home, [Molli's owner] noticed that the abdominal swelling had increased and 'Molli' appeared to be more uncomfortable. He rushed the dog to the Shreveport emergency clinic aroudn 3:30 a.m. Dr. Renee Jones observed that hte dog was shocky and lethargic. Her cranial abdomen was extremely extended and she was having difficulty breathing. Dr. Jones . . . took x-rays which clearly showed [Molli] had GDV. [Molli] underwent emergency surgery but her condition declined and she died at around 6:48 a.m."
"Dr. Petree's failure to x-ray and correctly diagnose and treat [Molli] does not represent the same degree of humane care, skill, and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession . . . for the following reasons:
The Shreveport veterinarian had already suggested possible GDV to the client and the client, who had observed bloating and non-productive vomiting, had traveled a considerable distance for treatment. Although the client on several occastions expressed concern about possible GDV, Dr. Petree assured [him] that gastritis was the problem. An x-ray and bloodwork would have conclusively settled the matter . . .
Large, deep-chested breeds are most commonly affected . . . The client had described the acute onset of bloating and non-productive vomiting. These factors mandated an x-ray and foundational blood work to rule out GDV.
Although x-rays were discussed . . . Dr. Petree actually discouraged them. The medical history for [Molli] says 'I did tell the husband that if it were my dog, I would not do radiographs at this time and would see if medications started to help.' . . .
[Editorial comment: OK, Dr. Petree, THEN YOUR DOG WOULD DIE OF BLOAT.]
. . . "The client apparently relied on this statement in declining x-rays."
[Editorial comment: It doesn't sound like Molli's owner declined the x-rays, it sounds like Petree declined to do them!]
" . . . waiting and monitoring as recommended by Dr. Petree could have delayed needed treatment . . ."
[COULD HAVE????? Ya gotta love how these vet boards word things.]
So, does it sound to you like Dr. Petree is likely responsible for Molli's death? Now, I am not making this statement as a matter of fact, but as a matter of opinion: I believe that Molli had a better than 80% chance of surviving this emergency when she arrived at the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic. And I believe that Dr. Petree's arrogant failure to heed the preliminary diagnosis of her colleague, to heed the concerns of Molli's owner, and to treat Molli's condition as potentially imminently life-threatening -- her failure to even investigate Molly's condition when both the owner AND another vet were mentioning bloat as a likely or possible cause of her symptoms -- TOOK AWAY MOLLI'S best chance to survive this emergency. The literature I have found says that survival rates are reduced from 80-90% to 50% or less. If I were Molli's owner, I would definitely hold Petree responsible for her death.
Moreover, Petree's failure to approach Molli's situation as urgent, requiring immediate definitive diagnosis (x-rays, etc) and surgery, IS PARTICULARLY REPUGNANT in an EMERGENCY VET.
Why is the management of the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic NOT making sure that its veterinarian's are well-educated in the apparently COMMON medical emergency that is BLOAT -- an emergency that if treated competently and quickly, is survivable 80-90% of the time, but if NOT treated competencly and quickly, will result in death?
Another veterinary hospital provides this explanation of what happens when bloat is not rapidly treated:
"Progression of Events
The first major life-threatening event that occurs is shock. This occurs because the distended stomach puts pressure on the large veins in the abdomen that carry blood back to the heart. The tissues (including the stomach wall) become deprived of blood and oxygen. If the blood supply is not restored quickly, the wall of the stomach begins to die and may rupture. If volvulus occurs, the spleen's blood supply will also be impaired. When the stomach twists, the spleen is also rotated to an abnormal position and its vessels are compressed. When the stomach is distended, digestion stops. This results in the accumulation of toxins that are normally removed from the intestinal tract. These toxins activate several chemicals which cause inflammation. This causes problems with the blood clotting factors so that inappropriate clotting occurs withinblood vessels. This is called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and is usually fatal."
On the Marvistavet website, a study of bloat is provided. This study included an evaluation of circumstances that lead to higher rates of death associated with bloat. One of those included: clinical signs of bloating for more than 6 hours before seeing the vet."
Let's do the countdown: By the time Molli's owner called the first emergency vet, she was already showing the symptoms of abdominal swelling and vomiting with nothing coming up. Then her owner called the Animal Emergency Clinic where a vet told him Molli likely had bloat. Since that vet could not see Molli in a timely enough fashion, Mollis owner drove "a considerable distance" to see Petree, and an hour elapsed betwee the referral and the time he arrived to see Petree. Presumably, by this time, Molli has been showing symptoms for at least a couple of hours.
The document doesn't say how long Molli and her owner were at the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic, but let's assume it is 1 hour. Then, when Petree sent him home with medicine -- having taken NO x-rays, NO bloodwork, and NOT treating Molly for bloat -- he would have had to drive another hour home. Now we are up to 4 hours. Then there was time for Molli's owner to continue to observe her (getting worse) at home. Let's say that's another hour. We are up to 5. Then, he rushed her to the Shreveport ER, where she was finally seen and treated for what she had been suffering from all along -- BLOAT. By that time, it was probably about 6 hours. At least.
Seeing Petree was, as far as I can see, the same as not seeing a vet at all.
For this serious violation of the veterinary practice act, what did the Texas Veterinary Board do?
They reprimanded Dr. Petree.
And made her take some classes -- 6 hours worth, by the end of the year.
That's it. That's all. No fine. No suspension. Nothing sufficient, in my view, to really drum into this woman's head that Molli's situation DESERVED to be taken seriously. She as an ER vet had no business minimizing in her mind the potential of bloat in a susceptible breed with "hallmark" symptoms. She either knew, or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that bloat must be treated immediately to give the dog a good chance at survival.
Sadly and shockingly, as common and serious as bloat is, it seems that Dr. Petree is not alone in her failure to adequately diagnose and treat bloat.
"Dog Connections" published "Bloat Notes" -- a letter from the Director of the Purdue Bloat Research Program, in which Larry Glickman, VMD, said:
"Too often, however, owners of dogs that died of bloat tell me that they had recognized that the dog had a serious problem and rushed the dog to a veterinarian, only to be told that it was probably only a "belly ache," or that the dog's stomach was dilated, but not rotated . . . If you suspect your dog has bloat, but the veterinarian dismisses it as a minor problem, inquire about radiographs to rule out GDV."
Well, Molli's owner apparently did exactly that: Inquired about x-rays to rule out GDV, and Petree "discouraged them." When Molli finally got those x-rays, they "clearly showed [that she had] GDV."
Glickman recounts this story:
"Following is an excerpt of a letter that illustrates some of these points.
'I noticed Kelly [an Irish Setter] attempting to vomit with nothing coming up . . .We went home and Kelly went upstairs where she attempted to vomit several times. I immediately called my vet. Kelly and I arrived at the veterinarian's office within five minutes of the phone call. I told the veterinarian that Kelly had vomited two or three times with nothing coming up. I said that she looked a little broad around the ribs. The veterinarian did a physical examination and concluded that Kelly's problem was just a "stomach ache." ... I was directed to give her Pepto Bismol®. I took Kelly home and she lay down on the bed. About 45 minutes later she went out to the back yard. When I went out 10 minutes later, I found her bloated up. I grabbed her, took her back to the veterinary hospital, but she died on the operating table.'"
Glickman stresses the importance of taking a dog suspected of having bloat to an emergency clinic equipped to do the type of surgeries bloat requires, on an emergency basis. Presumably, East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic should have been one of those places. In my viewpoint, this is what makes the story of Molli even more maddening. The owner did everything right.
Links:
Texas Vet Board Document/Findings of Fact on Janice Petree
Dog Connections and Glickman's Notes on Bloat
Bloat Info and List of Breeds Most at Risk
Veterinary Info Network on Bloat
Explanation of bloat and surgery for bloat; more information on the importance of immediate diagnosis and treatment
Marvistavet Site on Bloat
The Veterinary Information Network (VIN) states that aggressive and early treatment of bloat is very important, and that with this early and aggressive treatment, 80% of dogs now survive the medical emergency that bloat presents. (Another veterinary website estimates that the survival rate is 90% with appropriate, aggressive and early surgery). Moreover, VIN says: "earlier the veterinarian gets started with treatment, the better chance there is for survival."
So, although bloat is very life-threatening, it is also common, and it is also easy to diagnose: a simple x-ray will help diagnose bloat.
It is very hard to imagine that a veterinarian, presented with a dog like Molli -- a deep chested breed prone to bloat -- who is showing the "hallmark" symptom of trying to vomit but being unable to vomit, and who has been tentatively diagnosed as likely suffering from bloat based on a phone consultation with an EMERGENCY vet -- would apparently set aside that possibility, and fail to do x-rays, and send the dog home with the owner with medicine for the much less serious problem of "gastritis" -- but that is exactly what Texas vet Janice Petree did, according to Texas Vet Board documents.
Here is the story this document tells:
"[Molly's owner] noticed a slight swelling in [her] abdomen . . . The dog seemed to want to vomit but produced no vomitis. The swelling increased. [Molli's owner] contacted the Animal Emergency Clinic in Shreveport [Louisiana]. Consulting by phone, the veterinarian at the clinic said that the dog likely had "flipped stomach" (gastric dilatation and volvulus or GDV). The veterinarian could not immediately see the dog ad referred [Molli's owner] to the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic (ETPEC) in Longview, Texas. About an hour later, [Molli's owner] and "Molli" arrived at the ETPEC where the dog was examined by Janice Petree, D.V.M.
After examining the dog, Dr. Petree opined that "Molli" did not have GDV, but was suffereing from gastritis. [Molli's owner] questioned Dr. Petree about her diagnosis in light of the dog's symptoms, but Dr. Petree was firm that the problem was gastritis since the dog was not showing all the expected symptoms of GDV. Dr. Petree administered an injectio of Centreme and some Centrene tablets to take home. Dr. Petree said she could take x-rays, but reportedly said they were unnecessary and she would not take x-rays of her own dog under comparable conditions. [Molli's owner] took his dog home."
"Shortly after arriving home, [Molli's owner] noticed that the abdominal swelling had increased and 'Molli' appeared to be more uncomfortable. He rushed the dog to the Shreveport emergency clinic aroudn 3:30 a.m. Dr. Renee Jones observed that hte dog was shocky and lethargic. Her cranial abdomen was extremely extended and she was having difficulty breathing. Dr. Jones . . . took x-rays which clearly showed [Molli] had GDV. [Molli] underwent emergency surgery but her condition declined and she died at around 6:48 a.m."
"Dr. Petree's failure to x-ray and correctly diagnose and treat [Molli] does not represent the same degree of humane care, skill, and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession . . . for the following reasons:
The Shreveport veterinarian had already suggested possible GDV to the client and the client, who had observed bloating and non-productive vomiting, had traveled a considerable distance for treatment. Although the client on several occastions expressed concern about possible GDV, Dr. Petree assured [him] that gastritis was the problem. An x-ray and bloodwork would have conclusively settled the matter . . .
Large, deep-chested breeds are most commonly affected . . . The client had described the acute onset of bloating and non-productive vomiting. These factors mandated an x-ray and foundational blood work to rule out GDV.
Although x-rays were discussed . . . Dr. Petree actually discouraged them. The medical history for [Molli] says 'I did tell the husband that if it were my dog, I would not do radiographs at this time and would see if medications started to help.' . . .
[Editorial comment: OK, Dr. Petree, THEN YOUR DOG WOULD DIE OF BLOAT.]
. . . "The client apparently relied on this statement in declining x-rays."
[Editorial comment: It doesn't sound like Molli's owner declined the x-rays, it sounds like Petree declined to do them!]
" . . . waiting and monitoring as recommended by Dr. Petree could have delayed needed treatment . . ."
[COULD HAVE????? Ya gotta love how these vet boards word things.]
So, does it sound to you like Dr. Petree is likely responsible for Molli's death? Now, I am not making this statement as a matter of fact, but as a matter of opinion: I believe that Molli had a better than 80% chance of surviving this emergency when she arrived at the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic. And I believe that Dr. Petree's arrogant failure to heed the preliminary diagnosis of her colleague, to heed the concerns of Molli's owner, and to treat Molli's condition as potentially imminently life-threatening -- her failure to even investigate Molly's condition when both the owner AND another vet were mentioning bloat as a likely or possible cause of her symptoms -- TOOK AWAY MOLLI'S best chance to survive this emergency. The literature I have found says that survival rates are reduced from 80-90% to 50% or less. If I were Molli's owner, I would definitely hold Petree responsible for her death.
Moreover, Petree's failure to approach Molli's situation as urgent, requiring immediate definitive diagnosis (x-rays, etc) and surgery, IS PARTICULARLY REPUGNANT in an EMERGENCY VET.
Why is the management of the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic NOT making sure that its veterinarian's are well-educated in the apparently COMMON medical emergency that is BLOAT -- an emergency that if treated competently and quickly, is survivable 80-90% of the time, but if NOT treated competencly and quickly, will result in death?
Another veterinary hospital provides this explanation of what happens when bloat is not rapidly treated:
"Progression of Events
The first major life-threatening event that occurs is shock. This occurs because the distended stomach puts pressure on the large veins in the abdomen that carry blood back to the heart. The tissues (including the stomach wall) become deprived of blood and oxygen. If the blood supply is not restored quickly, the wall of the stomach begins to die and may rupture. If volvulus occurs, the spleen's blood supply will also be impaired. When the stomach twists, the spleen is also rotated to an abnormal position and its vessels are compressed. When the stomach is distended, digestion stops. This results in the accumulation of toxins that are normally removed from the intestinal tract. These toxins activate several chemicals which cause inflammation. This causes problems with the blood clotting factors so that inappropriate clotting occurs withinblood vessels. This is called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and is usually fatal."
On the Marvistavet website, a study of bloat is provided. This study included an evaluation of circumstances that lead to higher rates of death associated with bloat. One of those included: clinical signs of bloating for more than 6 hours before seeing the vet."
Let's do the countdown: By the time Molli's owner called the first emergency vet, she was already showing the symptoms of abdominal swelling and vomiting with nothing coming up. Then her owner called the Animal Emergency Clinic where a vet told him Molli likely had bloat. Since that vet could not see Molli in a timely enough fashion, Mollis owner drove "a considerable distance" to see Petree, and an hour elapsed betwee the referral and the time he arrived to see Petree. Presumably, by this time, Molli has been showing symptoms for at least a couple of hours.
The document doesn't say how long Molli and her owner were at the East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic, but let's assume it is 1 hour. Then, when Petree sent him home with medicine -- having taken NO x-rays, NO bloodwork, and NOT treating Molly for bloat -- he would have had to drive another hour home. Now we are up to 4 hours. Then there was time for Molli's owner to continue to observe her (getting worse) at home. Let's say that's another hour. We are up to 5. Then, he rushed her to the Shreveport ER, where she was finally seen and treated for what she had been suffering from all along -- BLOAT. By that time, it was probably about 6 hours. At least.
Seeing Petree was, as far as I can see, the same as not seeing a vet at all.
For this serious violation of the veterinary practice act, what did the Texas Veterinary Board do?
They reprimanded Dr. Petree.
And made her take some classes -- 6 hours worth, by the end of the year.
That's it. That's all. No fine. No suspension. Nothing sufficient, in my view, to really drum into this woman's head that Molli's situation DESERVED to be taken seriously. She as an ER vet had no business minimizing in her mind the potential of bloat in a susceptible breed with "hallmark" symptoms. She either knew, or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that bloat must be treated immediately to give the dog a good chance at survival.
Sadly and shockingly, as common and serious as bloat is, it seems that Dr. Petree is not alone in her failure to adequately diagnose and treat bloat.
"Dog Connections" published "Bloat Notes" -- a letter from the Director of the Purdue Bloat Research Program, in which Larry Glickman, VMD, said:
"Too often, however, owners of dogs that died of bloat tell me that they had recognized that the dog had a serious problem and rushed the dog to a veterinarian, only to be told that it was probably only a "belly ache," or that the dog's stomach was dilated, but not rotated . . . If you suspect your dog has bloat, but the veterinarian dismisses it as a minor problem, inquire about radiographs to rule out GDV."
Well, Molli's owner apparently did exactly that: Inquired about x-rays to rule out GDV, and Petree "discouraged them." When Molli finally got those x-rays, they "clearly showed [that she had] GDV."
Glickman recounts this story:
"Following is an excerpt of a letter that illustrates some of these points.
'I noticed Kelly [an Irish Setter] attempting to vomit with nothing coming up . . .We went home and Kelly went upstairs where she attempted to vomit several times. I immediately called my vet. Kelly and I arrived at the veterinarian's office within five minutes of the phone call. I told the veterinarian that Kelly had vomited two or three times with nothing coming up. I said that she looked a little broad around the ribs. The veterinarian did a physical examination and concluded that Kelly's problem was just a "stomach ache." ... I was directed to give her Pepto Bismol®. I took Kelly home and she lay down on the bed. About 45 minutes later she went out to the back yard. When I went out 10 minutes later, I found her bloated up. I grabbed her, took her back to the veterinary hospital, but she died on the operating table.'"
Glickman stresses the importance of taking a dog suspected of having bloat to an emergency clinic equipped to do the type of surgeries bloat requires, on an emergency basis. Presumably, East Texas Pet Emergency Clinic should have been one of those places. In my viewpoint, this is what makes the story of Molli even more maddening. The owner did everything right.
Links:
Texas Vet Board Document/Findings of Fact on Janice Petree
Dog Connections and Glickman's Notes on Bloat
Bloat Info and List of Breeds Most at Risk
Veterinary Info Network on Bloat
Explanation of bloat and surgery for bloat; more information on the importance of immediate diagnosis and treatment
Marvistavet Site on Bloat
Friday, May 2, 2008
San Antonio, Texas Veterinarian Scott Weeks Accused of "Indecency with a Child"
More vets behaving badly.
Allegedly.
San Antonio, Texas Vet Scott Weeks (owner of Pet Medical Center in San Antonio) was accused of "frequently touching an 11-year-old boy over the past several years" when he was arrested in 2006, according to a June 2006 San Antonion Express News Article.
If those accusations were true, wouldn't you call it something more than "indecency?" If true, does this not constitute child sexual abuse?
The article states:
"The boy told his mother and investigators that Weeks had masturbated him over recent years . . ."
The article concludes:
". . . the affidavit . . . said Weeks is a 'continuing threat' to the boy and other children, particularly because of his job."
I find that interesting. I would like to know how being a veterinarian causes a person to be a greater threat to children. Is it because children love animals and therefore will want to be close to the veterinarian? Is it because veterinarians come in contact with many children as they treat family pets?
That is an interesting thought -- that persons suspected of molesting children etc. would have greater access or post a greater threat if they are veterinarians.
Very interesting.
If anyone knows what the outcome of this case was, let me know.
Links:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA060106.vet.EN.40f511e1.html
http://www.ksat.com/news/9303110/detail.html
Allegedly.
San Antonio, Texas Vet Scott Weeks (owner of Pet Medical Center in San Antonio) was accused of "frequently touching an 11-year-old boy over the past several years" when he was arrested in 2006, according to a June 2006 San Antonion Express News Article.
If those accusations were true, wouldn't you call it something more than "indecency?" If true, does this not constitute child sexual abuse?
The article states:
"The boy told his mother and investigators that Weeks had masturbated him over recent years . . ."
The article concludes:
". . . the affidavit . . . said Weeks is a 'continuing threat' to the boy and other children, particularly because of his job."
I find that interesting. I would like to know how being a veterinarian causes a person to be a greater threat to children. Is it because children love animals and therefore will want to be close to the veterinarian? Is it because veterinarians come in contact with many children as they treat family pets?
That is an interesting thought -- that persons suspected of molesting children etc. would have greater access or post a greater threat if they are veterinarians.
Very interesting.
If anyone knows what the outcome of this case was, let me know.
Links:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA060106.vet.EN.40f511e1.html
http://www.ksat.com/news/9303110/detail.html
Monday, April 28, 2008
What Do We Do with the Drugged Out Veterinarian, Installment #3
This one from Texas.
Because . . . old habits die hard.
In June 2007, the Texas Board of Veterinary Medicine issued Findings of Fact stating that:
"The Board . . . opened a complaint against Erik Gallegos, D.V.M., San Antonio, for possible illegal prescription of a controlled substance, hydrocodone, for self-use . . . Dr. Gallegos admitted that he had a substance abuse problem and that he had attempted to obtain the hydrocodone for self-use. He also admitted that he had taken buphrenophrine from his clinic for self-use."
Dr. Gallegos surrendered his DPS and DEA certificate. Gallegos entered a peer assistance program for "substance abuse recovery" and signed a 5-year contract to participate in the program and be subject to periodic drug screening.
But 6 months after signing this contract and surrendering his DEA license, Gallegos again tried to obtain hydrocodone for personal use. The Texas Department of Public Safety filed criminal charges against him.
At that time, all the Board did was fine him $500, reprimand him, and give him a "stayed" suspension (that is -- a suspension that is not enforced).
Lo and behold, the Texas Veterinary Board "Notes" released in April 2008 cited yet another violation and enforcement action against Gallegos. The Notes say: "The Board found that Gallegos violated rule 573.62, Violation of a Board Order/Negotiated Settlements, Disciplinary Action: Dr. Gallegos received a 60 month suspension, all of which was stayed and probated, must submit to random drug testing, and a formal reprimand."
Question: When in the heck will the Texas Vet Board ever ENFORCE a suspension? How many times can a vet do the same thing over and over and get NO more severe discipline than the time before?
Isn't this the exact same disciplinary action they took the last time, and yet the guy keeps it up?
Links:
http://www.thetooncesproject.com/images/TX_2007_Gallegos_Erik_2007-28.pdf
http://www.tbvme.state.tx.us/Board%20Notes/04-2008%20Board%20Notes.pdf
Because . . . old habits die hard.
In June 2007, the Texas Board of Veterinary Medicine issued Findings of Fact stating that:
"The Board . . . opened a complaint against Erik Gallegos, D.V.M., San Antonio, for possible illegal prescription of a controlled substance, hydrocodone, for self-use . . . Dr. Gallegos admitted that he had a substance abuse problem and that he had attempted to obtain the hydrocodone for self-use. He also admitted that he had taken buphrenophrine from his clinic for self-use."
Dr. Gallegos surrendered his DPS and DEA certificate. Gallegos entered a peer assistance program for "substance abuse recovery" and signed a 5-year contract to participate in the program and be subject to periodic drug screening.
But 6 months after signing this contract and surrendering his DEA license, Gallegos again tried to obtain hydrocodone for personal use. The Texas Department of Public Safety filed criminal charges against him.
At that time, all the Board did was fine him $500, reprimand him, and give him a "stayed" suspension (that is -- a suspension that is not enforced).
Lo and behold, the Texas Veterinary Board "Notes" released in April 2008 cited yet another violation and enforcement action against Gallegos. The Notes say: "The Board found that Gallegos violated rule 573.62, Violation of a Board Order/Negotiated Settlements, Disciplinary Action: Dr. Gallegos received a 60 month suspension, all of which was stayed and probated, must submit to random drug testing, and a formal reprimand."
Question: When in the heck will the Texas Vet Board ever ENFORCE a suspension? How many times can a vet do the same thing over and over and get NO more severe discipline than the time before?
Isn't this the exact same disciplinary action they took the last time, and yet the guy keeps it up?
Links:
http://www.thetooncesproject.com/images/TX_2007_Gallegos_Erik_2007-28.pdf
http://www.tbvme.state.tx.us/Board%20Notes/04-2008%20Board%20Notes.pdf
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Unmonitored Dog Dies Alone Overnight After Dental in Clinic of Crosby, Texas Vet Harold Wagers
Three days before Christmas, in 2004, "Lilly" the English Bulldog was brought into the office of Crosby, Texas vet Harold Wagers for oral surgery and teeth cleaning. When her owner called to see how things were going, someone at the clinic told her that Lilly had regurgitated food during surgery, but was recovering. Wagers said he had instructed Lilly's owner that she should be "NPO" (no food or water) before the surgery. Lilly continued to vomit.
"At the time of clinic closing, Lilly was still recumbant." (Lying on her side.) Without consulting Lilly's owner, "Wagers decided to keep the dog overnight at the clinic, but no one was at the clinic to do after-hours monitoring. Sometime during the night, Lilly died. A necropsy noted that the probably cause of death was aspiration of gastric content."
The Board said that "Dr. Wagers did not exercise the same degree of humane care, skill and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession in good standing in Crosby, Texas . . . the patient posed an elevated risk due to the vomiting that occurred during and after surgery. The dog was observed for less than two hours before the clinic closed. Dr. Wagers should have consulted with the owner about the need for continued monitoring, and given the owner the option of an after-hours facility or monitoring at home."
OK, so violations, substandard care, and dead dog. What does the vet board do?
They simply "formally reprimanded" Wagers.
Wow, what strong action. NOT. With pet protectors like the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, no wonder vets don't care if our pets die. Bet vets like Wagers live in fear of you people, huh? NOT.
This is a good example of the awful things that can happen to your pet when they are left unmonitored, alone overnight in a cage at a vet "hospital."
"At the time of clinic closing, Lilly was still recumbant." (Lying on her side.) Without consulting Lilly's owner, "Wagers decided to keep the dog overnight at the clinic, but no one was at the clinic to do after-hours monitoring. Sometime during the night, Lilly died. A necropsy noted that the probably cause of death was aspiration of gastric content."
The Board said that "Dr. Wagers did not exercise the same degree of humane care, skill and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession in good standing in Crosby, Texas . . . the patient posed an elevated risk due to the vomiting that occurred during and after surgery. The dog was observed for less than two hours before the clinic closed. Dr. Wagers should have consulted with the owner about the need for continued monitoring, and given the owner the option of an after-hours facility or monitoring at home."
OK, so violations, substandard care, and dead dog. What does the vet board do?
They simply "formally reprimanded" Wagers.
Wow, what strong action. NOT. With pet protectors like the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, no wonder vets don't care if our pets die. Bet vets like Wagers live in fear of you people, huh? NOT.
This is a good example of the awful things that can happen to your pet when they are left unmonitored, alone overnight in a cage at a vet "hospital."
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Texas Vet Euthanized Dog Against Owners Wishes; Tells Owner the Dog Died on its Own
Plano Texas Vet Paul Burnside was working at the North Texas Emergency Pet Clinic (NTEPC) in Carrolton, Texas, when a Dallas resident brought his dog to NTEPC for "vomiting, diarrhea, and lethargy." Burnside, according to the Board document, found that the dog was "severely ill" (although the nature of the illness is not specified, and there is no mention of any tests at all), and reportedly recommended "aggressive treatment." The owner declined due to "financial constraints." Burnside then recommended euthanasia of the dog, which the owner also declined.
Would the owner have possibly come up with the money to treat the dog if given some more time? Would the dog have lived? We will never know, because this vet decided to take matters into his own hands.
According to the vet board document:
"Dr. Burnside decided on his own to euthanize the dog and he told the owner that the dog died while awaiting discharge. He stated in the patient record . . . 'the patient expired on his own.' He also altered the invoice for another animal previously euthanized to account for the Euthasol actually used for [this] dog. Controlled substances records were also altered to attribute Euthasol to another animal."
The Texas Veterinary Board found Dr. Burnside in violation of:
The professional standard of humane treatment, and
Rules related to Honesty, Integrity and Fair Dealing
So, what did the Board do about this egregious behavior?
They gave Burnside a Formal Reprimand. That's it. No fine, no suspension, no probation. What a joke.
Whose right is it to decide when an animal should be euthanized? The owner's, not the vets. Do we know whether or not this dog would have lived if Paul Burnside hadn't taken matters into his own hands and killed him? No, we don't. Perhaps the owner would have come up with the money for treatment. Perhaps the dogs codition was not fatal and he would have lived. Who knows -- there is no mention of any tests or any actual diagnosis, so it's not clear what "aggressive" and expensive treatment Burnside recommended that the owner declined, or what that treatment was for.
What is clear, is that this vet decided to kill this dog, against the wishes of his owner, and then lied about it -- altering hospital records and more. YET, all the Texas Vet Board sees fit to do is give him a reprimand.
Another interesting fact about this case -- Burnside was reported to the Board not by the owner, but by his boss, Kirk Esmond, President of the Board of Directors of the North Texas Emergency Pet Clinic. I personally thank Esmond for being so outraged by this behavior that he reported Burnside.
Links:
http://www.tbvme.state.tx.us/Board%20Minutes/Minutes_06_15_06.pdf
Would the owner have possibly come up with the money to treat the dog if given some more time? Would the dog have lived? We will never know, because this vet decided to take matters into his own hands.
According to the vet board document:
"Dr. Burnside decided on his own to euthanize the dog and he told the owner that the dog died while awaiting discharge. He stated in the patient record . . . 'the patient expired on his own.' He also altered the invoice for another animal previously euthanized to account for the Euthasol actually used for [this] dog. Controlled substances records were also altered to attribute Euthasol to another animal."
The Texas Veterinary Board found Dr. Burnside in violation of:
The professional standard of humane treatment, and
Rules related to Honesty, Integrity and Fair Dealing
So, what did the Board do about this egregious behavior?
They gave Burnside a Formal Reprimand. That's it. No fine, no suspension, no probation. What a joke.
Whose right is it to decide when an animal should be euthanized? The owner's, not the vets. Do we know whether or not this dog would have lived if Paul Burnside hadn't taken matters into his own hands and killed him? No, we don't. Perhaps the owner would have come up with the money for treatment. Perhaps the dogs codition was not fatal and he would have lived. Who knows -- there is no mention of any tests or any actual diagnosis, so it's not clear what "aggressive" and expensive treatment Burnside recommended that the owner declined, or what that treatment was for.
What is clear, is that this vet decided to kill this dog, against the wishes of his owner, and then lied about it -- altering hospital records and more. YET, all the Texas Vet Board sees fit to do is give him a reprimand.
Another interesting fact about this case -- Burnside was reported to the Board not by the owner, but by his boss, Kirk Esmond, President of the Board of Directors of the North Texas Emergency Pet Clinic. I personally thank Esmond for being so outraged by this behavior that he reported Burnside.
Links:
http://www.tbvme.state.tx.us/Board%20Minutes/Minutes_06_15_06.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)