Houston veterinarian Kenneth Beasley has three Standard of Care violations on his record. And to read the details is chilling.
On or about May 30, 1997, Kenneth V. Beasley, D.V.M., was presented with “Sandy” a five year old male Dachshund mix, at the Camden Veterinary clinic in Houston, Texas . . . [the owner] presented “Sandy” because the dog was not feeling well and had problems walking.
On or about the same day, Dr. Beasley examined “Sandy” and made a diagnosis of a heartworm infection and congestive heart failure. Dr. Beasley did not test for heartworms.
On or about the same day, [the owner] told Dr. Beasley that she would like to take the dog to her regular veterinarian for a second opinion and then temporarily left the examination room.
On or about that same day and upon [the owner’s] return to the examination room and shortly thereafter, Dr. Beasley told Ms. Estrada that he had given “Sandy” an injection of Ivermectin to treat the heartworm infection. The patient record of “Sandy” records a .1 cc injection of Ivomec. [The owner] did not agree to this treatment prior to its administration by Dr. Beasley. Sandy’s heart condition may have existed before the injection of Ivomec.”
[What the heck is that last statement supposed to mean? Ummm, whatever. Wait till you
hear the conclusion of the necropsy . . . oh, yeah, the dog dies.]
“On or about that same day, Dr. Beasley prescribed and dispensed Ivomec to [the owner] for the continued treatment of “Sandy’s” heartworm infection.
“ . . . Sandy began vomiting after being returned home. [The owner] subsequently presented “Sandy” to Charles Evens, D.V.M. and explained the treatment prescribed by Dr. Beasley. Dr. Evan’s examination of “Sandy” revealed a severe heart murmur, mild dehydration, anemia, and a heartworm infection. The dog was treated for the dehydration and anemia.”
“On or about June 1, 1997, “Sandy’s” condition continued to deteriorate and he was presented to David Wainwright, D.V.M., VCA Spring Branch Animal Hospital, Houston, Texas, as an emergency patient. The dog was presented with a history of red tinged urine. Dr. Wainwright’s examination revealed moderately severe dehydration, and mucus membrane pallor. A packed cell volume was completed (16%) to determine the extent of anemia. Dr. Wainwright administered subcutaneous fluids, Reglan, Cimetidine, and Prednisone. Doxycline was dispensed for home administration. A blood transfusion and hospitalization were recommended.
“On or about June 2, 1997, “Sandy” was examined by Tom Dayton, D.V.M., at Parker Road Animal Hospital, Houston, Texas. Dr. Dayton’s examination revealed a temperature of 100 degrees, grade IV heart murmur, pale mucus membranes and congested lungs. During treatment by Dr. Dayton, “Sandy” began having seizures and died.
“ . . . a necropsy was performed by Dr. Dayton and revealed the following: A visible lesion confined to the chest cavity, with heartworms in the pre and post vena cava, right ventricle and right article. All arteries of the lungs were impacted with heartworms. Dr. Dayton determined the cause of death to be an immediate kill of adult heartworms causing them to block the right aorta and arteries causing congestion in the lung tissue and high blood pressure with death.
“The product monographs for the various Ivomec injectables states that these medicines should not be used to treat dogs, and that such treatment may result in fatality.”
You’d think Beasley would be more careful with that drug after his previous run in with the vet board just a few years earlier, which also involved this same drug. But apparently not.
A few years earlier, the following occurred:
An owner “took his male collie ‘Laddie’ to the Camden Veterinary Clinic, operated by Kenneth V. Beasley, D.V.M., for yearly vaccinations and a heartworm check.
‘Laddie’ tested microfilaria [heartworm] positive. Dr. Beasley did not vaccinate ‘Laddie’ at that time but opted to treat for heartworms.
“Dr. Beasley administered one injection of ½ cc of Ivomec (ivermectin 1%) mixed with 2 cc of Albon with B12. Dr. Beasley dispensed to the owner 3 cc of Ivomec mixed with 2 ounces of Vi-Sorbin, to be given to ‘Laddie’ one dropper full, once a day for a month.
“The label attached to the medication dispensed . . . did not include the name, address and telephone number of the clinic, the dispensing veterinarian’s name, the client name, the quantity and strength of the product and precautionary statements, as required by Rule of Professional Conduct . . . By failing to properly label the medication . . . Dr. Ware violated Rule of Professional Conduct 573.40.
“By administering ½ cc Ivomec, equivalent to 5,000 ug, to ‘Laddie’ without weighing him, Dr. Beasley exceeded the 200 ug/kg toxic range for a collie weighing 22 kilograms. The medication was sufficient to cause toxicity in an ivermectin sensitive dog. Dr. Beasley also failed to advise his client to observe the collie closely for at least 8 hours after treatment because of the sensitivity of collies to ivermectin. This activity violated Rule 573.22, Standard of Humane Treatment.”
So are you guessing the same thing that I am guessing? That Laddie died too?
But we’re not done yet with the record of Dr. Beasley.
Because this still wasn’t Dr. Beasley’s first very sad and shocking violation.
In 1992 an owner brought his seven month old Chow mix, “Lady” to Beasley.
Lady couldn’t walk, and “She passed considerable amounts of bloody fecal material. Dr. Beasley diagnosed the dog with parvo and suggested euthanasia.”
“Dr. Beasley’s patient records reflect he administered an unknown amount of Benselmin wormer with Vi-Sorbin, orally; an unknown amount of Vitamin B12, Vitamin K, and Atropine. Dr. Beasley also dispensed 20 250 mg Ampicillin capsules. The patient records do not include dosages of medications administered and details necessary to substantiate diagnosis . . . Although Dr. Beasley instructed [the owner] to give “Lady” a mixture of 3-4 ounces of ½ Gatorade and honey every hour or so as often as possible, until the dog started eating, he failed to treat “Lady” for parvo with the same skill, care and diligence that would have been performed by the average veterinarian under same or similar circumstances. In particular, Dr. Beasley failed to give an adequate volume of parenteral fluids."
“The label on the container of Ampicillin dispensed by Dr. Beasley to [the owner] contained the following information only: “Lady, 1 capsule twice daily.” The label did not contain name and address of veterinarian; the client’s name; species; name, strength and quantity of drug dispensed.
“The activities described . . . violated Rule 583.22, Professional Standard of Humane Treatment, and Rule 573.22, Patient Record Keeping . . . “
For informaton on how parvo really should be treated, here are some resources:
Veterinary Partner.com re: Parvo
One woman's story about saving her parvo pup
Animal Health Channel on Parvo
Collies -- a breed susceptible to Ivermectin reactions
More ivermectin info
"Don't use Ivomec as heartworm preventative for dogs"
Marvistavet -- includes notice on dangerous use of Ivomec in dogs (Ivomec is for larger animals like farm animals)
Showing posts with label dog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dog. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
VCA Vet Marjorie Field Wraps Dogs Throat and Head Too Tightly; Dog Dies of Suffocation (Michigan)
This is one of those rare cases that actually made it to court.
Here is an excerpt from the opinion of the court:
"Plaintiff [John Koester] left his dog at defendant VCA's kennel for a weekend. Plaintiff left explicit instructions not to use a collar on the dog because of a salivary gland problem for which VCA had previously treated the pet. Upon returning for the dog, plaintiff noticed that the dog's neck area was swollen. Within a few days, when the dog continued to exhibit swelling in the neck area, plaintiff returned to defendant VCA. Defendant [Marjorie] Field, a veterinarian, treated the dog by draining its enlarged gland and bandaging its neck and head. When plaintiff returned to pick up his dog after the procedure, he noticed that the dog appeared to have trouble breathing and asked defendant Field whether the bandages were too tight. Field responded that the dog would be fine once it calmed down. Later that same day, plaintiff left the dog alone for ten to fifteen minutes to run an errand. When plaintiff returned home, he discovered the dog laying motionless on the floor, having apparently choked to death. An autopsy determined that the dog suffocated to death because the bandages were wrapped too tightly."
Unfortunately, the Court did not award Koester the damages he sought for emotional distress. However, the facts of the case are there for all to see.
What kind of emotional distress do you think he suffered, contemplating his dog suffocating to death? Strangled to death by bandages wrapped too tight? What kind of emotional distress would YOU suffer?
So, here is another question: Did vet Marjorie Field move to Ohio after this case, and did she continue to practice NEGLIGENTLY?
A web search of "Marjorie Field, DVM" brings up 2003 minutes from the Ohio Veterinary Board, discussing investigation into a complaint against "Marjorie Field, DVM."
Links:
Case Details, Koester vs. VCA Animal Hospital
Citation among list of animal law cases
Actual Case Document
Here is an excerpt from the opinion of the court:
"Plaintiff [John Koester] left his dog at defendant VCA's kennel for a weekend. Plaintiff left explicit instructions not to use a collar on the dog because of a salivary gland problem for which VCA had previously treated the pet. Upon returning for the dog, plaintiff noticed that the dog's neck area was swollen. Within a few days, when the dog continued to exhibit swelling in the neck area, plaintiff returned to defendant VCA. Defendant [Marjorie] Field, a veterinarian, treated the dog by draining its enlarged gland and bandaging its neck and head. When plaintiff returned to pick up his dog after the procedure, he noticed that the dog appeared to have trouble breathing and asked defendant Field whether the bandages were too tight. Field responded that the dog would be fine once it calmed down. Later that same day, plaintiff left the dog alone for ten to fifteen minutes to run an errand. When plaintiff returned home, he discovered the dog laying motionless on the floor, having apparently choked to death. An autopsy determined that the dog suffocated to death because the bandages were wrapped too tightly."
Unfortunately, the Court did not award Koester the damages he sought for emotional distress. However, the facts of the case are there for all to see.
What kind of emotional distress do you think he suffered, contemplating his dog suffocating to death? Strangled to death by bandages wrapped too tight? What kind of emotional distress would YOU suffer?
So, here is another question: Did vet Marjorie Field move to Ohio after this case, and did she continue to practice NEGLIGENTLY?
A web search of "Marjorie Field, DVM" brings up 2003 minutes from the Ohio Veterinary Board, discussing investigation into a complaint against "Marjorie Field, DVM."
Links:
Case Details, Koester vs. VCA Animal Hospital
Citation among list of animal law cases
Actual Case Document
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)