What Happened to "Patch Parker" as a Result of South Carolina Vet Frank Hooper's Substandard "Care?"

The South Carolina Veterinary Board has demonstrated that, although it has a mission to "protect citizens by ensuring that only qualified and competent veterinary practitioners operate in South Carolina," like other vet boards, it doesn't seem particularly eager to publicize the details that gave rise to its disciplinary actions.

As a rule, South Carolina's "Consent Agreements" are lacking in adequate detail for a consumer to really figure out what happened. Why is this a problem?

This is a problem because, as a consumer, it is vitally important for us to know what the veterinarian did, so that we can evaluate and assess his or her behavior. This kind of information is critical for making informed choices about veterinary care.

So, it is a good thing that recently, the South Carolina Vet Board began making the "Formal Complaints" available on its website. The Formal Complaint is the document filed by the Veterinary Board charging the vet with violations, and it typically includes more detail than the final "Consent Agreement."

Nonetheless, the IMPACT on the patient of the vet's behavior is often omitted from both documents. Perhaps this is because vet boards do not want to state that the vets behavior actually caused the death or injury of the animal. And maybe they don't want to say so because they can't be sure that's true. On the other hand, maybe they don't want to say so because it would indicate to the consumer exactly how dangerous this vet may be. Goodness knows, we wouldn't want to give the consumer information that would steer him away from a vet, would we? Even if that vet had behaved dangerously. Oh, but there is that little problem of the mission statement . . .

Both the Consent Agreement and the Formal Complaint filed by the Board in the case of Frank Hooper and his treatment of Patch Parker are lacking one important fact, and leave the reader asking: "WHAT HAPPENED TO 'PATCH'?"

Well, I think we can make an educated guess. Here are the facts that we do know . . .

In the Formal Complaint, the Veterinary Board asserted that in January 2007 " . . . an American Pit Bull named 'Patch' was presented to Guingnard Veterinary Clinic incident to a severe limp. Patch could not place weight o his front right legl. Patch was examined by another veterinarian. The owner reports that the other veterinarian opined that the leg was fractured and required surgery. The owner provided consent to repair the fracture."

Two days later, vet Frank Hooper operated on Patch. The Board says that Hooper's "records do not document the completion of a physical examination of Patch before commencing surgery. [Hooper] did not notify Patch's owner that Patch's surgery would be more extensive than originally assumed by the other veterinarian."

[OK, what's that supposed to mean? Please tell me -- if you DO NOT conduct a physical exam of a patient prior to cutting into him, how the heck do you know you need to, uh, expand the surgery and make it more extensive?]

Hooper, the document says, did not contact the owners before surgery.

Then, the document says, "The surgical procedure was extended due to the unavailability of certain equipment, a personnel shortage, and the complexity of the procedure."

[Um, what? Did he not CHECK to make sure he had all the needed equipment and staff before starting????? So, basically, this dog was under anesthesia longer . . . ?????

Hooper, it says, ". . . interrupted the surgical process while the animal remained under anesthesia. [Hooper] permitted his technician to depart from the area without ensuring that someone monitored the animal. [Hooper] failed to ensure that the oxygen supplies for Patch's surgery were adequate and to ensure the availability of equipment that was necessary for Patch's surgery."

"A review of [Hooper's] records relating to this mattre reveal that a physical examination was not conducted prior to the procedure. [Hooper] failed to rcord the route of administation of Telazol, a controlled substance. [Hooper] did not record the dose and administration of Atropine."

The document goes on to cite the violations the Board charged Hooper with, which include failure to "provide or maintain proper facilities, engag[ing] in unprofessional or unethical conduct, and engag[ing] in incompetent or negligent conduct" as well as failure to provide proper supervision of the technician and failure to keep proper records for Patch's treatment and drug administration.

What the document does NOT say is what happened to Patch.

What do you think?

Is it your guess -- as it is mine -- that the dog probably DIED? After all, we have:

• Failure to examine the dog prior to surgery


• Expanding the surgery to make it more "extensive" without ever having examined the dog


• Prolonged surgery in which the patient was apparently left under anesthesia while people left the area


• Reference to inadequate oxygen supplies and inadequate equipment, as well as failure to record how much anesthetic drugs they gave Patch and how they were administered

Do you think -- without saying what happened to Patch -- consumer's will realize that this kind of behavior COULD LEAD to the death of a patient, whether or not it did?

LINKS:

Board Consent Agreement with Frank A. Hooper

South Carolina Vet Robert Moorhead: " . . . engaged in incompetent or negligent conduct"; does surgery on dog's leg without taking x-rays first

I find it interesting that "bad vets" tend to maintain licenses in multiple states. Usually, these states are contiguous or near each other. But Robert M. Moorhead, DVM, had licenses in Colorado and South Carolina in recent years.

I also find it interesting how many "bad vets" either are involved, or get involved, in the horse business, after a history of violations on smaller companion animals.

In early Fall 2001, a pet owner brought his dog to Moorhead's clinic, after the dog had been struck by a car.

Moorhead did not have an x-ray machine at his clinic. But that didn't stop Moorhead from diagnosing the dog's injuries and proceeding with surgery, which he did the next day. According to the board document, Moorhead "performed an open reduction in which he inserted a pin into the femur and wrapped the break with wire mesh inside the leg."

Subsequently, the pin Moorhead had placed in the dog's leg started to come out. Moorhead then "removed the pin" (?? did that involve another surgery??) and "placed the dog's leg in a soft cast." The following month, the dog started to develop an open sore. The owner took his dog back to Moorhead, and Moorhead did ANOTHER surgery. According to the Board document, this time Moorhead:

"removed bone chips from the leg and inserted two pins from the stifle joint and into the femur."

Two months later (December), Moorhead examined the dog and sent him for x-rays at another clinic. The document does not say what these x-rays showed. It does not say what Moorhead saw on them, or if he even ever reviewed them.

Subsequently, on Christmas Eve, the owner ended up taking his dog to the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary Emergency clinic. On January 4, the dog's leg had to be amputated,

"because the leg had never healed, the hip joint had been broken, and the knee joint had been destroyed by the pinning procedure."

So, I'm sure that many of the same questions that come to my mind are in yours right now, such as:

"Was the dog's hip broken from the original accident, and Moorhead missed it and failed to do anything about it? If so, is this because he had no x-ray equipment and decided he could simply diagnose all the dog's injuries on exam alone? Or, did the dog's hip subsequently break because of stress from walking with a broken, improperly or inadequately pinned leg?"

"Was incompetent treatment on the part of Moorhead responsible for, or a contributing factor to, the dog ultimately having to have his leg amputated? Had he received more competent treatment, would he have been able to keep his leg??

The South Carolina Board found that Moorhead had failed to keep adequate records when he saw the dog in September and October. They go into some detail about the recordkeeping violations in their decision, including Moorhead's failure to document the type and amount of anesthesia given the dog.

Interestingly, they slip another citation into the document, referencing only the code violated. But unlike the recordkeeping violation, the South Carolina Vet Board doesn't bother to tell the reader what that section of code pertains to. Of this violation, the document says only:

"The Respondent has violated S.C. Code Ann. 40-69-140(1) (2001) in that the Respondent violated regulations of the Board, specifically, Regulation 120-6.1."

Hmm, what in the heck is 120-6.1?

Why do they gloss over that, without quoting what that violation is about, whereas -- by contrast -- they go into detail about the meaning of the recordkeeping violations?

This is supposed to be a public record. Yet, I believe, the way the Board has drafted this (and other) findings of fact, is a deliberate attempt to protect the offending vet, and a deliberate attempt to "hide in plain sight" the worst violations. To hide this from the public, specifically the pet owning public. To keep them from having this information as the basis of making decisions about Moorhead as a vet.

They know that most readers won't spend the time it takes (which can be SIGNIFICANT) to search through the South Carolina Code, find this section, and reference it so that they can interpret what it means.

But, this sneaky little citation is the most important one. And thanks to the Colorado Veterinary Board -- where Moorhead was also licensed -- we know what this violation means.

In 2004, the Colorado Vet Board disciplined Moorhead as a result of his South Carolina violation. Their order states:

"The South Carolina Board also found that the respondent . . . engaged in incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of veterinary medicine by failing to take preliminary radiographs to determine the best method of fracture repair in order to facilitate a complete return of function of the patient's leg."

Well, thanks, Colorado Vet Board: If it weren't for you, we might never have known the SC Board found him incompetent or negligent.

Just goes to prove that public records aren't always all that accessible to the public in all senses of the word.

However, we can't thank either the South Carolina Board OR the Colorado Board for taking anything like serious action in this case.

The South Carolina Vet Board suspended Moorhead's license to practice, but IMMEDIATELY stayed the suspension. "Stayed" means that not even one day of the suspension was enforced.

They put Moorhead on probation for 2 years with terms that include providing "quarterly reports of four cases" (presumably of his own choosing) to the Board, including one surgical case and four medical cases.

They also required him to retroactively RE-CREATE records for this case.

In other words, after finding him to have been negligent or incompetent, they are disciplining him by ordering him to do another surgery and submitting information about that.

They did, at least, order him to get an x-ray machine before doing this (or any other) surgery and to take 10 hours of continuing education in orthopedics and anesthesia, respectively.

And after finding him in violation of recordkeeping in this case, they are not merely inviting him, but ordering him, to retroactively create records for this patient nearly 2 years after-the-fact.

Gee, wonder how factual truthful, and accurate those records will be????

They fined him $500 and the costs of the investigation.

Colorado also suspended his license and immediately stayed the suspension, enforcing not one day of it.

They put him on probation for a little over a year or until the South Carolina order's provisions were met.

Oh, about that horse thing:

A websearch of Robert M. Moorhead finds this:

Robert Moorhead listed at Carolina Sport horses

Gee sport horses? I bet they have their share of orthopedic injuries. I'd be concerned about their care.

Links:

South Carolina Board Order

Other:

Colorado Orders:

Robert Hewitt, South Carolina: Just a Record-Keeping Violation? Or something more. . . .

As I have mentioned previously here, often times veterinary boards choose to find veterinarians in violation of record-keeping statutes, when -- by reading the facts of the case in the document -- one is left to wonder if more serious things may not have occurred. This is the case with South Carolina Vet Robert Hewitt, of Hewitt Animal Hospital in Florence, South Carolina.

In 2004, the South Carolina Vet Board issued Findings which included the following:

"A canine by the name of Nikki was presented . . . [to Hewitt] . . . for treatment . . . [Hewitt] recommended and performed surgery on the animal, removing a splenic mass." Nikki was discharged later that day and her owner was told to come back the next day for IV fluids. "When the owner returned one or two days later, another veterinarian . . . [said that Nikki] did not require fluids at that time. The owner of the animal testified that the animal's condition worsened, and after not being able to contact [Hewitt] she took [Nikki] to the veterinarian who was providing weekend coverage for [Hewitt]. It was recommended by this veterinarian that [Nikki] remain at his clinic overnight and when the owner returned the following day to retrieve [Nikki], [Nikki] died shortly after after the owner arrived."

"The State alleges that [Hewitt] recommended and performed surgery on [Nikki] without first performing an adequate pre-surgical examination. Additionally, the State alleges that [Hewitt] failed to record in the patient's records some of the procedures that were performed, and failed to provide the animal with adequate post-surgical care. To substantiate the allegations, the State presented testimony from several witnesses, including an expert in the area of small animal veterinary medicine . . . the State's expert also opined that [Hewitt] failed to perform an adequate pre-operative evaluation of [Nikki], and that this failure fell below the standard of care." The document goes on to say that Hewitt asserted that he did perform a pre-operative exam, but just didn't record it in the records.

Hmmmm.

As a result of these assertions on the part of Hewitt, the Board did not find that he failed to perform an adequate pre-surgical exam. They said: ". . . the Board is concerned about the post-surgical care provided by [Hewitt]. However, the Board does not believe that any post-surgical negligence by [Hewitt] rises to the level where discipline is warranted."

They found him in violation of record-keeping only.

They gave him a penalty of $200 and required him to pay investigative costs of $1,000.

Interesting, the State fails to agree with its own experts.

Links:

South Carolina Board Order in the Case of Robert Hewitt

South Carolina: When Lousy Vet Boards Tell You a Vet is Bad, but Don't Give You much Detail: Case in Point - "C. Kenneth Banks Jr., DVM"

South Carolina is one of the vet boards that puts the disciplinary records of vets online. You can find these records at:

http://www.llr.state.sc.us/POL/Veterinary/index.asp?file=finalorders.htm


The problem is that like some other states, they give you no detail about what occurred.

So, here is my advice: When in doubt, ASSUME THE WORST.

Take the case of "C. Kenneth Banks, DVM". He was disciplined by the South Carolina Veterinary Board in November of 2006.

The Board's findings state:

"[Banks] admits that he failed to meet the requisite standard of care in his treatment of a female canine, named "Bella" as alleged in the formal complaint . . . [he also] admits that as a result of the previous admissions herein, [he] has violated S.C. code Ann. 40-69-140(11) and (12) (Supp. 2004), as alleged."

So, I go look up S.C. code, right?

Check it out:

http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t40c069.htm

Well, get a load of the title of Section 40-69-140:

"SECTION 40-69-140. Prior criminal record.

A license may be denied based on a person's prior criminal record only as provided for in Section 40-1-140."

??????

So, does this guy have a prior criminal record

Or perhaps, the section violated was one which cites "negligent" practice of veterinary medicine. For, according to this website (South Carolina Administrative Law Court Decisions, S.C. Code Ann. §40-69-140(12) states:

"The board may deny, suspend, revoke or restrict the license of a veterinarian or reprimand or discipline a licensee for . . . (12) engaging in conduct determined by the board to be incompetent or negligent in the practice of veterinary medicine…"

This is all very confusing to the layperson, without the Board enumerating the nature of the violation and specifying statutes violated in plain english rather than referencing sections of code that are modified whenever revisions are passed.

But perhaps obfuscating the truth is EXACTLY what the vet board hopes to do.

This is exactly how UNHELPFUL to the public the South Carolina Vet Board's "public" records are - and I believe that is entirely deliberate.