Thursday, April 10, 2008
BadVet Daily Announcement Re: Intermittent Entries
Due to technical issues, I will be unable to post daily. For each missed day, an additional day will be added to the "Bad Vet Daily" term of publication, so that you will indeed end up with coverage of 365 days of Bad Vets.
Louisiana Veterinarian Michael Williams Kills Client's Dog During Katrina
Some tragedies are caused by natural disasters; they are heartbreaking, but they were not caused deliberately by a person.
Other tragedies are man-made: immoral, intentional acts. Some of these immoral, intentional acts causing great heartache occurred during Katrina. And one of them was perpetrated by veterinarian Michael Williams, DVM.
In a Consent Order signed by Williams, the Louisiana Veterinary Board's Findings of Fact make clear the sequence of events that led to this horrible outcome.
Dr. Williams was a practising vet in New Orleans in August, 2005. You may remember -- it was at the end of that month that Hurricane Katrina hit down.
On August 24, 2005, a regular client of Dr. Williams brought her dog, Nietzsche, in to his clinic for boarding. Nietzsche's owner needed to go to Florida to deal with family issues. Nietzsche's owner planned to be back to pick Nietzsche up on August 27th.
Just the day before she boarded Nietzsche, what later became Hurricane Katrina was only a tropical depression over the Bahamas.
But Hurricane Katrina hit Florida on August 25th. The storm continued back out over the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately made a second landfall on August 29th in Louisiana.
According to the Board's document:
"[Nietzshe's owner] was unable to timely return to New Orleans due to contra flow of traffic exiting the city based on the mandatory evacuation and cancellation of air flight."
They go on to say:
"At no time did the owner consent to euthanasia which is not disputed by [Williams] . . . Euthanasia was performed on Nietzsche by [Williams] sometime subsequent to Hurricane Katrina's landfall without the owners consent."
Just pause for a minute. Consider this: This is that dog's trusted vet. His owner entrusted his care to his vet. There was nothing wrong with him and no reason for him to be killed.
But while other veterinarians were joining forces with humanitarians to plan to save lives, Williams chose a different path.
According to the Board:
"[Williams] asserts that it was a humane and ethical act to perform facing the devastation from a major hurricane . . . However, [Williams] conduct in performing euthanasia on a health animal without the owners prior written consent is a violation of the LA Veterinary Practice Act and the rules promulgated by the Board."
The Board fined Williams $1,000 and placed him on probation for "his unprofessional conduct . . . " They also made him pay the Board back the $1,500 in costs for investigating the case.
Do you think that is enough?
When a vet will not merely abandon your animal -- but kill it -- rather than rescue him during an emergency -- is that the kind of person who you should ever trust with your pets.
It has been alleged that doctors "euthanized" critically ill hospital patients during the Katrina crisis. That too, is horrific.
But in Nietzsche's case, he wasn't sick, he was healthy. Nietszche wasn't homeless or in a shelter - he had a loving owner trying to get back to him. A loving owner who would likely be snuggling with him today if it were not for the actions of a vet who did not merit the trust placed in him.
This story just breaks my heart.
Other tragedies are man-made: immoral, intentional acts. Some of these immoral, intentional acts causing great heartache occurred during Katrina. And one of them was perpetrated by veterinarian Michael Williams, DVM.
In a Consent Order signed by Williams, the Louisiana Veterinary Board's Findings of Fact make clear the sequence of events that led to this horrible outcome.
Dr. Williams was a practising vet in New Orleans in August, 2005. You may remember -- it was at the end of that month that Hurricane Katrina hit down.
On August 24, 2005, a regular client of Dr. Williams brought her dog, Nietzsche, in to his clinic for boarding. Nietzsche's owner needed to go to Florida to deal with family issues. Nietzsche's owner planned to be back to pick Nietzsche up on August 27th.
Just the day before she boarded Nietzsche, what later became Hurricane Katrina was only a tropical depression over the Bahamas.
But Hurricane Katrina hit Florida on August 25th. The storm continued back out over the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately made a second landfall on August 29th in Louisiana.
According to the Board's document:
"[Nietzshe's owner] was unable to timely return to New Orleans due to contra flow of traffic exiting the city based on the mandatory evacuation and cancellation of air flight."
They go on to say:
"At no time did the owner consent to euthanasia which is not disputed by [Williams] . . . Euthanasia was performed on Nietzsche by [Williams] sometime subsequent to Hurricane Katrina's landfall without the owners consent."
Just pause for a minute. Consider this: This is that dog's trusted vet. His owner entrusted his care to his vet. There was nothing wrong with him and no reason for him to be killed.
But while other veterinarians were joining forces with humanitarians to plan to save lives, Williams chose a different path.
According to the Board:
"[Williams] asserts that it was a humane and ethical act to perform facing the devastation from a major hurricane . . . However, [Williams] conduct in performing euthanasia on a health animal without the owners prior written consent is a violation of the LA Veterinary Practice Act and the rules promulgated by the Board."
The Board fined Williams $1,000 and placed him on probation for "his unprofessional conduct . . . " They also made him pay the Board back the $1,500 in costs for investigating the case.
Do you think that is enough?
When a vet will not merely abandon your animal -- but kill it -- rather than rescue him during an emergency -- is that the kind of person who you should ever trust with your pets.
It has been alleged that doctors "euthanized" critically ill hospital patients during the Katrina crisis. That too, is horrific.
But in Nietzsche's case, he wasn't sick, he was healthy. Nietszche wasn't homeless or in a shelter - he had a loving owner trying to get back to him. A loving owner who would likely be snuggling with him today if it were not for the actions of a vet who did not merit the trust placed in him.
This story just breaks my heart.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
"Cooper" Died As a Result of Colorado Vet Amy Weeden's Failure to Monitor Him
In October, 2007, the Colorado Veterinary Board issued a letter of admonition to Amy Weeden, a vet practising at Denver, Colorado's Harrison Memorial Animal Hospital.
The Board stated that:
"On June 20, 2007, your patient Cooper Bails was not properly monitored while under anesthetic, which resulted in his unexpected demise."
" . . . the Board hereby admonishes you for violation of C.R.S. 12-64-111 (bb) since the veterinarian is responsible for the animal under his or her care."
So we have a dead pet -- likely a dead beloved pet. And the Board itself has said that the vet's failure to adequately monitor Cooper, or failure to ensure that Cooper was adequately monitored, RESULTED IN his death. I think in legal terms, that is called "CAUSALITY", i.e., the actions (or inactions) of the vet LED to the death of the animal.
However, all the vet board did was "admonish" her in a letter. No fine. No suspension. No requirement to take classes in anesthetic monitoring. NOTHING. JUST A LETTER.
Dead pet. Actions of vet RESULTED IN the pets demise. Yet, nothing but a letter.
So, why in the world would Colorado's vets be careful with their patients under anesthesia when screwups or oversights that actually RESULT IN the death of pets are met with nothing more serious than a letter?
The Board stated that:
"On June 20, 2007, your patient Cooper Bails was not properly monitored while under anesthetic, which resulted in his unexpected demise."
" . . . the Board hereby admonishes you for violation of C.R.S. 12-64-111 (bb) since the veterinarian is responsible for the animal under his or her care."
So we have a dead pet -- likely a dead beloved pet. And the Board itself has said that the vet's failure to adequately monitor Cooper, or failure to ensure that Cooper was adequately monitored, RESULTED IN his death. I think in legal terms, that is called "CAUSALITY", i.e., the actions (or inactions) of the vet LED to the death of the animal.
However, all the vet board did was "admonish" her in a letter. No fine. No suspension. No requirement to take classes in anesthetic monitoring. NOTHING. JUST A LETTER.
Dead pet. Actions of vet RESULTED IN the pets demise. Yet, nothing but a letter.
So, why in the world would Colorado's vets be careful with their patients under anesthesia when screwups or oversights that actually RESULT IN the death of pets are met with nothing more serious than a letter?
Monday, April 7, 2008
What's YOUR Vet Selling You? (Subtitle: How Vet Boards Cirumvent State Requirements to Revoke Vets License for a Felony of Fraud, Moral Turpitude...
Blink and you'd have missed it. That is what could be said for the Missouri Veterinary Board's revocation of veterinarian Lynn "Nicole" Sutherland Scott's license.
In January, 2006, Scott led guilty to two counts of "Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale" in the US District Court fr the Western District of Missouri. This is a felony offense, and Scott was sentenced to three years probation, a "special assessment" of $200, restitution of $534.75, and a $4,000 fine.
The Board was notified of this in a complaint filed the following November.
In the Board document, it states that:
"Misbrandig or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale is a crime and essential element of which is dishonesty . . . Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale is a crime involving moral turpitude . . . by pleading guilty to two couts of Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale, [Scott] pled guilty to an offense an essential element of which involves fraud, dishonesty, and involves moral turpitude."
The Board's decision stated that they were STATUTORILY REQUIRED by the State to REVOKE Scott's license as a result of this felony conviction. But apparently, those statutes don't say how long they have to revoke it FOR. So, they added that they placed no restrictions on when she could reapply to have her license back.
This document was signed on February 6th, 2007.
Nine -- that's 9 -- days later, on February 15th, the Board issued an order granting her back a probationary license. In spite of her guilty plea to a felony involving dishonesty, moral turpitude, and fraud, in this document giving her back her license, the Board declared her a person of "good moral character."
So much for protecting our pet's food in the wake of the horrible events last year. Someone pleads guilty to adulterating food, is REQUIRED to have their license revoked by the veterinary board -- the agency responsible for enforcement of the very statute that requires the revocation -- and then the Vet Board turns around and reinstates the license just 9 days later.
So, would you go to a vet that has "misbranded" or "adulterated" food, been "dishonest" and committed "fraud" and crimes of "moral turpitude" involving food she is selling?
Well, if you are willing to do so one thing is for sure: The Missouri Veterinary Board won't stand in your way.
In January, 2006, Scott led guilty to two counts of "Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale" in the US District Court fr the Western District of Missouri. This is a felony offense, and Scott was sentenced to three years probation, a "special assessment" of $200, restitution of $534.75, and a $4,000 fine.
The Board was notified of this in a complaint filed the following November.
In the Board document, it states that:
"Misbrandig or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale is a crime and essential element of which is dishonesty . . . Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale is a crime involving moral turpitude . . . by pleading guilty to two couts of Misbranding or Adulterating a Food While Held for Sale, [Scott] pled guilty to an offense an essential element of which involves fraud, dishonesty, and involves moral turpitude."
The Board's decision stated that they were STATUTORILY REQUIRED by the State to REVOKE Scott's license as a result of this felony conviction. But apparently, those statutes don't say how long they have to revoke it FOR. So, they added that they placed no restrictions on when she could reapply to have her license back.
This document was signed on February 6th, 2007.
Nine -- that's 9 -- days later, on February 15th, the Board issued an order granting her back a probationary license. In spite of her guilty plea to a felony involving dishonesty, moral turpitude, and fraud, in this document giving her back her license, the Board declared her a person of "good moral character."
So much for protecting our pet's food in the wake of the horrible events last year. Someone pleads guilty to adulterating food, is REQUIRED to have their license revoked by the veterinary board -- the agency responsible for enforcement of the very statute that requires the revocation -- and then the Vet Board turns around and reinstates the license just 9 days later.
So, would you go to a vet that has "misbranded" or "adulterated" food, been "dishonest" and committed "fraud" and crimes of "moral turpitude" involving food she is selling?
Well, if you are willing to do so one thing is for sure: The Missouri Veterinary Board won't stand in your way.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
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
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
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Crazy B.S. Vet Boards Believe [or, rather, PRETEND they believe]: The Case of Daniel Peck of Maryland and Shelby the Pug
This case, from Maryland, provides a really good example of how veterinary boards always believe the veterinarian when the owner's account and the vet's account are diametrically opposed, even when the suspicious behavior of the veterinarian seems to indicate that the owner is telling the truth.
For example -- don't you think you would know whether or not you told a vet, or gave permission to a vet, to spay your dog? If you thought a vet was just going to remove a lump on your dogs leg, but your dog came out of surgery having had an entire spay performed, wouldn't you be mighty pissed? This is what a Maryland owner claims happened with her pug, Shelby.
This case also provides a good example of how the vet board believes that the vet did things he CLAIMS he did, but NEVER wrote down. SHAME on the vet boards -- for this type of behavior on their part merely encourages vets to make up any old story. Moreover, bad things happen to animals, but vet boards seem to chalk everything up to "recordkeeping" violations, which sound not-so-serious. Use your noggin, people. Read between the lines. I don't even believe the vet boards believe this shit -- but they aren't in the business of uncovering the truth, they are in the business of coddling their colleagues no matter what.
Ah, but back to the case of Shelby:
Daniel Peck owned and operated the Eastern Shore Animal Hospital in Chesterstown Maryland.
In the summer of 2003, her owner brought 1 1/2 year-old pug Shelby in to Dr. Peck because she had a lump on her left leg. Dr. Peck decided that the lump was a "histocytoma" [sic]. (Hystiocytomas are benign skin tumors usually seen in small dogs. Here are some links to more information; and by the way, these articles say that they often resolve on their own: http://vetmedicine.about.com/od/diseasesconditionsfaqs/f/FAQ_histiocytom.htm
http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_histiocytoma.html)
But Dr. Peck recommended surgery to remove the lump, and the owner consented.
The vet board document says that Peck also performed an "ovariohysterectomy" (spay) on Shelby. Shelby's owner says that she NEVER gave permission for the spay!!!
The Board document says (emphasis added):
"Dr. Peck states otherwise, and amended the patient's record to include the following information: 'Called owner, permission given by father and Stacy.' Dr. Peck failed to initial and date this entry, signifying that it was an amendment."
OK, lemme get this straight. Shelby's owner said she never gave permission for the spay. The doctor LATER, AFTER THE FACT, modified (or "doctored?") the record to specifically say that permission was given for this spay, BUT he didn't follow state guidelines for the way to properly date and initial RETROACTIVE CHANGES MADE TO PATIENT RECORDS, indicating perhaps, that it was his intent to deceive people into believing that these were the original notations?????
The document further says:
"Dr. Peck administered an anesthetic agent to Shelby [for this surgery] (to wit: a combination of Ketamine, Rompun, Acepromizine) but failed to note in the patient's record the dosages given."
"Before anesthetizing Shelby and performing these procedures, Dr. Peck assessed the dog's physical condition, but failed to note his findings in the patient's record."
OK, so if it's not written down, HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DID IT? JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS SO??????
See how they always believe the vets? Even when the vet has NO proof, and the client has no proof, THEY TOTALLY 100 PERCENT BUY THE VET'S ACCOUNT OF THINGS!!!!!!!!
"Following surgery, Dr. Peck administered Flocillin to Shelby, but failed to note in the patient's record the amount given."
So, what did the board decide?
The board decided that Peck DID perform a physical exam of Shelby even though he wrote nothing down. BUT they found him in violation of the recordkeeping requirement.
For failing to write down the medications and amounts he used for anesthesia, they found him again in violation of record-keeping requirements. And AGAIN in violation of record keeping requirements for failing to write down that he gave Shelby Flocillin or the amount.
But the thing that really steams me is this:
For failing to initial and date his retroactive modifications to Shelby's medical records -- the one where he CLAIMS he called and got permission for the spay -- the one the owner says is total B.S. -- they just found him in violation of recordkeeping for that one too. For failing to date and initial the amendment.
They placed Peck on probation for 6 months and fined him $1,300, but they "stayed" $300 of the fine, which meant that he onnly had to pay $1,000.
As vet boards go, these are pretty high fines, but all the same, it is entirely maddening that a vet can retroactively modify his records to create documentation of things the client said NEVER occurred, and all he is found in violation of is recordkeeping. The fact that Peck did this, to me, tends to confirm the clients version of events, otherwise why would he suspiciously modify these records and not date them?
For example -- don't you think you would know whether or not you told a vet, or gave permission to a vet, to spay your dog? If you thought a vet was just going to remove a lump on your dogs leg, but your dog came out of surgery having had an entire spay performed, wouldn't you be mighty pissed? This is what a Maryland owner claims happened with her pug, Shelby.
This case also provides a good example of how the vet board believes that the vet did things he CLAIMS he did, but NEVER wrote down. SHAME on the vet boards -- for this type of behavior on their part merely encourages vets to make up any old story. Moreover, bad things happen to animals, but vet boards seem to chalk everything up to "recordkeeping" violations, which sound not-so-serious. Use your noggin, people. Read between the lines. I don't even believe the vet boards believe this shit -- but they aren't in the business of uncovering the truth, they are in the business of coddling their colleagues no matter what.
Ah, but back to the case of Shelby:
Daniel Peck owned and operated the Eastern Shore Animal Hospital in Chesterstown Maryland.
In the summer of 2003, her owner brought 1 1/2 year-old pug Shelby in to Dr. Peck because she had a lump on her left leg. Dr. Peck decided that the lump was a "histocytoma" [sic]. (Hystiocytomas are benign skin tumors usually seen in small dogs. Here are some links to more information; and by the way, these articles say that they often resolve on their own: http://vetmedicine.about.com/od/diseasesconditionsfaqs/f/FAQ_histiocytom.htm
http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_histiocytoma.html)
But Dr. Peck recommended surgery to remove the lump, and the owner consented.
The vet board document says that Peck also performed an "ovariohysterectomy" (spay) on Shelby. Shelby's owner says that she NEVER gave permission for the spay!!!
The Board document says (emphasis added):
"Dr. Peck states otherwise, and amended the patient's record to include the following information: 'Called owner, permission given by father and Stacy.' Dr. Peck failed to initial and date this entry, signifying that it was an amendment."
OK, lemme get this straight. Shelby's owner said she never gave permission for the spay. The doctor LATER, AFTER THE FACT, modified (or "doctored?") the record to specifically say that permission was given for this spay, BUT he didn't follow state guidelines for the way to properly date and initial RETROACTIVE CHANGES MADE TO PATIENT RECORDS, indicating perhaps, that it was his intent to deceive people into believing that these were the original notations?????
The document further says:
"Dr. Peck administered an anesthetic agent to Shelby [for this surgery] (to wit: a combination of Ketamine, Rompun, Acepromizine) but failed to note in the patient's record the dosages given."
"Before anesthetizing Shelby and performing these procedures, Dr. Peck assessed the dog's physical condition, but failed to note his findings in the patient's record."
OK, so if it's not written down, HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DID IT? JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS SO??????
See how they always believe the vets? Even when the vet has NO proof, and the client has no proof, THEY TOTALLY 100 PERCENT BUY THE VET'S ACCOUNT OF THINGS!!!!!!!!
"Following surgery, Dr. Peck administered Flocillin to Shelby, but failed to note in the patient's record the amount given."
So, what did the board decide?
The board decided that Peck DID perform a physical exam of Shelby even though he wrote nothing down. BUT they found him in violation of the recordkeeping requirement.
For failing to write down the medications and amounts he used for anesthesia, they found him again in violation of record-keeping requirements. And AGAIN in violation of record keeping requirements for failing to write down that he gave Shelby Flocillin or the amount.
But the thing that really steams me is this:
For failing to initial and date his retroactive modifications to Shelby's medical records -- the one where he CLAIMS he called and got permission for the spay -- the one the owner says is total B.S. -- they just found him in violation of recordkeeping for that one too. For failing to date and initial the amendment.
They placed Peck on probation for 6 months and fined him $1,300, but they "stayed" $300 of the fine, which meant that he onnly had to pay $1,000.
As vet boards go, these are pretty high fines, but all the same, it is entirely maddening that a vet can retroactively modify his records to create documentation of things the client said NEVER occurred, and all he is found in violation of is recordkeeping. The fact that Peck did this, to me, tends to confirm the clients version of events, otherwise why would he suspiciously modify these records and not date them?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Spay that Wasn't a Spay: Was He High???
The North Dakota owner of a young female Cairn Terrier named Ruby brought Ruby to Doc's Veterinary Clinic in Bismarck, North Dakota to see owner Tim Dockter for a spay. Ruby actually went through the surgery -- presumably involving the usual incisions and cuts, anesthesia, etc. Recalling that day, the owner said: "[Ruby] had an incision site with stitches on her lower abdomen . . . "
Three months later, Ruby's owner must have had quite a fright, when she saw that Ruby was bleeding ("spotted blood on my bedspread"), "had swollen genitalia and was licking herself."
In her complaint, the owner wrote:
"She had all the signs of being in heat but I had had her spayed at Doc's . . . "
So, she thought the problem must be something else, like a bladder infection. She took Ruby to another clinic (NOT Dockter's), who found that she was running a fever, so they put Ruby on antibiotics. But Ruby still bled, so her owner took her back to the clinic for another visit. Neither an ultrasound nor bloodwork showed anything abnormal. About a month later, when Ruby was no longer bleeding, her owner took her back in to the clinic and had blood taken. "The second blood test," the owner said, "did reveal high levels of progesterone indicating she was ovulating so a surgery was scheduled."
In February 2007, four months after "Dockter" had performed surgery on Ruby, Ruby underwent yet another spay. When the new vet performed this surgery he "found two ovaries and her uterus." The owner saved the ovaries and uterus, presumably as proof.
The owner notified Dockter when it was suspected that Ruby had gone into heat, and according to her account, a series of phone calls between her and Dockter ensued, in which, she said, he expressed concerned about being sued and asked her to "keep this between him and I . . . " She said: "I did not appreciate the harrassment and am completely disgusted that my dog had to go through this."
In his response to her complaint, Dockter denied the tone of the conversation as reported by Ruby's owner, saying that "She . . . informed me she was having Ruby looked at a different, undisclosed clinic. The conversation was very civil with no accusations or argumentative language."
Well, that's a case of he-said, she-said, but given his focus on the "undisclosed" nature of the other clinic, I have to wonder what he would have done if Ruby's owner would have "disclosed" the name of this other clinic.
Dockter reported that when Ruby's owner called him to report that ovaries and a uterus had been found inside Ruby, he said that he "did not know how this could have happened."
Later in the document, he offers what might be construed as two possible explanations:
He says he once heard of a dog that had TWO reproductive tracts.
He then said, "When I am in surgery I have on a phone headset ad I will take calls. Did I take a phone call from my children that was serious? Or did I have to break up a dog fight in my waiting room?"
HELLO???? In the middle of surgery this guy stops to talk to his children and break up dog fights in his waiting room? WTF???????
The Board decided to initiate a disciplinary action based on the complaint filed in the case of Ruby. Also, they noted, that they "decided to initiate disciplinary action on the information received by he Board alleging that Dockter was convicted of possession of marijuana and denied the conviction on an application for renewal."
They noted that Dockter did not admit to these violations.
They suspended his license for just one month, and then put his license on probaton for 4 years. They also said that he should not perform surgery for 5 months after returning to work. They fined him $3,000.
Hey, I know what might have happened that Dockter spaced out and didn't remove Ruby's ovaries and uterus. Maybe he stopped in the middle of surgery to go toke on a bong. After all, he stops in the middle of surgery for all kinds of other things.
Three months later, Ruby's owner must have had quite a fright, when she saw that Ruby was bleeding ("spotted blood on my bedspread"), "had swollen genitalia and was licking herself."
In her complaint, the owner wrote:
"She had all the signs of being in heat but I had had her spayed at Doc's . . . "
So, she thought the problem must be something else, like a bladder infection. She took Ruby to another clinic (NOT Dockter's), who found that she was running a fever, so they put Ruby on antibiotics. But Ruby still bled, so her owner took her back to the clinic for another visit. Neither an ultrasound nor bloodwork showed anything abnormal. About a month later, when Ruby was no longer bleeding, her owner took her back in to the clinic and had blood taken. "The second blood test," the owner said, "did reveal high levels of progesterone indicating she was ovulating so a surgery was scheduled."
In February 2007, four months after "Dockter" had performed surgery on Ruby, Ruby underwent yet another spay. When the new vet performed this surgery he "found two ovaries and her uterus." The owner saved the ovaries and uterus, presumably as proof.
The owner notified Dockter when it was suspected that Ruby had gone into heat, and according to her account, a series of phone calls between her and Dockter ensued, in which, she said, he expressed concerned about being sued and asked her to "keep this between him and I . . . " She said: "I did not appreciate the harrassment and am completely disgusted that my dog had to go through this."
In his response to her complaint, Dockter denied the tone of the conversation as reported by Ruby's owner, saying that "She . . . informed me she was having Ruby looked at a different, undisclosed clinic. The conversation was very civil with no accusations or argumentative language."
Well, that's a case of he-said, she-said, but given his focus on the "undisclosed" nature of the other clinic, I have to wonder what he would have done if Ruby's owner would have "disclosed" the name of this other clinic.
Dockter reported that when Ruby's owner called him to report that ovaries and a uterus had been found inside Ruby, he said that he "did not know how this could have happened."
Later in the document, he offers what might be construed as two possible explanations:
He says he once heard of a dog that had TWO reproductive tracts.
He then said, "When I am in surgery I have on a phone headset ad I will take calls. Did I take a phone call from my children that was serious? Or did I have to break up a dog fight in my waiting room?"
HELLO???? In the middle of surgery this guy stops to talk to his children and break up dog fights in his waiting room? WTF???????
The Board decided to initiate a disciplinary action based on the complaint filed in the case of Ruby. Also, they noted, that they "decided to initiate disciplinary action on the information received by he Board alleging that Dockter was convicted of possession of marijuana and denied the conviction on an application for renewal."
They noted that Dockter did not admit to these violations.
They suspended his license for just one month, and then put his license on probaton for 4 years. They also said that he should not perform surgery for 5 months after returning to work. They fined him $3,000.
Hey, I know what might have happened that Dockter spaced out and didn't remove Ruby's ovaries and uterus. Maybe he stopped in the middle of surgery to go toke on a bong. After all, he stops in the middle of surgery for all kinds of other things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)