Maryland Vet Jayne Tung Recommends Euthanasia Base on her Wrong Diagnosis

In April of 2007, 11-year old Irish Setter "Maire" was brought to see Dr. Jayne Tung.

The Maryland Vet Board states that "Dr. Tung misread a radiograph of "Maire" on April 13, 2007 . . . [and] as a result of her improper reading of the radiograph, Dr. Tung incorrectly diagnosed "Maire" as having cancer, and . . . Dr. Tung recommended that "Maire" be euthanized and did not discuss alternative treatment options with "Maire's" owner . . . Dr. Tung . . . [did not conform] to the minimal standards of care and treatment which are customary among veterinarians in this State."

Like so many Maryland Vet Board findings, this document leaves the reader with many questions.

Was Maire euthanized by her owners based on this misdiagnosis and the resultant recommendations of Dr. Tung?

Was she therefore euthanized unnecessarily?

The board refers to alternative treatment options . . . for what????? The cancer that Maire didn't have?

I am sure that if Maire didn't have cancer, her owner(s) would certainly have wanted to explore alternatives other than DEATH.

The Maryland Board fined Dr. Tung $600. Although they suspended her license for 2 weeks they "stayed" the entire suspension -- meaning that it was not enforced and she would not have missed a day of work. They placed her on probation for only 6 months.

A web search today on Dr. Tung didn't turn up an veterinary hospital affiliation on the first couple pages of results.

It did, however, turn up an association with our illustrious FDA. (Office of Surveillance and Compliance, to be exact.) Ah, the famously competent protectors of our pets' food supply, and our own. I bet they run out and hire every vet prone to misdiagnosis. Seems Tung isn't so good at surveilling -- at least not surveilling patient ex-rays; and not so good at complying -- with standard of care that is.

No wonder the fabulous FDA wanted her.

Colorado Vet Matthew Aaronian: Misdiagnosis; Unnecessary Procedure; and Refusal to Release Animal to Owner Due to an Unpaid Bill, and Maybe Worse

Colorado is one of those states where the veterinary board says lots of nothing in its written decisions. They give very little indication of what happened to the animal as a result of the actions described. But reading between the lines, the "Stipulated Letter of Admonition" issued to Colorado Springs vet Matthew Aaronian raises HUGE RED FLAGS. Let me tell you what is in this document and how I interpret it.

This document, dated March 26, 2007, says:

". . . the Board determined . . . [that] you failed to meet the generally accepted standards of the practice when you misdiagnosed a condition and performed a procedure that was medically unnecessary . . . . The Board also found that you violated C.R.S. sections 12-64-120(1) and (2) when you withheld records from the animals owner because the owner had an outstanding bill. Finally, the Board found that your policy of deeming an animal abandoned if a bill remains upaid for seven days violates C.R.S. section 12-64-115, and that you failed to give proper notice of your intent to deem the animal abandoned as required by C.R.S. section 12-64-115. The Board found that these facts comprised evidence of violations of the practice act . . . the Board hereby admonishes you . . . "

The Board hereby admonishes you????? Is that IT?

Oh, not quite. They ordered him to "complete six hours of POVMR approved continuing education in radiographs, specifically in acute abdomen diagnosis and treatment . . . "

Uh oh. Let's do some reading between the lines, shall we?

We have a reference to a misdiagnosis.

We have a reference to an "unnecessary procedure" -- probably surgery.

We have an order to take training in acute abdomen diagnosis and treatment and radiographs (x-rays).

Reading between the lines, I'm betting that this vet opened up the pet's abdomen based on a misdiagnosis and that it had something to do either misinterpreting x-rays or not taking them at all.

Then, we have reference to an unpaid bill. (Probably for the UNNECESSARY "PROCEDURE").

The Board also says that the vet deemed the "animal abandoned" because the bill (which included charges for the UNNECESSARY SURGERY, I'm betting) went unpaid seven days. It also says that Aaronian failed to give the owners [proper] notice that he was going to consider their animal abandoned, and that he refused to release the records.

Not a good sign, folks.

With respect to abandoned animals, the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act says:

"(1) Any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding, or other care which is unclaimed by its owner or his agent for a period of more than ten days after written notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, is given to the addressee only at his last known address shall bedeemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society or animal shelter or disposed of as such custodian may deem proper."

Dispose of, folks, I'm thinking means KILL.

But you see, it seems this animal wasn't abandoned at all. The vet never gave "proper" notice to the owner that he was going to consider the animal abandoned because of the unpaid bill or portion thereof which seemingly included costs for an UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE (presumably, surgery).

So, I'm betting that what happened in this story is that this veterinarian euthanized this animal after having performed unnecessary surgery on it . . . because he was PUNISHING the owners for not paying their bill or for not paying it in its entirety including costs for UNNECESSARY SURGERY RESULTING FROM HIS MISDIAGNOSIS -- that's my conjecture. Reading between the lines, that is what I am led to conclude. If you know different, you just let me know.

This is what I mean about having to read between the lines of these documents, and I always assume the worst.

Links:

Click to go to Colorado Regulatory Agency Website

Better yet, read for yourself right here:





UPDATE! ALERT!!!

Since I doubt there are two Matthew Aaronian vets (although it could be possible), I am pretty sure this is a picture of him. He's on the left.

Here is another, probably earlier one.

If you are living in CALIFORNIA, memorize that face, and if you see him, I'm advising you to take your pet and run fast and far in the opposite direction. These vets who get disciplined in one state seem to have a habit of moving to another, and it seems Aaronian is no different: There is now a Matthew Aaronian practising in Atascadero, CA.

He also seems to have applied for (and been granted) a license to work as a vet supporting the Iditarod in Alaska in 2007. Stellar event that was to be associated with. During that race, one of the "mushers" (Ramy Brooks) was disqualified for hitting his dogs with stakes. One of that man's dogs died and two other dogs died. (Just FYI, three dogs also died in the 2008 Iditarod.

Well, Aaronian affiliating himself with that event is not surprising, is it?

For more on the Iditarod, visit www.helpsleddogs.org.

Unless of course, there is more than 1 veterinarian named Matthew Aaronian. Nah . . . how likely is that?

-- Stefani Olsen

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.