Dr. William Powell: License Revoked in Oregon after Botched Spays, Substandard Care, Negligence, says Board

In veterinary medicine, license revocations are rare. In Oregon, they are super rare. That's why their actions in the case of William Powell show that they must think he is a particularly BAD VET. But does this action REALLY have any meaning, since the vet was 77 years old when his license was revoked? Isn't that pretty much the same as simply waiting until a vet is ready to retire anyway, before doing something?

This is a case that also raises the important issue of SUBSTANDARD CARE provided to pets presented to a low-cost spay neuter clinic or treated at a shelter. As you read this, please consider the following questions:

If you are considering having your pet spayed or neutered at a low-cost (or free) clinic, how do you know that your pet will be provided with the kind of competent, quality care that is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to ensuring that your pet does not die of complications or botched surgery? At the end of this post, we will provide some things you MUST ask for whenever your pet is going to have a surgical procedure. PLEASE REALIZE that sometimes the "cheap" option is really the costliest of all.

In my mind, this is a case that calls into question the relationship between non-profits, or shelters, and the vets who provide "free" or "low cost" services there. As far as I can tell, some or all of the "services" referenced in this board document were performed by Powell for a local shelter. Online research leads me to believe that one of these shelters was likely Coos County Animal Shelter in Coos Bay Oregon. Although one website refers to him as a "volunteer" at the shelter, and an article available online says that Powell provided "free" spay/neuter services at the shelter, the IRS documentation for the local organization "Friends of Coos County Animals" explains that it's $54,827 expenditures for the year 2007 went to provide medical care for the County shelter's animals -- specifying spaying and neutering -- and finding them homes. The "home finding" part was, I imagine, the far smaller expense, I wonder how much of that money was spent paying Dr. Powell for spays and neuters he "volunteered" to perform? And how many of those did he botch before his license was yanked in November, 2007?

Another online reference I found today included a statement about Friends of Coos County Animals raising money to pay for spays and neuters. The facts in the vet board document give us a bit of an idea about the "quality" of some of the spays provided by Dr. William Powell.

Here are the Board's Findings of Fact:

"The evidence of record establishes that [Powell] violated the Medical Practices Act, in that:

1. On May 19, 2004, [Powell] performed a spay on 'Dory' a kitten at a local shelter. He reported that it was a standard procedure but difficult because the patient was small and had a 'friable uterus.' On June 2, 2004, the owner who adopted 'Dory' took her to a different veterinarian for a 'wellness examination.' On examination the veterinarian found some abnormal findings that concerned him, specifically a 'significant incision infection' and what appeared to be an abnormal bladder because it was 'very full and not movable.' Following a course of antibiotics, 'Dory' still had a distended bladder that was painful on palpation. The veterinarian performed exploratory surgery which revealed 'troubling' findings, including many adhesions, a large retoperitoneal cavity filled with bloody urine and the right ureter (the tube from the kidney to the bladder) was included in the ligature when the right ovary was ligated, the result of which was that the right kidney had to be removed." [Note: a "ligation" is when the vet "ties off" where he has cut. In this case, he "tied off" the tube that led from her kidney to her bladder. Had he done this on both sides rather than just on one, she would have died. Had she not had surgery to correct this as she died, it is probably likely that she would have also died.]

The document continues:

"He reported that the fact that he saw: 'a significant incision infection, many abdominal adhesions and a ligated ureter'" caused him to conclude that "'this surgery was of a substandard nature.'"

"2. On March 12, 2005, [Powell] performed a spay on 'Baby Girl,' aka 'Roxy.' A subsequent treating veterinarian discovered hydronephrotic right kidney and evidence that the right ureter had been ligated, which resulted in removal of the dog's kidney."

"3. On November 19, 2005, [Powell] treated 'Taz' whose owner presented the dog for symptoms that included vomiting. Without performing any diagnostic testing, [Powell] diagnosed salmon poisoning and administered Oxylet, atropine and Lax'aire. Within minutes, the client returned with the dog, claiming it had stopped breathing and had a swollen tongue. [Powell] confirmed his diagnosis of salmon poisoning and advised client to return the following day. On November 21 . .. the client took 'Taz' to a different veterinarian who property diagnosed and successfully treated 'Taz' for a genital tract infection. This veterinarian opined that [Powell's] care did not meet the standard of care provided in the local community. Her opinion was based on [Powell's] lack of diagnostic testing, lack of fluid support and [Powell's] choice of medications. [Powell] refused to provide the owner with 'Taz's' medical records when they were requested."

"4. On January 11, 2006, [Powell] examined three dogs, 'Riley,' 'Ben,' and 'Molly,' that belonged to a local shelter. He diagnosed Canine Hip Dysplasia without performing any diagnostic testing. He stated that his diagnosis was by 'palpation.' Based on his diagnosis, he performed pectinal [sic] myotemies on all three dogs."

I am sure that if you are a layperson like me, you need to look that term up. What is a pectinal myotemy? Can't find it, but I can find "pectineal myotemy" and that, I think, is what they intended to type.

This following online document, written by a PhD on Canine Hip Dysplasia, describes the procedure as follows:

"Originally developed by J. Barden, Larry J. Wallace, D.V.M., M.S., modified the procedure in 1967 to include the tenectomy (cutting out a portion of the tendon) or tenotomy (cutting of the tendon) of the pectineus tendon of insertion (that part of the muscle that goes into and attaches to the bone). . . Wallace’s procedure is by no means a cure for CHD, but has been described as somewhat effective in temporarily relieving pain and restoring function. . . . The rationale for this procedure is to relieve the tension on the joint capsule, caused by the upward force on the coxofemoral joint from a contracted pectineus muscle. It is also thought that improved weight loading of the femoral head within the acetabulum may result from the increased range of abduction. . . . This type of surgery should be considered strictly therapeutic in nature and does little or nothing to stabilize the dysplastic hip. Therefore, the owner of an affected animal can expect the degenerative changes due to osteoarthritis to continue."

It cites complications of the procedure as including "fibrotic reattachment of the muscle or tendon and seroma formation. Seroma are tumor-like collections of blood and serum in the muscle tissue."

The document continues:

"'Riley' was subsequently treated by another veterinarian who stated that he could not support the diagnosis and treatment without previous radiographs [x-rays] on record. 'Riley's' wound dihiscence [presumably from the surgery performed by Powell] required two surgeries to repair. This veterinarian opined that the surgery [done by Powell] was unnecessary and the radiographs he took afterwards showed 'no evidence of osteoarthritis, let alone hip dysplasia."

One wonders what became of Riley, Ben and Molly -- and how much the shelter paid Powell for these surgeries. Did these surgeries cause one of them, or all of them, to be less adoptable, thus leading to the sad outcome that awaits unadopted shelter pets? Or were one or more of them fortunate enough to be adopted, but by owners who might find themselves soon incurring additional veterinary costs due to the surgeries performed by Powell?

"5. On December 14, 2006, a dog, 'Biscuit,' was presented to [Powell] with what [Powell] described as an 'obvious orthopaedic injury,' which appeared to be the result of the dog being hit by a car. Although [Powell's] clinic did not have radiographic equipment" [x-ray machine] "[Powell] applied a splint to the dog's leg. On December 15, 2006, a subsequent treating veterinarian stated that her examination revealed a palpable fracture involving the left stifle, a grossly swollen left tarsus and deep ulcerated wounds to the lateral and medial left tarsus. The owner reported that [Powell] had applied a cast to the leg, but the cast had fallen off. 'Biscuit' was euthanized because of his poor condition and prognosis. The veterinarian stated that the dog 'should not have been made to suffer for so long with such extensive injuries and inadequate medical care."

"6. Based on the multiple complaints and concerns expressed regarding [Powell's] practice, in April 2006, the Board ordered [Powell] to review the minimum standards for facilities and veterinarians as provided by ORS chapter 688 and OAR chapter 875 (Veterinary Practice Act) and report back within 30 days regarding improvements made. [Powell] failed to respond. In August, 2006, the Board renewed its request for a report about improvements in the licensees clinic. On September 8, 2006, [Powell] responded as follows:

'In reply to your letter dated August 1, 2006, I have complied with your instructions. All equipment listed under rule #875-015-0030 is in place and operational at the clinic. Paperwork has been modified to include all requirements listed. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.'

The Board determined that the response was inadequate. In November, 2006, the Board provided specific instructions to Dr. Powell on expected improvements at the cinic and determined it would be necessary to conduct a site visit.

The Board conducted a site visit on June 25, 2007." [Wow, nearly 11 months after their letter to him. Wonder what happened in the meantime? To animals, I mean.]

"The following conditions were found at [Powell's] clinic:

a. The facility was not properly ventilated to exhaust odors.

b. Surgical area was not aseptic. A dog in the surgery area had been tied to a chair for two days for treatment for 'salmon poisoning' with primary clinical symptoms of diarrhea and bloody diarrhea. [Powell], at times, does not use a cap and gown during surgeries. Animal containment facilities consisted of airline crates.'

[Ok, does that sound very sanitary? A dog with bloody diarrhea in the surgery area tied to a chair? And what's with the "salmon poisoning" thing . . . bloody diarrhea happens to be a parvovirus symptom . . . among other things.]

"c. Review of the medical record of the dog found in the surgery area revealed a lack of a physical examination, diagnostics and treatment plan.

d. Licensee allowed his veterinary technician, who is not certified, to induce anesthesia.

e. Controlled drugs were stored in an unlocked cabinet; Ketamine and Diazepam where visible on a shelf. Medications for various patients were found throughout the preparation-surgery-recovery area, and also on most surfaces in the exam room. [Powell] does not have a locking cabinet for controlled drug storage. [Powell] also keeps controlled drugs in his car, which exposes the chemicals to elevated temperatures that lesson the efficacy of the drugs while the animal is under anesthesia."

The Board found that Powell breached the standard of care; performed substandard surgery resulting in complications; failed to maintain his clinic in compliance with standards; allowed unlicensed support staff to administer anesthesia; had unsanitary conditions; failed to isolate contagious animals; and more. Of note, the board commented that Powell's treatment of animals:

". . . demonstrate that he had an ongoing practice of providing substandard care, which constitutes a pattern of practising with negligence, ignorance and inefficiency in the practice of veterinary medicine . . . a pattern, practice or continuous course of negligence, ignorance, or inefficiency in the practice of veterinary medicine (OAR 875-011-0010(2)."


The "Pi Land Ranch" website accuses the veterinary board of a "harrassment and smear" campaign.

A Veterinary News article says that Dr. Powell alleges that the vet board made him a "target" because of his reduced price services, saying that the board is concerned with maintaining "revenue standards."

A 2005 article, written when Powell was 74 years old, quoted Powell as saying: "My hands are good, my eyes are good. As long as I can keep my (pistol) rounds on a playing card at 12 yards I figure my eyes and my hands are good enough to do surgery.'"

Perhaps a couple of ligated ureters wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Are these the discounted services that you want???????

In any case, The Board has revoked the now 77-year old Powell's license. Websites cited above said that he would appeal the ruling. I could find no updates.

Of interest, Powell is also listed on the website "Declaw Hall of Shame" for marketing his $65.00 reduced price cat declaws. The site lists Powell on their "The Bad Guys" page, whose header says "Dolts, Thugs, and Greedy Bastards." Of Powell they say: "The only worse thing than a pimp is a cheap pimp."

Also of interest:

The famous Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon (famous for its animal law program) actually recognized Powell by making him a finalist in the "Nancy Perry Cougar Award" competition which recognizes an outstanding "animal advocate." So, do they even CARE about quality? Low cost spay and neuter is, I'd agree, a noble thing if done competently and at standard. But is that what this is????? Was????? Doesn't look like it to me.

If you are considering a low-cost spay neuter for your pet, you might want to read the guidelines published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians for spay-neuter, and make sure the care that will be provided to your pet at least meets these guidelines.

From my own reading, I recommend you do the following:

1. Have pre-operative bloodwork done. Abnormal bloodwork can show underlying health conditions which make surgery less safe.

2. Have a full physical exam performed. Findings on physical exam can reveal heart murmurs and other conditions that make anesthesia less safe.

3. Ensure that either a veterinarian or a licensed technician will be administering and monitoring your pet under anesthesia.

4. Find out what anesthesia and pre-anesthetic, if any, will be used. Do online research and ask around to determine if these choices are the best available. Some drugs used as pre-anesthetic such as xylazine are associated with increased deaths. Some anesthetics like halothane have fallen out of favor because of potential effects on the organs. As far as I am aware, isoflourane and sevoflourane are more commonly used now, but even these anesthetics -- all anesthetics -- require careful monitoring. Which brings me to my next point.

5. Make sure your pets blood oxygen level, blood presure, respiration and temperature will be monitored throughout the procedure. A pulse oximeter monitor should be used for the oxygen monitoring.

6. Make sure your pet will be on constant rate infusion IVs during the procedure. This helps support blood pressure and hydration, and allows rapid access if medications need to be administered.

7. Make sure that someone will monitor your pet continuously post-operatively to make sure there are no problems regaining consciousness or coming out of anesthesia. Your pet should be monitored till it is able to sit up on its own.

8. Do NOT leave your pet overnight at a clinic that does NOT have overnight monitoring. If overnight hospitalization is needed, you should transfer your pet to a 24-hour practice.

9. Yes, your pet should receive something for pain after the operation. This is something that Dr. Powell may not be sure of, but think: Would you want to have a hysterectomny and get nothing for pain after?

** DISCLAIMER: I am not a vet. **

Not quite sure what that means, but I feel I must say it. Do the research yourself. See if you dont' come to the same conclusions. ined

Can all of the precautions above be obtained at a bottom of the barrel, cut rate price? Probably not.

Which is part of the reason, IMHO, low cost spay neuter in the wrong hands can be such a racket. If you are cutting so many corners (and cutting tubes leading to kidneys, too) you can still make far more than you should for such shoddy care while charging the lowest local price. BEWARE.

A History of Prior Violations and New Allegations of Animal Cruelty, but The CA Vet Board Still Wants Them to Get Their Filthy Paws on your Pets!!!!

The Order Signed by the California Veterinary Board in August, 2008 wasn't the first violation committed by Oasis Veterinary Clinic and Hospital and Ronald Walker, DVM, its managing vet. In 2006 the CA Vet Board ordered Walker and his clinic to "take such measures as [were] necessary to practice at an acceptable level of care." Yet, the dizzying and frightening list of violations alleged by the CA Vet Board -- seven in all, including an animal cruelty -- beg the question: WHY DOES THE CALIFORNIA VET BOARD ALLOW OASIS AND WALKER TO CONTINUE PRACTISING

AT ALL?

The facts are these:

Approximately 3 years after fining and disciplining Walker, the Veterinary Board issued an accusation against Walker and his clinic based on an inspection conducted by a board investigator. The Vet Board charged Walker and his clinic with:

• Unsanitary Conditions


• Failure to Maintain Aseptic Surgical Suite


• Animal Cruelty


• Failure to Comply with Emergency Services Requirements and Inoperable Phone


• Maintenance of Misbranded or Expired Drugs


• Violation of Health & Safety Code Section 2514.13 (this deals with failure to properly dispose of x-ray developer fluid, which the inspector said was being improperly disposed of into the public sewer. Public health endangerment, perhaps?


• Failure to Provide Medical Records on Demand

The outcome of this case is that the Board entered into (yet another) "stipulated settlement" with Walker and Oasis. In this settlement, Walker and his clinic admitted to all of the charges except for animal cruelty - and guess what? As part of the "settlement" with the vet, the Vet Board simply dropped (dismissed) it's animal cruelty charges. Please read what the investigator report says, you be the judge! (It is right for the vet board to dismiss charges of animal cruelty in spite of what the investigator saw with his own eyes!???)

For the remaning 6 violations, the vet board placed them on 3 years probation. They ordered Walker and the hospital to reimburse them for their "enforcement" costs, in the amount of $3,575. Please note that this was reimbursement to the board for it's costs, NOT a punitive fine for their dizzying and horrifying violations. Outrageous! No punitive fines! The Board ordered them to take 8 hours a year of continuing education -- that's just one working day!

Oh, the Board "revoked" their license but STAYED THE REVOCATION (which means, pretty much, decided not to enforce it), opting instead for mere probation which means of course, they keep funneling pets in the door.

Now, you tell me: Given the history of prior violations, and the truly frightening findings of the Board investigator (details below), do YOU think the Board's discipline is sufficient, either as a punitive measure or to incentivize Walker and Oasis to clean up their act? More importantly, is it sufficient to "protect consumers and animals" -- which they SAY is their mission?????

Here are the accusations based on the investigation, in detail. You will recall, as I stated above, that Walker and Oasis admitted them all except for the animal cruelty charge -- so the vet board simply retracted that charge in the final settlement. I guess BOTH Walker AND the Board know what kind of incendiary effect an admission of animal cruelty might have on public perception of a vet -- but unless the investigator is outright lying (do you think he is, with everything else Walker admitted to?) then he SAW what he SAW, so YOU be the judge as to whether it is "cruelty" or not -- I certainly think it is!

As you will read, among the allegations ADMITTED to, include caged animals sitting in their own waste with no food or water, keeping used syringes to be cleaned for RE-USE (!), un-sterile conditions including dirty surgical instruments, and more!

UNSANITARY CONDITIONS
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

"On or about January 25, 2008, during the course of an unannounced inspection, the Board's inspector identified many violations of the Board's standards of cleanliness and sanitary conditions, including, but not limited to, the following:

• a. The reception area was dimly lit, and smelled of urine


• b. Bulk liquids were stored in a cupboard with a mixture of spilled medication completely covering the cupboard's bottom, cementing an old cardboard box and stuffed animal toy along with the bottles to the bottom of the cupboard.


• c. The treatment area was dirty and had a pit bull patient with wounds on its rear legs running around freely. This dog had no access to food or water.


• d. The treatment room's counter was dirty and had 15-20 used syringes with needles stabbed into a pad, many used needles in the sink, a plastic jar full of used needles, and several used needles lying around the sink. There were also used syringes with condensation inside apparently to be used on patients again. The floor was dirty with blood and scrub, or surgical soap. Many old endotracheal tubes, some without viable cuffs, were piled in a bowl on a dirty cart.


• e.The surgery room's sink was dirty and appeared to be partially disconnected from the water supply, but still connected to the drain. The surgery table was littered with used surgery instruments, including several hemostats still clamped to a uterus. The mayo stand (a small stand used in surgery) was covered in blood and dirty instruments. A surgery pack was opened and used for a procedure, but there was no indication of a sterile indicator in the pack remnants. The flooring was cracked and pulling away from the wall in places. The wall was damaged and has chunks missing in one corner.


• f. The ambu-bag, a squeezable bag used to assist a patient to breathe, was left out on the O2 tank rack and was crushed and covered in an unidentifiable sticky black material. The stored packs, packs of surgical instruments used for a procedure, were wrapped in porous towels and had no sterile indicator tape on them. The orthopedic kit was not sterilized. The door from treatment into surgery has a hole in it were the window used to be.


• g. The back kennel area was extremely dirty and smelled so strongly of animal waste it was difficult to breathe. Every animal there was sitting in a mixture of feces and urine. None of the dogs had food or water. Only a cage with two kittens had food and their water was dirty.


• h. The bathing area had water flooding on the floor. There was also a bucket of used needles and syringes which were apparently waiting to be cleaned for re-use."

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ASEPTIC SURGICAL SUITE
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

During the inspection referenced above, the inspector found that:

"The surgery room was not clean and sterile. The floor and walls have damage that makes it impossible to adequately sanitize certain areas as required . . . The instruments that were present were dirty, including the presence of animal tissue in violation of [citation]. The surgical packs present were wrapped in a porous material that would allow contamination to strike through the material and contaminate the instruments inside. There were no devices to measure and confirm sterility of the packs pursuant to the requirement of [citation]. A sick patient was being housed in the aseptic surgery room. This patient might have contaminated the room, exposing the next patient to risk of illness. The sink in the surgery room with the connected drain is a source of infection for patients. The condition of the surgery room was so inadequate that no surgeries could be properly performed there, and, in any case, [Walker] did not have the necessary equipment to perform sterile surgery."

ANIMAL CRUELTY
(Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic denied these charges, and the vet board withdrew them. However, in the "accusation", the inspector for the board reported seeing the following . . . )

• a. There were two dogs (patients) running free, one in the treatment room and one in surgery. Neither dog had access to food or water. The dog in the surgery room appeared to be very ill, barely responding when the inspector entered the room. The dog also appeared to have an injury on its left rear leg. All of the client-owned animals in the treatment room cages had feces and uring in their cages. Two cats had no litter boxes, food or water in their cages. One of the cats appeared very ill and the Board's inspector was told that [Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic] were not treating him because the owners were probably going to euthanize him. Otherwise, the Respondents' employee did not know who the patients were, and was unable to indentify them by name or owner.


• b. The kennel area was extremely dirty and smelled so strongly of animal waste it was difficult for the inspector to breathe. The runs did not have passive drainage, and all the animals were sitting in feces and urine pooled on the floor of the compartments. None of the dogs had food or water. All bowls were empty. Two kittens had food in their cage, and only dirty water."
  

EDITORIAL COMMENT: I find it outrageous, and a perversion of justice, that the veterinary board withdrew the animal cruelty charge -- which was based on its own inspectors report -- particularly when many of the same allegations in the animal cruelty charge were repeated in charges that the vet, Ronald Walker, ADMITTED TO. He admitted to the truth of the other six counts. Those six counts include a reiteration of the observation that animals were kept in their own feces, most without access to food and water. Is this, or is it not, cruelty? Don't ask the vet board -- apparently, just a little resistance from the vet, and they change their mind and decide that it's not. DO YOU THINK IT'S CRUEL?

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES REQUIREMENTS AND INOPERABLE PHONE
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

During the inspection described above, the inspector found that Oasis Veterinary Clinic "did not have notices posted outside their building of where emergency services could be obtained when their clinic was closed as required . . . The phone number listed for emergencies was the clinic's own telephone number . . . [which they admitted] had been inoperative for some time, and the number was not answered when the Board's inspector tried to call it. Moreover, there was no functioning answering machine to provide an outgoing message as to where emergency services could be obtained. Additionally, there was an absence of notice that there was no 24-hour supervision of patients as mandated . . . Finally, the facility was found closed during nomral posted business hours, yet no referral was available for emergency services."

MAINTENANCE OF MISBRANDED OR EXPIRED DRUGS
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

The inspector found that "The pharmacy area was stocked with many expired drugs, which Respondents' employee indicated were routinely dispensed to the animals treated at [Oasis Veterinary Clinic & Hospital]. The controlled drug drawer was unlocked . . . The vaccine refrigerator/freezer had human food stored in it. The bulk liquids were stored in a cupboard with a mixture of spilled medication completely covering the bottom, cementing an old cardboard box and stuffed animal toy along with the bottles to the bottom of the cupboard. There were several bottles of liquid medication pre-packaged with only a drug name on them. These bulk and expired drugs which were either expired or so oldthat the expiration dates of the drugs could not be read, and the stuffed animal which was adhered to the medication spilled in the cupboard . . . The sale of expired prescription drugs is prohibited by law."

VIOLATION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
(The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

The inspector found that Oasis Veterinary Clinic's "x-ray developer is a hand-dipping tank, and was set up to have the chemicals drain into a pipe connected to the public sewer system. The x-ray waste generated . . . contains a silver-conten levfel that exceeds that which may properly be disposed of into the public sewer, and [Oasis Veterinary Clinic did not] have a contract with a licensed company for the disposal of their x-ray waste, or otherwise provide for the proper disposal of Respondent's x-ray waste in accordance with applicable law."

[ Oh, great! Threats to human health, as well!]

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RECORDS ON DEMAND (The truth of this charge was admitted by respondents Ronald Walker and Oasis Veterinary Clinic in the settlement)

" . . . The Board initiated an investigation based on a consumer complaint submitted by a consumer, Ms. J. J. on July 10, 2007. The complaint stated that on June 20, 2007, Ms. J.J. took her 5-year old Miniature Pinscher, Rex, to [Oasis Veterinary Clinic] for a neutering procedure and [he] ended up dead. As part of its investigation, the Board requested that [Oasis] produce the medical records for Rex. [Oasis Veterinary Clinic] failed to do so and later reported that the records for Rex were 'shredded' and destroyed . . ." [An Oasis employee later] "informed the Board's inspector that notwithstanding Respondent's requirements to maintain animal records fore a minimum of three years, [Oasis Veterinary Clinic] had a practice of destroying old records, including records of animals that died, such as Rex."

Harold Hill and Alpine Veterinary Hospital in Alpine CA: Inspections show "serious health threat to animal patients, their owners, and staff"

Shockingly, in spite of a history of prior violations, and several inspections which showed shocking and dangerous conditions, this story ends with the California Veterinary Board re-instating the suspended operating license of Alpine Veterinary Hospital, and then "staying" a revocation of that license, allowing the business to keep operating, albeit "on probation." I think that the history of this place should give serious pause to any one who lives in the area, uses this business, or ever even has thought of doing so.

Why?

First of all, at the time of these violations, Harold Hill had been the managing veterinarian at Alpine Hill since April, 2004. He already had a history of violations.

In 2002, he was cited for "violation Business and Professions Code sections [which relate to] fraud, deception, negligence or incompetence in the practice of veterinary medicine" and "failure to properly register a place of practice." He was fined only $300. In 2004 he was cited for violation regulations pertaining to both record-keeping AND ANESTHESIA. In keeping with the veterinary boards' often baffling history of punishing subsequent violations even more lightly than the one before, he was fined only $250 for that latter violation.

Then came the inspections.

In September 2005 a complaint was filed with the Veterinary Board stating that Alpine Veterinary Hospital was very unsanitary.

The Vet Board sent an inspector, who found that:

". . . the facility was far below the minimum standards and a serious health threat to animal patients, their owners, and the staff that worked there. The condition wa2so poor that it could not be remedied without substantial work and renovation."

Moreover, at the time of the inspection, there was NO veterinarian on the premises, and the inspector observed a unlicensed staff member performing veterinary medicine without a license.

As a result of this inspection, on November 16th of that year, an "interim suspension" was issued to both Harold Hill, DVM, and Alpine Animal Hospital itself.

The inspector went back for a recheck on November 25th, finding that "the condition of the facility was still below the minimum standards and a serious health threat to animal patients, their owners, and the staff . . ." Hill was again not present at the facility, and it is noted that he had not been there for months, and no one knew how to reach him.

What were the details of the dangerous and unsanitary conditions? Here are some excerpts:

"The surgical room was extremely unsanitary . . ."

"The floors, tables and counters in the surgical room were unsanitary. Paint was peeling off the walls and there were holes and leaks in the ceilings, dust on everything, and clutter everywhere . . . "

"The reception room was unsanitary and the lighting was too dim . . . "

"Non-surgery related items were left in the surgical room and there was no proper place for surgery . . . "

"There was no emergency light in the surgical room . . . "

"Oxygen equipment . . . was not properly maintained."

"The exposure and developing techniques for x-rays were unnacceptable . . . "

"There was no centrifuge for adequate blood preparation to ensure qulaity readings, there were also no other available basic and/or emergency lab tests on site, therefore, the laboratory services were unnacceptable . . . "

"Exercise runs . . . have wood floors . . . "

"Emergency drugs were not properly maintained . . . need to replace expired drugs . . . "

"Resuscitation bags were not properly maintained . .. Need to buy ambu-bag."

"Failed to post sign indicating 'no staff on premises overnight' . . . "

"Improper x-ray identification . . . "

"Improper hazardous waste disposal . . . "

"Inadequate anesthetic monitoring . . . "

"Failure to follow proper sanitary surgical procedures . . . "

". . . the consultant observed employee Dawn McKinney practising veterinary medicine without a license. The consultant observed Ms. McKinney perform an examination, provide treatment, and prescribe medication for the dog. The consultant confirmed that Ms. McKinney is not licensed by the California Veterinary Medical Board to practice veterinary medicine, nor is she certified as a Registered Veterinary Technician . . . "

There is more . . . but do you need more?

It seems odd to me that anyone walking into this place wouldn't have had a huge feeling of danger and walked right out with their pet. However, some people are very trusting, or may have had the kind of relationship with this place that caused them not to realize what was happening over time. And surely, no one who took their pets there knew the dirty little secrets of the surgical suite.

This story ended with Harold Hill surrendering his license, but Alpine Hospital is still in business.

Would you EVER go there? I sure woudln't!



California Vet Board Newsletter Announcing Disciplinary Action

Multiple Violations in One Year for Michigan Vet, Abolarin Agbona of "Comprehensive Animal Clinic" in Lansing

In 2006, the Michigan Veterinary board filed two administrative complaints against Comprehensive Animal Clinic's (Lansing, Michigan) owner and veterinarian, Abolarin Agbona. In both cases Agbona was found by the Board to have committed acts of negligence and substandard care; in one of these cases the "unsanitary conditions" of Comprehensive Animal Clinic were found to violate public health code.

Case 1: The Case of Zippy the Cat

The Board's administrative complaint states the following:

"On March 23, 2005, at approximately 8:00 p.m., a feline named Zippy presented to [Agbona], who diagnosed Zippy with urinary blockage. [Agbona's] documentation concerning his treatment of Zippy was inadequate. Specifically, Zippy's medical records showed no indication of physical examination findings, history and route of medications administered. The medical records also lacked a summary of x-ray findings, urinalysis results, or procedures performed."

"On March 25, 2005, when Zippy was picked up from the clinic by its [sic] owner, Zippy was covered in urine and feces. Thereafter, Zippy continued to experience problems urinating and the owner sought treatment for Zippy from another veterinarian."

"On September 14, 2005, Complainant's investigator conducted an inspection of [Agbona's] clinic and found that [Agbona] failed to store controlled substances in a securely locked cabinet or maintain an accurate inventory of controlled substances. Complainant's investigator also noted a strong odor of urine and feces upon entering the clinic, and found uncapped needles and syringes on hallway countertops and overflowing Sharp's containers. Complainant's investigator further found that the refrigerator/freezer in the clinic stored medications, but also contained foods intended for human consumption."

The Board found that Agbona's conduct "evidences a violation of general duty, consisting of negligence or failure to exercise due care, including negligent delegation to or supervision of employees or other individuals . . . [and] evidences a departure from, or failure to conform to, minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing practice for the health profession . . . " They also found that "the unsanitary conditions of [Agbona's clinic]" violated the public health code.

Case 2: The Case of Koda the Ferman Shepherd
(Do you think they mean GERMAN shepherd? The Board document definitely says "Ferman . . ." Wow, brilliant . . . )
The Board document states that:

"On February 8, 2006, at approximately 10:30 p.m., a Ferman Shepard [sic] named Koda presented to [Agbona] on an emergency basis with symptoms of "bloat."

"On February 8 and 9, 2006, [Agbona] provided substandard treatment to Koda, and [his] documentation concerning his treatment of Koda was inadequate to determine the seriousness of the dog's condition. Specifically, [Agbona's] documentation lacked any mention of fluid therapy, electrolytes, or acid-base evaluations in the medical records. [Agbona's] x-ray of Koda was of poor technial quality so as to render it totally useless, and he failed to refer Koda to another veterinarian. Furthermore, [Agbona] failed to document the results of a gastric lavage." (Gastric lavage meaning pumping out the stomach -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric_lavage.)

"On February 9, 2006, Koda's condition continued to deteriorate and the dog's owners sought treatment for Koda with another veterinarian, who diagnosed Koda with gastric-dilation/volvulus (GVD)" (GVD is bloat.)

The Board found that Agbona's conduct "evidences a violation of general duty, consisting of negligence or failure to exercise due care, including negligent delegation to or supervision of employees or other individuals . . ." and that Agbona's conduct "evidences a departure from, or failure to conform to, minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing practice for the health profession . . ."

So, could the failure to diagnose and properly treat Koda for bloat have cost him his life?

It could have, although we do not know whether or not it did, because the board document doesn't say what happened to Koda.

But according to this website (http://www.allpetsmacomb.com/emergencies.html):

"Gastric dilatation volvulus (GDV) or "bloat" is a condition in which the stomach
enlarges with gas and flips/rotates on itself. This results in an increasing amount
of gas that cannot be released from the stomach, respiratory compromise, shock, and
death. Any dog with rapidly increasing abdominal size, respiratory difficulty, and
vomiting or attempted vomiting, should be examined by a veterinarian immediately. . .

"Rapid diagnosis and treatment is essential to a successful outcome.
IV fluids, medication for shock, and surgery to relieve the torsion and empty the gas are necessary for dogs with GDV."

Another website (http://www.animalemergencyservices.com/Canine_Conditions.aspx) says:

"[Bloat]is a life-threatening condition. . . Failure to rapidly treat this condition will result in your pet’s death."

I know if I lived in Michigan, I would NEVER darken the doorstep of "Comprehensive Animal Clinic" or any other place this vet ever worked!

Links: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch_dar_060206_164522_7.pdf