This is one of those stories where a pet owner with a brain will read "between the lines." Keep in mind, that the veterinary board who acted in this matter pretty much recounted the VET'S VERSION OF EVENTS as though it were the truth. In the VET'S VERSION OF EVENTS the dog, a rat terrier named Star, "fell off the table and hit her head on the floor." She hit her head so hard that the damage sustained was so bad that she had to be euthanized. The vet claims the dog "fell off the table," even though she told the owner that (having been bitten by the dog), if the dog were hers she would have "beat the hell out of her."
So what do you think REALLY happened?
Here is the vet board's account:
In April, 2008, Star's owner brought Star in for coughing. "Dr. McClendon examined 'Star' and diagnosed 'Star' with bronchitis and tracheatis, possibly due to a bordatella infection. After the examination, Samantha Maxwell, a veterinary technician at respondent's clinic, attempted to administer Metacam orally with a syringe. 'Star' bit Ms. Maxwell on her hand, but she was successful on her second attempt. 'Star' was placed on a table in the kennel, where Ms. Maxwell attempted to medicate 'Star' with a Primor pill antibiotic. Ms. Maxwell was unable to administer the medication as 'Star' continued to snap at her. Dr. McClendon also tried to administer the medication, but was bitten in the process. Dr. McClendon subsequently used a pill pusher to successfully administer the medication. In the process, Star bit Dr. McClendon twice more. However, when Dr. McClendon pulled her hand back, 'Star' bit her on the thumb and would not release. Dr. McClendon slapped 'Star' on the muzzle several times in an attempt to get 'Star' to release her thumb. In the confusion, 'Star' fell off the table and hit her head on the floor."
"IN THE CONFUSION?????? IN THE CONFUSION?????" What the hell does that disingenuous phrase mean?
I'm guessing it means: "Oh, gee, somehow, we dont remember, the dog who was attached to my thumb -- who I was busy slapping -- ended up slamming to the floor and hitting his head really hard. Duh. Not sure how."
What do you think?
The document goes on:
"'Star' was then given a flea bath and placed in the kennel to dry. While drying in the kennel, 'Star's' nose began to bleed. [Star's owner] was in the clinic's waiting room while the medication was administered. While she was paying her bill, Dr. McClendon stated that Star had bitten her, and if it was her dog, she would have 'beat the hell out of her.' Dr. McClendon also said she did not want to see 'Star' at her clinic anymore, and [the owner] apologized. 'Star' was picked up by [the owner's] husband, at approximately 4:30 p.m. that day and presented with blood on her nose. A staff member of the clinic informed [the husband] that 'Star' had fallen off an examination table."
Keep in mind, at this point, these vets had Star for some time.
"Star's nose continued to bleed after returning home. At approximately 8:00pm that evening, [the owner] noticed that 'Star' had become letharghic. On the morning of April 3rd Star was still lethargic and her nose was still bleeding. She could not walk and was having difficulty breathing. At approximately 7:30 am [the owner] presented star to Jason Anderson, D.V.M., Marshall Animal Hospital, where a blood profile was conducted and radiographs taken. Dr. Anderson diagnosed 'Star' with severe head trauma. 'Star' suffered seizures while being examined, which left her 'non-responsive and in an apparent vegetative state,' and 'eventually went into cardio-respiratory arrest.' Once Dr. Anderson informed [the owner] of Star's status, she elected to euthanize Star."
Did you get the part about "SEVERE HEAD TRAUMA?"
The board stated:
"Dr. McClendon's failure to property restrain and administer medication to Star does not represent the same degree of humane care, skill and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession in good standing in Marshall, Texas or similar communities. Specifically (1) Dr. McClendon's failure to property restrain Star during the administration of medication, (2) her failure to allow Star's owner -- who was present in the clinic waiting room -- to administer the medication to Star, rather than to administer it herself and (3) her failure to recognize that Star's continuing nosebleed subsequent to her fall . . . " [editorial comment: Yeh, fall. Right. Some "fall."] ". . . was a sign of head trauma and treat accordingly, led to complications which ultimately contributed to the untimely death of Star."
CONTRIBUTED TO?????
Hmmm. About that comment Sonya McClendon made. That comment that if Star were her dog, she would "beat the hell out of her." Maybe it wasn't a hypothetical????
And you gotta wonder -- does Dr. McClendon HAVE ANY DOGS? ANY PETS AT ALL? If she does, shouldn't someone go remove them from her custody, given her assertion that she finds justification to "beat the hell out of" her dogs, as well as given the fate of Star?
Poor Star.
Star, if there is a heaven, or any kind of justice in the afterlife, you will 150 pounds and giant, and Dr. McClendon will be 15 pounds and tiny. And she will be delivered to you on a silver platter, for you to so with as you wish.
Alas, in this life, you were a victim.
A veterinary victim.
How did the veterinary board deal with McClendon?
They gave her a big scary FORMAL REPRIMAND.
They fined her $500.
They ordered her to take a class in animal behavior. (Um, how about anger management?)
They ordered restitution of a measely $111.82. Which McClendon had apparently had the gall to charge Star's owners.
Do you think this is enough for the life of your dog?
Moreover, this was not the first time McClendon had been disciplined by the board, nor the first time her actions had been implicated in the death of a patient. See below.
All of that -- and does the board take her license? No. Do they give her so much as 1 day active suspension? No.
Way to go coddling those repeat offenders, Texas. How many dogs will she have to kill before you take some real action?
Thank you to Texas Citizen Greg Munson of the Texas Vet Board Watch and Texas Veterinary Records site for calling my attention to this case.
To view the disciplinary record on which this entry is based, go here
UPDATE: Bad Vet Daily has just found out that Sonya McClendon, the vet in this case, allegedly supports the breeding of cats with deformities, providing veterinary services to a breeder called "Karma Cats". See http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/059/RipOff0059206.htm. Many people believe this to be a cruel and perverse operation. For more debate, see http://www.angelfire.com/yt/twistykats/
Also, this is not the first death in the hands of McClendon in a case disciplined by the vet board. In a 2004 case, it was found that McClendon "failed to administer fluids to a dehydrated patient" and to that patient, simultaneously administered two contraindicated drugs -- rimadyl and banamine. The dog in question died two hours later. The board described that in that case, she was "annoyed" that she had to see the dog -- who came in on an emergency basis, and who was not her regular patient. In that case, the board "formally reprimanded" her.
Here is the case: http://texasveterinaryrecords.110mb.com/TX_2005_Mcclendon_Sonya_2005-05.pdf
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Vet Carlton Cuts Up and Cremates Dead Patient Without Owners Permission, Without Notifying Pet Owners of their Pets Death
Virginia Veterinarian Carlton Elam is living proof that the disciplinary actions of the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine are useless as a deterrant to future violations. How else can you explain a history of violations going back over 25 years?
Moreover, his most recent violation also raises the question: What is a veterinarian trying to hide when he cremates a dead patient without ever notifying the owners that their beloved dog has even died?????
Ask yourself:
If a human died in the hospital, and the attending physician performed an autopsy and then cremated the person, all without ever notifying the family of the death, would that phsyician still be practising?????
This is not the first time I've heard of this kind of thing happening at a veterinary practice. In fact, years ago, I heard a similar story from a veterinary hospital receptionist working here in the Washington DC area: At the practice where she previously worked, she boarded her dog for the weekend. The only thing wrong with her dog was that he was taking Deramaxx for arthritis. When she returned to the hospital she was told that her dog was dead. He had died that weekend while in the "care" of unlicensed, unsupervised veterinary assistants. They refused to allow her to see the body, telling her it would "upset her" too much. They cremated the dog without her permission and handed her a box of ashes.
I would like NOTHING MORE than to give the name of the animal hospital at which she said this occurred; however, for my own legal protection, I cannot do so. However, I can tell you that the hospital was one where the owner had disciplinary action taken on his license in a different case, and one I have written about. Unfortunately, the former staff member never filed a complaint with the vet board or took any other action against the vet, so there is no public record on the case involving the death of her dog. This places me at liability if I name the hospital, whereas if there were public record of this having occurred, I could name the hospital. One more reason you should REPORT these kinds of things. Also, since that hospital had other complaints against it and prior disciplinary action, her reporting of this incident might have resulted in stronger action being taken against them as repeat offenders. Sadly, like so many victims -- particularly those who also work in the veterinary field and are afraid of being "blacklisted", she did not file a complaint. So they blithely go along till this day doing things like that, I'm sure.
Therefore, my deep gratitude goes to the owners of "Bumpie," a dog who fatefully died in the care of Virginia Veterinarian Carlton Elam. You see, they DID file a complaint with the vet board, and THERE IS PUBLIC RECORD which can be republished to warn others about this man. But does it make a difference anyway? Do vets even pay attention to disciplinary actions of the vet board -- unless the vet board actually does something serious like enforce a license suspension or revoke a license? Apparently not . . . which brings me back to Carlton Elam.
What happened to Bumpie? Why did he die at Elam Veterinary Hospital in Powhatan, Virginia? And . . . do Elam's actions after Bumpie's death give us a clue that perhaps Elam was trying to cover something up? Judge for yourself.
In an order dated December 1, 2008, the Virginia Veterinary Board states in its findings of fact that "On February 8, 2008, [Dr. Elam] failed to notify the owner of Bumpie that Bumpie had died the night before."
"Following the discovery of Bumpie's death, Dr. Elam performed a necropsy without obtaining the permission of Bumpie's owner or allowing said owner the option of having the necropsy performed by another veterinarian."
"Dr. Elam arranged for the cremation of Bumpie's remains without receiving permission from Bumpie's owner."
"Dr. Elam failed to record the cremation of Bumpie's remains in the medical record."
Why did Bumpie die? Will we ever know? Don't ask what the necropsy showed, unless you just fell off the proverbial turnip truck!
But this was FAR from Dr. Elam's first violation. And so, the Veterinary Board -- citing the fact that at the time Dr. Elam committed these acts, he was already on probation as a result of a prior Board order (which required him to maintain a "course of conduct" commensurate with the requirements of the code), found him in violation of their prior order, and placed him on "idefinite probation" for a period of not less than 3 years. They reprimanded him and fined him $1,500. But what are the terms of the probation? Will this keep Dr. Elam from doing such a thing?
Apparently not, because he was already on a 3-year probation when he did this!
So -- WHEN EXACTLY -- does the Virginia Veterinary Board suspend or revoke a vets license for violating probation? Can a vet simply continue to commit such acts over and over, and simply get an extended probation each time? Seems so.
You see, in January, 2008 -- just one month before Elam necropsied and cremated Bumpie without even telling the owners he'd died -- The bet board had fined Elam $10,000 in another case. YOU ALMOST NEVER HERE OF A FINE THAT HIGH. They also had said that within a year of that action, they would conduct an unannounced inspection of Elam's facility. Did they?
In their order, dated January 28, 2008 -- mere days before poor Bumpie died under Elam's care only to be necropsied and cremated before his owners found out -- the Board said:
" . . . On or about January 16th, 2006 . . . Client A presented to his practice with 'Coconut,' a canine who was not eating well and was constipated. Dr. Elam documented in Coconut's records that he prescribed 10 mg of prednisone to be taken twice a day for neck pain. On or about January 30, 2006, Coconut was returned to Dr. Elam's practice having lost approximately two pounds and still was not eating. On February 4, 2006, Client A presented with Coconut who was eating small amounts of food. Based on bloodwork, Dr. Elam diagnosed Coconut with Addison's disease."
Over the next several months, Coconut's owners continued to bring her in to see Carlton Elam, and she continued to lose weight.
In early June, however, Coconut's owners apparently finally took her to another vet, who diagnosed Coconut with "hepatocellular carcinoma." The Board said:
"Dr. Elam overprescribed the amount of Prednisone administered to Coconut for treatment of Addison's disease, and failed to diagnose Coconut's carcinoma . . . Although Coconut continued to decline, Dr. Elam failed to offer to refer Client A to a Veterinary Internal Medicine Specialist."
So, Coconut's owners seem to have lost nearly 6 months between the time Coconut exhibited illness and the time they got a correct diagnosis from another vet. Time they could have spent treating Coconut for her cancer, instead of overdosing her with prednisone.
In their original letter to Elam requesting that he attend a conference to review allegations against him, the veterinary board stated that Elam never conducted an ACTH test to confirm his Addison's diagnosis. According to AddisonDogs.com an ACTH test is necessary to confirm diagnosis of Addison's. If Elam did not do this, was he giving Coconut large quantities of steroids for a disease she didn't even have??? According to AddisonDogs.com, "The Merck Veterinary manual recommends a prednisone dose of 0.1 – 0.2 mgs/lb. per day." If Coconut was getting 10 mg twice a day, that is 20 mg per day. That would be an appropriate maximum dose for a 100 pound dog. And that's only if she DID have Addison's -- which it seems was a misdiagnosis. Was Coconut a 100 pound dog???? If not, what are the consequences of a prednisone overdose? According to Wedgewood Pharmacy, "Chronic or inappropriate use of corticosteroids, including prednisone, can cause life threatening hormonal and metabolic changes"; also side effects include: "polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, poor haircoat, GI disturbance, diarrhea, vomiting, weight gain, GI ulceration, pancreatitis, lipidemia, elevated liver enzymes, diabetes mellitus, muscle wasting, and possible behavioral changes." Corticosteroids suppress the immune system. What effect would that have on the survival of a dog with cancer?
As I mentioned, the Board fined Elam $10,000 in that case. This is an unusually high fine, and I believe the reason was . . . he had a long history of violations including:
1983 -- Found in violation of State regulations when he induced labor in a horse and then left her. "There was a difficult delivery, and the foal was born dead." The Board fined him $250.
2002 -- The veterinary board found Elam had failed to maintain adequate records in the case of two patients, "Tor" (dog) and "Christmas Pie" (cat). They fined him $500. However, in my opinion, this appears to be a case in which much more serious things occurred, but the Vet Board just found him guilty of the "lesser" violation of recordkeeping. This is one of the sneaky things Board's do to protect vets. Why do I think this? Because the Vet Board's Notice of "Informal" conference includes allegations that that Elam may have engaged in unprofessional conduct and provided substandard care. This is stated in the Board's notice telling Elam to come to an "informal" conference to discuss the complaint. This notice includes the following information:
"You performed medical tests and procedures, some unnecessary, on your patient "Tor" . . . without obtaining the client's authorization and discussing additional charges. Further, you failed to appropriately diagnose "Tor," and you failed to maintain adequate and complete patient records for him." They go on to give the following specifics:
They go on to say:
"You performed or had performed numerous tests on Tor, some unnecessary, without Client A's authorizatin, in that Client A discussed euthanizing Tor with you upon his admission on November 6, 2000. Additionally, when Client A noted "Tor's" condition was deteriorating on November 7, 2000, she told you she did not want to keep "Tor" alive if he was not going to get better. You denied that Client A ever mentioned euthanasia to you and stated that you provided 'only minimal diagnostic testing and treatment to stabilize "Tor." In fact, billing records indicate you performed internal parasite examinations on November 6 and 7, 2000; complete blood counts on November 6 and 7, 2000, and two (2) blood chemistries on November 7, 2000 in addition to the one performed on November 4 by another veterinarian before "Tor" expired on November 7, 2000."
I remind the reader that the above was included in the ALLEGATIONS, not in the findings of fact, and that the findings of fact do not include substandard care or unprofessional conduct. They include only recordkeeping violations. The question is: WHY??????
These allegations go on to state:
"You performed unnecessary medical tests on your patient, "Christmas Pie" . . .further, you failed to adequately diagnose "Christmas Pie" and failed to maintain accurate patient records for her. Specifically . . . Client A presented Christmas Pie to you for teeth cleaning. Your records indicate that "Christmas Pie" weighed 8.1 pounds, and you administered anesthetic according to that weight.[emphasis added]. "Client A provided previous and subsequent records indicating the weight of the cat has remained stable at approximately 6 pounds prior and subsequent to your December 22, 1999 treatment of her . . . Client A again presented "Christmas Pie" to you on or about July 31, 2000, with symptoms of frequency of urination and excessive thirst. At her request, you performed tests to determine whether the cat had decreased kidney function. Althouth you performed tests that you indicated ruled out anemia, you failed to adequately diagnose the cat's condition or provide a treatment plan after performing additional tests. Further you performed tests based upon your belief that "Christmas Pie" had lost two pounds since December 22, 1999, despite Client A's assertion that the weight you recorded in December was incorrect."
2003 -- The veterinary board investigates a complaint against Elam, and finds no "clear and convincing" evidence that he committed violations.
This, IN SPITE of the fact that the notice available online prior to the board's finding of "no violation" include the following allegations:
" . . . . on April 15, 2002, Client A presented to your practice with "Chloe," a puppy, for a routine spay. You spayed Chloe and sent her home the same day. [The next day] Chloe's sutures ruptured allowing her intestines to be exposed. You took Chloe back into surgery and repaired the incision, but Chloe died later that night. You failed to properly suture Chloe's incision during the initial surgery."
After Elam's history of repeated complaints and findings . . . he still is allowed to practice by the State of Virginia. Here is a screenshot from the Veterinary Board website showing the long list of documents associated with investigations and disciplinary actions taken against Elam:
When will the Virginia Veterinary Board put an end to Elam's trail of tears?
Links:
Order in the Case of Bumpie
Order in the Case of Coconut
Allegations in the Case of Chloe
Order in the Case of Chloe
Order in the Case of Tor and Christmas Pie
Allegations in the Case of Tor and Christmas Pie
Order in the Case of the Dead Foal
WARNING: This vet also goes by the name of Nick Elam and C. Nick Elam.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Leonardo the Dog is Dropped off for Grooming, and His Vet Kills Him
TEXAS. How would you fee if you took your beloved 6-year old English Sheepdog in to the vet for a simple grooming, and later the vet called you and told you that he had killed him instead?
That is what happened in San Antonio, Texas in 1997, when Leonardo the Sheepdog was taken by his owner to Leon Springs Veterinary Hospital, where he was placed in the decidely NOT CAREFUL hands of veterinarian Doyle Cooper.
The Texas Veterinary Board records state:
". . . Leonardo was placed in a run until the groomer was ready for him. Dr. Cooper did not know that 'Leonardo' was in the building. A short time later, a Great Pyrenees was admitted to be euthanized. Dr. Cooper was in surgery and directed that the dog be placed in a run until the animal could be euthanized later. Instead, the Great Pyrenees was placed in a treatment ward cage. Both animals failed to have an ID card on their doors to determine disposition."
[COMMENTARY: That is the actual text of the vet board document. Here are a couple of things I find very interesting:
a) Isn't it interesting that the staff didn't listen to the vet and that's the source of fault here?? Hmm. Rather than the person in charge? With the whole "Instead . . . [the dog] was placed in a treatment ward cage"? I'm not so sure I believe that, although I'll never know.
b) Also, isn't the "passive voice" choice of the board telling? THE ANIMALS failed to HAVE ID cards on their doors. As they they, themselves, were supposed to grab a
3"x5" card, a marker, and write: Leonardo, Here for Grooming. Great Pyrenees, Here to be Killed. Why doesn't it say WHO FAILED TO PROPERLY MARK the identity of the animals, and WHY THEY FAILED to do so. Carelessness? Lack of procedures, perhaps?
They continue:
" . . . after lunch, Dr. Cooper located 'Leonardo' in the run and euthanized him."
OK, obviously the worst part of all this is the lack of care taken by Cooper to have procedures to make sure he euthanizes the right animal. But isn't it also disturbing, that a sick patient is brought in for euthanasia, presumably because he's suffering, and Cooper goes to lunch first?
But I digress.
"When Dr. Cooper realized he had euthanized the wrong dog, he called Mr. & Mrs. Larsen and explained the facts and circumstances to them."
My interpretation:
FACT: I killed your dog.
CIRCUMSTANCES: We are careless over here.
The document continues:
"Dr. Cooper's treatment of Leonardo did not constitute the exercise of the same degree of humane care, skill, and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession in good standing in San Antonio, Texas or similar community."
Nah, you don't say?
The document goes on to say that Dr. Cooper reached a legal settlement with the family.
It also says that Dr. Cooper INTENDS TO change procedures at Leon Springs Veterinary Hospital to ensure that this won't happen again.
Not he HAS. Not even HE WILL. He INTENDS TO.
This document is dated December 23rd, 1997.
Leonardo was killed, and this incident occurred on, February 26th 1997.
TEN MONTHS have passed between this incident and the signing of this document.
YET, the document still says Cooper INTENDS TO change procedures. As in, in the future.
Hmmm. That's how low a priority it is to make sure you don't kill the wrong animal?
The veterinary board gave Cooper an official reprimand.
That's it.
No fine.
No suspension.
A reprimand.
Outrageous?
Unfortunately, YES, but not unusual.
And not much has changed in the years since.
Greg Munson, who runs the Texas Vet Board Watch Website, has analyzed Texas' 2008 Veterinary Board Actions.
According to Muson, there were 84 Board Orders issued by the Texas Veterinary Board for FY 08.
67 of the 84 Board Orders (or 80%) were for violations UNRELATED to patient care. These include failure to take enough Continuing Education, drug related violations, administrative violations, and other types.
Only 17 of the 84 Board Orders (or 20%) were related to patient care.
60 total fines were issued. 59 of those fines were issued for violations UNRELATED to patient care (failure to take enough training, drug violations, etc).
Of all the patient-care (or malpractice) related actions, only ONE was given a fine.
Of the 17 patient-care related (malpractice-related) orders, 10 received an INFORMAL reprimand. 6 of the 17 received FORMAL reprimands. 1 of the 17 received a restitution only order.
There were a couple of suspensions, but they were all STAYED, which means that the vet does not lose a single day of work.
And that's just the small minority of cases in which the Texas Board takes action. Infamously, it dismisses 92% of all consumer complaints with NO ACTION whatsoever. This has garnered much public attention of late, and has been the topic of several prime time news segments. You can watch them online:
Vetting Your Vet - KSAT News, November 2008
Bad Vets: KTVT, CBS-11, March 2007:
Find more videos like this on ASPCA Online Community
Does this give you some idea what the veterinary board believes is important? It sure isn't patient safety!
Maybe that's why Dr. Cooper and his ilk think it's OK to "INTEND" to improve your procedures 10 months after killing the wrong dog.
Click here to View Public Record for this Case
Texas Veterinary Board Watch Website
Disciplinary Records for Texas Veterinarians
That is what happened in San Antonio, Texas in 1997, when Leonardo the Sheepdog was taken by his owner to Leon Springs Veterinary Hospital, where he was placed in the decidely NOT CAREFUL hands of veterinarian Doyle Cooper.
The Texas Veterinary Board records state:
". . . Leonardo was placed in a run until the groomer was ready for him. Dr. Cooper did not know that 'Leonardo' was in the building. A short time later, a Great Pyrenees was admitted to be euthanized. Dr. Cooper was in surgery and directed that the dog be placed in a run until the animal could be euthanized later. Instead, the Great Pyrenees was placed in a treatment ward cage. Both animals failed to have an ID card on their doors to determine disposition."
[COMMENTARY: That is the actual text of the vet board document. Here are a couple of things I find very interesting:
a) Isn't it interesting that the staff didn't listen to the vet and that's the source of fault here?? Hmm. Rather than the person in charge? With the whole "Instead . . . [the dog] was placed in a treatment ward cage"? I'm not so sure I believe that, although I'll never know.
b) Also, isn't the "passive voice" choice of the board telling? THE ANIMALS failed to HAVE ID cards on their doors. As they they, themselves, were supposed to grab a
3"x5" card, a marker, and write: Leonardo, Here for Grooming. Great Pyrenees, Here to be Killed. Why doesn't it say WHO FAILED TO PROPERLY MARK the identity of the animals, and WHY THEY FAILED to do so. Carelessness? Lack of procedures, perhaps?
They continue:
" . . . after lunch, Dr. Cooper located 'Leonardo' in the run and euthanized him."
OK, obviously the worst part of all this is the lack of care taken by Cooper to have procedures to make sure he euthanizes the right animal. But isn't it also disturbing, that a sick patient is brought in for euthanasia, presumably because he's suffering, and Cooper goes to lunch first?
But I digress.
"When Dr. Cooper realized he had euthanized the wrong dog, he called Mr. & Mrs. Larsen and explained the facts and circumstances to them."
My interpretation:
FACT: I killed your dog.
CIRCUMSTANCES: We are careless over here.
The document continues:
"Dr. Cooper's treatment of Leonardo did not constitute the exercise of the same degree of humane care, skill, and diligence in treating patients as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession in good standing in San Antonio, Texas or similar community."
Nah, you don't say?
The document goes on to say that Dr. Cooper reached a legal settlement with the family.
It also says that Dr. Cooper INTENDS TO change procedures at Leon Springs Veterinary Hospital to ensure that this won't happen again.
Not he HAS. Not even HE WILL. He INTENDS TO.
This document is dated December 23rd, 1997.
Leonardo was killed, and this incident occurred on, February 26th 1997.
TEN MONTHS have passed between this incident and the signing of this document.
YET, the document still says Cooper INTENDS TO change procedures. As in, in the future.
Hmmm. That's how low a priority it is to make sure you don't kill the wrong animal?
The veterinary board gave Cooper an official reprimand.
That's it.
No fine.
No suspension.
A reprimand.
Outrageous?
Unfortunately, YES, but not unusual.
And not much has changed in the years since.
Greg Munson, who runs the Texas Vet Board Watch Website, has analyzed Texas' 2008 Veterinary Board Actions.
According to Muson, there were 84 Board Orders issued by the Texas Veterinary Board for FY 08.
67 of the 84 Board Orders (or 80%) were for violations UNRELATED to patient care. These include failure to take enough Continuing Education, drug related violations, administrative violations, and other types.
Only 17 of the 84 Board Orders (or 20%) were related to patient care.
60 total fines were issued. 59 of those fines were issued for violations UNRELATED to patient care (failure to take enough training, drug violations, etc).
Of all the patient-care (or malpractice) related actions, only ONE was given a fine.
Of the 17 patient-care related (malpractice-related) orders, 10 received an INFORMAL reprimand. 6 of the 17 received FORMAL reprimands. 1 of the 17 received a restitution only order.
There were a couple of suspensions, but they were all STAYED, which means that the vet does not lose a single day of work.
And that's just the small minority of cases in which the Texas Board takes action. Infamously, it dismisses 92% of all consumer complaints with NO ACTION whatsoever. This has garnered much public attention of late, and has been the topic of several prime time news segments. You can watch them online:
Vetting Your Vet - KSAT News, November 2008
Bad Vets: KTVT, CBS-11, March 2007:
Find more videos like this on ASPCA Online Community
Does this give you some idea what the veterinary board believes is important? It sure isn't patient safety!
Maybe that's why Dr. Cooper and his ilk think it's OK to "INTEND" to improve your procedures 10 months after killing the wrong dog.
Click here to View Public Record for this Case
Texas Veterinary Board Watch Website
Disciplinary Records for Texas Veterinarians
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Iowa Veterinary Board and Veterinarian Paul Armbrecht Agree: It's OK to Hang, Drag, and Kick Pigs
An undercover video taken in Ohio by the Humane Farming Association shows horrendous, practically unthinkable treatment of pigs and sows. You can see this video for yourself here, if you dare -- But frankly, I recommend that you just take my word for it, because if you have a scintilla of compassion, this will break your heart.
Who could possibly defend this treatment?
Who else, but a veterinarian.
Specifically, Iowa Vet, Paul Armbrecht.
Called to testify IN DEFENSE OF the Wiles Hog Farm where these horrific acts took place, Armbrecht testified that:
(See Tell Iowa Vet Board: Hanging Pigs is Not Humane!
Well, certainly the Iowa Veterinary Board would take action against the license of a veterinarian who saw a pig hanged (NOT deemed a humane euthanasia method by the AVMA, as though you needed someone to tell you that after watching this) and did not report it, right?
WRONG.
Apparently, the Iowa Vet Board thinks this is FINE, even though it violates their OWN practice act.
Would you like to tell the Iowa Veterinary Board how much they suck?
Click here to sign the petition to the Iowa Vet Board.
This petition says:
"I am horrified to learn that the Board failed to pursue any formal disciplinary action against this man, given his total disregard for laws protecting animals from cruelty and for veterinary standards by endorsing cruel killing by strangulation. Please immediately reconsider your decision."
Unfortunately, it appears that Armbrecht's testimony played a pivotal role in letting some of these slobs and demons -- taped slamming piglets to the floor -- off the hook.
Out of 10 animal cruelty charges filed as a result of this taping, only one resulted in a conviction.
According to the The-Daily-Record.com, only Joe Wiles was found guilty, as a result of "grabbing [piglets] and throwing them by their ears and legs."
The article goes on to say:
"Two charges alleging Joe Wiles, 22, of 1187 Steiner Road, needlessly killed animals and beat others to death with a hammer were dismissed before the judge deliberated. Also dismissed early in the trial was a charge Dusty Stroud was cruel in beating piglets to death by slamming their heads into cement floors.
Stroud, 18, of 814 McKinley St., Wooster, was found not guilty of failing to properly euthanize sick animals and when he did so, was cruel. Stroud was an employee of the farm.
Miller also found Joe Wiles not guilty of the same charge, as well as failing to provide food, water and veterinary care to animals and impounding animals without food or water.
Joe Wiles' father, Ken Wiles, the farm's owner, was found not guilty of failing to provide food, water and vet care to animals."
Why did these charges not result in more convictions? (I mean, WATCH the tape.)
Judge Stuart Miller cited "differing opinions from skilled veterinarians," the article says, in explaining his decision.
A letter to the Iowa Veterinary Board, jointly signed by:
stated that "Dr. Armbrecht’s trivialization of the AVMA and AASV/NPB guidelines and his explicit approval of death by strangulation apparently were enough to cause the judge to acquit the defendants on all charges related to the hangings." They appealed to the Iowa Veterinary Board to find Armbrecht in violation of statutes relating to making false or misleading statements and statutes related to livestock neglect (arguing that Armbrecht sanctioned such behavior).
It seems a legion of appeals isn't enough for the draconian Iowa Vet Board.
Or, perhaps like so much else, the Board's lack of action has more to do with cronyism, political influence, and connections than it does about the truth. Why do I say that?
Well, in an ironic and macabre twist, the Iowa State College of Veterinary Medicine publishes a newsletter called "The Gentle Doctor." In a 2004 edition it announced that the Armbrechts were named Family of the Year, in recognition of their "outstanding loyalty and support of Iowa State."
Who knows? But perhaps the Board's lack of action has something to do with Board Member Rexanne Struve.
Rexanne Struve operates a pig-rearing laboratory (chills your blood, does't it?). They produce "specific pathogen free pigs." A synopsis of her company appeared in an Iowa State "Biotech Mixer" program, stating that "Dr. Rexanne Struve has been performing caesarean section pig deliveries in a sterile environment and raising caesarian derived, colostrum deprived (CDCD) piglets . . . Currently the only commercial lab in the U.S. raising CDCD pigs, Struve labs is a respected leader in the swine industry working with biological and pharmaceutical companies . . . [Struve is] the leading supplier of CDCD pigs for the medical industry."
Well, asking Struve to sympathize with pigs suffering at the hands of "Swine Industry" abusers certainly sounds like a lost cause, doesn't it? Can she be objective enough to do her job? Doubtful. An online blog quotes a "Carroll Area Development Corp." member as saying: "Rexanne would like to save local farmers and hog producers."
We know where her loyalties are. Oh, and the same article goes on to talk about Struve hobnobbing with Governor Vilsack. And she wants to transplant pig organs into humans. And she traveled to Taiwan on behalf of the U.S. to advise Taiwan's "swine producers."
Of course several other Board members have Iowa State connections.
Would this Board ever find Armbrecht in violation of anything?
As for Armbrecht himself, I struggle for the words to define his inexcusable excuses for cruelty.
Psychotic?
Sadistic?
Crazy?
Cruel?
In my opinion, YOU BETCHA.
Who could possibly defend this treatment?
Who else, but a veterinarian.
Specifically, Iowa Vet, Paul Armbrecht.
Called to testify IN DEFENSE OF the Wiles Hog Farm where these horrific acts took place, Armbrecht testified that:
- Hanging is an acceptable method of killing downed and disabled sows, despite the fact that the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, and the National Pork Board don't list hanging as a humane method of "euthanasia" in their guidelines.
- Wiles Hog Farm's practice of dragging, kicking, and dropping sows off a 4-foot ledge was an acceptable means of transporting sows to their deaths.
- Killing methods that cause animals to take up to 10 minutes to die are acceptable.
- Dr. Armbrecht had observed at least one similar strangulation elsewhere in recent months but failed to report it.
(See Tell Iowa Vet Board: Hanging Pigs is Not Humane!
Well, certainly the Iowa Veterinary Board would take action against the license of a veterinarian who saw a pig hanged (NOT deemed a humane euthanasia method by the AVMA, as though you needed someone to tell you that after watching this) and did not report it, right?
WRONG.
Apparently, the Iowa Vet Board thinks this is FINE, even though it violates their OWN practice act.
Would you like to tell the Iowa Veterinary Board how much they suck?
Click here to sign the petition to the Iowa Vet Board.
This petition says:
"I am horrified to learn that the Board failed to pursue any formal disciplinary action against this man, given his total disregard for laws protecting animals from cruelty and for veterinary standards by endorsing cruel killing by strangulation. Please immediately reconsider your decision."
Unfortunately, it appears that Armbrecht's testimony played a pivotal role in letting some of these slobs and demons -- taped slamming piglets to the floor -- off the hook.
Out of 10 animal cruelty charges filed as a result of this taping, only one resulted in a conviction.
According to the The-Daily-Record.com, only Joe Wiles was found guilty, as a result of "grabbing [piglets] and throwing them by their ears and legs."
The article goes on to say:
"Two charges alleging Joe Wiles, 22, of 1187 Steiner Road, needlessly killed animals and beat others to death with a hammer were dismissed before the judge deliberated. Also dismissed early in the trial was a charge Dusty Stroud was cruel in beating piglets to death by slamming their heads into cement floors.
Stroud, 18, of 814 McKinley St., Wooster, was found not guilty of failing to properly euthanize sick animals and when he did so, was cruel. Stroud was an employee of the farm.
Miller also found Joe Wiles not guilty of the same charge, as well as failing to provide food, water and veterinary care to animals and impounding animals without food or water.
Joe Wiles' father, Ken Wiles, the farm's owner, was found not guilty of failing to provide food, water and vet care to animals."
Why did these charges not result in more convictions? (I mean, WATCH the tape.)
Judge Stuart Miller cited "differing opinions from skilled veterinarians," the article says, in explaining his decision.
A letter to the Iowa Veterinary Board, jointly signed by:
- the Humane Farming Association
- PETA
- the Animal Welfare Institute
- the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Li>the Human Society of the United States, and - the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
stated that "Dr. Armbrecht’s trivialization of the AVMA and AASV/NPB guidelines and his explicit approval of death by strangulation apparently were enough to cause the judge to acquit the defendants on all charges related to the hangings." They appealed to the Iowa Veterinary Board to find Armbrecht in violation of statutes relating to making false or misleading statements and statutes related to livestock neglect (arguing that Armbrecht sanctioned such behavior).
It seems a legion of appeals isn't enough for the draconian Iowa Vet Board.
Or, perhaps like so much else, the Board's lack of action has more to do with cronyism, political influence, and connections than it does about the truth. Why do I say that?
Well, in an ironic and macabre twist, the Iowa State College of Veterinary Medicine publishes a newsletter called "The Gentle Doctor." In a 2004 edition it announced that the Armbrechts were named Family of the Year, in recognition of their "outstanding loyalty and support of Iowa State."
Who knows? But perhaps the Board's lack of action has something to do with Board Member Rexanne Struve.
Rexanne Struve operates a pig-rearing laboratory (chills your blood, does't it?). They produce "specific pathogen free pigs." A synopsis of her company appeared in an Iowa State "Biotech Mixer" program, stating that "Dr. Rexanne Struve has been performing caesarean section pig deliveries in a sterile environment and raising caesarian derived, colostrum deprived (CDCD) piglets . . . Currently the only commercial lab in the U.S. raising CDCD pigs, Struve labs is a respected leader in the swine industry working with biological and pharmaceutical companies . . . [Struve is] the leading supplier of CDCD pigs for the medical industry."
Well, asking Struve to sympathize with pigs suffering at the hands of "Swine Industry" abusers certainly sounds like a lost cause, doesn't it? Can she be objective enough to do her job? Doubtful. An online blog quotes a "Carroll Area Development Corp." member as saying: "Rexanne would like to save local farmers and hog producers."
We know where her loyalties are. Oh, and the same article goes on to talk about Struve hobnobbing with Governor Vilsack. And she wants to transplant pig organs into humans. And she traveled to Taiwan on behalf of the U.S. to advise Taiwan's "swine producers."
Of course several other Board members have Iowa State connections.
Would this Board ever find Armbrecht in violation of anything?
As for Armbrecht himself, I struggle for the words to define his inexcusable excuses for cruelty.
Psychotic?
Sadistic?
Crazy?
Cruel?
In my opinion, YOU BETCHA.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Maryland Vet Frederick Adams: Fails to Return Clients' Pets in Spite of Requests, till Montgomery County Police, Fire and Rescue Finally Break In
While this case is shocking -- and sad -- what is most shocking to me is the meagre action taken by the Maryland Veterinary Board. Read on, and see if you agree.
This case resulted in three separate sets of charges being filed by the Maryland Veterinary Board against Frederick Adams of "Rocky Creek Veterinary Clinic" in Silver Spring, Maryland. The events that led to these charges took place in February 2006.
To understand this story it is important to know that this vet apparently runs his business out of the basement of his house.
Two of these charging documents begin by noting the following about Dr. Adam's physical condition as it pertains to his ability to perform surgery:
"In a medical report concerning Dr. Adams, dated Thursday, February 16, 2006, authored by Dr. Adams' surgeon, John K. Starr, M.D., and provided to the Board by Dr. Adamas, Dr. Starr, having noted 'the chronic dyeestheeias (sic) in [Dr. Adam's] upper extremities, [the] tremor of [his] right hand, and [his] overall debilitation . . . [opined that Dr. Adams] is no longer fit for surgical practice.' Indeed, Dr. Starr noted in his report that Dr. Adams had shared with him the 'he . . .is unable to continue in his capacity as a veterinary surgeon."
The first of the three charging documents (Docket No. 06-022A] goes on to say:
"Although he had been advised by his doctor that he was no longer fit for surgical practice, Dr. Adams, later that same evening, assumed the care of 'Kita,' an eleven-month old female domestic shorthair . . . to perform an ovario-hysterectomy [spay] on the cat ... At that time [Kita's owner] paid, and Dr. Adams accepted, Sixty Dollars ($60.00) toward the cost of this procedure. The parties agreed that Dr. Adams would keep Kita overnight, perform the procedure the following day, and discharge the cat to [its owner] the following evening, following payment of the remainder of the bill."
The next evening, (when the owner would have expected to pick Kita up), the owner "telephoned Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his aunt in Baltimore had taken ill and that he had to go be with her. Dr. Adams also informed [the owner] that his associate would be at the clinic on Saturday, February 18, 2006 [the next day] and that he could retrieve Kita at that time. Dr. Adams, however, had advised another client . . . that his aunt in Baltimore had taken ill on January 19, 2006 [a month earlier] and had died on January 20, 2006" (a month earlier!)
So, as you would expect, the next day (Saturday) the owner telephoned Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams informed the owner "that his associate would not be going to the clinic that day, and therefore, [the owner] could not retrieve his cat as planned. Instead, [the owner] would have to wait until Sunday, February 19, 2006 [the next day], to retrieve his cat. That same day, however, Dr. Adams perforned a declaw procedure on another cat whose care he had assumed (to whit: Skittles, a female cat . .. ).
NOTE: Remember that this vet's Dr. had decreed that he was not fit to be performing surgery.
So, the next day, Kita's owner called Dr. Adams, several times, and left a message, but never heard from him. "As such," the document says, the owner "was unable to retrieve Kita as planned,.:
Monday, the owner called Dr. Adams, who told the owner that he [Dr. Adams] would be coming home from visiting his sick Aunt that evening.
The next day (Tuesday), the owner called Dr. Adams, but was again unable to reach him. The Board notes that "On or about that same day, however, Dr. Adams, or his associate, discharged Skittles, a female cat that also had been a patient at the clinic, to her owner . . . "
The next day, Wednesday, the owner called Dr. Adams. If my count is right, this is now the SIXTH DAY on which the owner is attempting to get his cat back -- in other words, Kita has been at this place a whole week. However, the Board says, "Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his associate would be at the cinic that evening, and that he could retrieve Kita at that time. Later that day, Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his associate would not be going to the clinic that evening, and therefore, [the owner] could not retrieve his cat . . . "
The next day (Thursday -- a week and a day now) , the owner AGAIN tried to contact Dr. Adams and was unable to reach him. However, the Board notes, on that same day, Skittles owner brought Skittles back to the clinic.
Friday (a week and two days now!) the owner called Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams "informed him that he was attempting to track down his associate and would let him know if she would be at the clinic on Saturday, February 25th, 2006. Later that same day [the owner] unsuccessfully attempted to reach Dr. Adams by telephone."
Well, the next day (Saturday, now we are at 10 days . . . ) the owner called Adams, who informed the owner that he would be back in town the next day (Sunday) "come hell or high water."
So, on Sunday, the owner AGAIN called Adams, leaving messages, but never heard back from him.
On Monday, February 27th, the document says, "Dr. Adams assumed the care of 'Diamond' and 'Polar Bear,' two boxes . . . for complete physicals, vaccinations, and ear croppings. Dr Adams also spoke to [Kita's owner] that evening. Dr. Adams informed [Kita's owner] that his aunt had died (as noted previously, Dr. Adams had advised another client . . . that his Aunt in Baltimore had died on January 20, 2006). Although Dr. Adams was present at the clinic that day, he advised [Kita's owner] that he would have to wait until Wednesday, March 1, 2006, to retrieve his cat. [The owner] told Dr. Adams that this was unacceptable, and that he would be contacting the authorities, whereupon Dr. Adams abruptly ended the conversation."
Umm, does that mean he hung up on the owner?
"Dr. Adams later telephoned [the owner] and left a message stating that [the owner] could retrieve Kita on Tuesday, February 26th."
But Tuesday, the owner was again unable to contact Dr. Adams to retrieve Kita.
On Wednesday, March 1, the owner called Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams told the owner "that he finally would be back in town that day, and that [the owner] could retrieve Kita between 7:30-8:00pm. [The owner] teleponed Dr. Adams to confirm that he would be there, but Dr. Adams did not return his call." He was again unable to get his cat.
Finally, on Saturday, March 4th, "Officer Dana K. Shoup, Montgomery County Police, after receiving a complaint expressing concern about the welfare of certain animals being kept at the clinic, visited Dr. Adams' residence and clinic, located at 8337 Grubb Road, Silver Spring, Maryland. Officer Coakley accompanied her. After knocking on the doors and telephoning the residence and clinic, and getting no response, they made a forced entry, assisted by Montgomery County Fire and Rescue, and found Dr. Adams asleep in his bed."
"Dr. Adams advised that he had been out of town since Tuesday, February 28, 2006, because of a family emergency. After inquiring about Kita and other animals whose care he had assumed, Dr. Adams took the officers to the basement, where the clinic is located."
"Officer Shoup observed Kita in a cage without food or water. Dr. Adams stated that he had made arrangements with his daughter to care for Kita and the other animals, but was not sure if she had been to the clinic because he had not spoken to her for several days. Dr. Adams also advised that he had not been able to check on the welfare of the animals since Tuesday, February 28, 2006, and had not done so when he arrived home earlier that day.
"Dr. Adams had failed to note [Kita's owner's] name and telephone number in the patient's record. For this reason, the Montgomery County Police, Animal Services Division, were unable to notify [Kita's owner] that it had taken possession of Kita. [The owner] located Kita himself by contacting Montgomery County Animal Control."
OK, this is my county. If you knew the euthanasia rate for cats in our local shelter, the fact that this cat -- whose owner had been trying to retrieve her for over a week -- ended up in the hands of animal control would chill your blood.
The Board charged Adams with unprofessional conduct (for accepting this cat for surgery when he was told by his doctor that he was unfit for surgery); for failing to take steps to return Kita to her owner, for failint to provide basic care to Kita (including failure to ensure that she had adequate food and water).
They also charged him with neglecting Kita, and faiing to feed and water Kita according to her requirements.
But this story didn't just involve Kita. Because while Kita was being held against her owners wishes at Adams' clinic, there were other pets there too. Remember the mention of Diamond and Polar Bear, the boxers that Dr. Adams took in on Monday, February 27th (five days before the cops broke in . . . )?
And remember Skittles?
Well, these animals appear in the other two sets of charges against Adams.
First, Skittles:
On January 17th, Adams assumed the care of Skittles (a female cat) for a declaw, a spay, and shots.
The next day, (January 18th) Dr. Adams called Skittles owner and told her that he wanted to keep Skittles another day because she had ripped out the stitches from her declaw procedure and her paws were bleeding. Dr. Adams told Skittles' owner that "he was going to put a cone over Skittles' head to prevent her from licking her paws." But in fact, the Board days, Dr. Adams had never performed this procedure (declaw) on Skittles at all.
The next day (January 19th) Dr. Adams called Skittles' owner and told her that his Aunt in Baltimore had taken ill and that he had to go be with her. Dr. Adams told Skittles' owner he would call her when he got back so she could arrange to come get Skittles.
The next day (Friday, January 20) Dr. Adams called Skittles owner and told her that he would be staying in Baltimore but that he would be back the next day (January 21) and that he could come get Skittles then.
However, the next day (Saturday, January 21) he called Skittles' owner and told her that his Aunt had died the night before, an that therefore, he would not be back that day. Keep in mind that as we already read, a month later he told Kita's owner he was visiting his sick Aunt, and that she died on February 27th!!!
Anyway, on January 21, Adams told Skittles owner that his daughter was caring for Skittles.
The board says: "In a serious of telephone conversations with Dr. Adams over the next several days, [Skittles' owner] attempted to arrange for the return of her cat, but to no avail. When asked why his daughter would not be available to discharge Skittles, particularly since she was supposed to be caring for the cat, Dr. Adams stated that he could not contact her."
"On or about Thursday, January 26th, 2006, Dr. Adams informed [Skittles owner] that his aunt's burial would take place on Saturday, January 28th, 2006 and that he would be returning home on Sunday, January 29th, 2006 and that she could retrieve Skittles at that time."
Guess what happened though? Any guesses by now? YOU GOT IT . . .
"On or about Sunday, January 29, 2006 Dr. Adams informed [Skittles owner] that he would not be returning home that day because he did not have his car. He noted that he was meeting an Attorney on Monday morning, January 30, 2006, and that he would call her following that meeting."
This goes on another couple of days, and then the document does not say what communication transpired between Adams and Skittles owner between February 1 and February 15. The document says, "On or about Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Dr. Adams met with [Skittles owner]. Following a conversation she had with Dr. Adams, [the owner] agreed to let Dr. Adams keep Skittles so he could perform the requested surgeries" (spay, declaw).
The document goes on to say that he did perform the declaw (poor Skittles!) but he did not perform the spay.
On March 4th, when the cops broke into his house, Skittles was one of the animals they found, "in a cage without food or water."
The charges in this case were: unprofessional conduct for providing false information to his client (saying he had done the declaw when he talked to her on January 18th, even though he had not); for failing to take steps to return Skittles to her owner; for leaving Skittles without adquest food and water; for peforming surgery even though his doctor had deemed him unfit to do so. They also charged him with neglect for failure to feed and water Skittles based on her requirements.
Now on to Diamond and Polar Bear, the Boxers. According to the charging documents, when their owners brought them to Adams on February 27th, they paid Adams $700 toward their care and treatment, which was to include physicals, vaccinations and ear croppings. The document says that at intake Adams agreed to discharge Diamond and Polar Bear on Wednesday, March 1, following payment of the "remainder of the bill."
Of course, no surprise now, right? When the owners called on Wednesday night, Adams said he hadn't performed the services yet, because "he had been presented with an emergency case . . . a German Shepherd who had been struck by a car . . . " (What, no dying Aunt? All out of Aunts?)
He agreed to do the procedures and discharge the dogs on Friday, March 3rd. The owner called Adams on Thursday, March 2, and Adams did not answer. The owner couldn't leave a message because the mailbox was full. (Must've been Kita's owners' messages!)
Again, they called Friday and no answer.
On Saturday, the owner went to the clinic, and no one answered the door.
It was later that day that the cops broke in. The document says that "Officer Shoup observed Diamond and Polar Bear in one cage, covered with feces. She also observed that the dogs were without food or water. She noted that the dogs appeared malnourished."
By the way, Dr. Adams had never done the ear croppings. Wonder what happened with the $700?
In this case, Adams was charged with unprofessional conduct for accepting animals for surgery even though he had been informed that he was "no longer fit for surgical practice"; he was also charged with unprofessional conduct for failure to ensure care of Diamond and Polar Bear. He was also charged with neglect and failure to feed and water them according to their requirements.
Whew! Makes you wonder what would have happened if the cops HADN'T shown up, doesn't it?
So here we have a bunch of animals locked in cages without food or water, not being returned to their owners day after day in spite of repeated inquiries, "false" statements, and numerous charges of unprofessional conduct, and charges of neglect.
You'd think the board would take strong action, wouldn't you?
Instead, the Board dismissed the charge related to peforming the declaw surgery. (That was just one of several alleged instances of unprofessional conduct). For the rest of these charges, the Board suspended Dr. Adams license to practice for six months, BUT STAYED THE ENTIRE SUSPENSION.
That's right. Not ONE SINGLE DAY OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION WAS ENFORCED BY THE MARYLAND STATE VETERINARY BOARD IN THIS HORRIFIC CASE.
They prohibIted Dr. Adams "indefinitely" from practicing surgery, boarding and hospitalizing animals. But they explicitly asserted that Adams retains his ability to treat outpatients, although stating that the owner must be present.
Now, here is my question:
Was this man supposed to hold all those pets all that time? Of course not.
Did he make false statements to a client? According to the Board's document, yes he did.
Would any veterinarian with any kind of compassion for animals leave them in cages without food and water and/or covered in their own feces? Perhaps, but only if something were very wrong with either mentally or physically or both, IN MY OPINION.
So given all that, what reasonable expectation can the board have that Adams -- who retains his license -- is going to practice within these limits established by the board? He broke numerous rules and regs that were obvious in the first place. This was not one case, but THREE cases involving FOUR patients. Given that do you really beleive he will heed these purported restrictions on his license?
Moreover, do you think the BOARD believes it?
What they should have done, in my opinion, is ACTIVELY SUSPEND HIS LICENSE -- not allow him to practice. WHY did they not?
Was it sympathy for Adams?
Where is their sympathy for these animals?
Where is their sympathy for Maryland pet owners, and as importantly, for this mans patients?
The Board's Vision, according to its website, is:
"A State in which the public can be assured of safe practices by all licensed veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and veterinary hospitals."
Can Adam's clients be assured of safe practices by him, given the above?
I mean, he took $700 from a client and subsequently, those dogs were found in a cage without food and water and covered in their own feces, according to the charging documents. What kind of treatment is that?
To my knowledge, (and this is an educated opinion, because I have personal experience with the Maryland Board) they do NOT proactively send investigators to do unannounced checks on whether or not their "restrictions" are being adhered to. And even if they did announced inspections, good luck scheduling a meeting with this guy, looking at the incredible and torturous saga the owner of Kita went through trying to retrieve their cat.
They placed Adams on probation for 3 years.
NO FINES.
AND THEN . . .
They ended their decision by saying that in a mere six months from the order, Dr. Adams "may seek modification of this consent agreement and apply for reinstatement of his surgical priveleges and for the right to hospitalize and board animals." They did state that Adams would have to provide proof that he is mentally and physically fit to have those priveleges reinstated.
I remain baffled by their anemic response to this case.
The Maryland Board's website also states that their mission includes:
"effective discipline of veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and operators of veterinary hospitals under its jurisdiction, when warranted . . ."
Well, certainly you must agree that the prerequisite of "warranted" was met in this case.
But is what the board did "effective"?
Frankly, I think it's a joke, a joke that is anything but funny. Kita could easily have ended up euthanized as an abandoned animal in the hands of animal control, from what I can see. All while her owner has been calling practically daily to get her out.
And what would have happened to all of those pets had the cops not forcibly broken in? I think the ultimate outcome of inadequate or no food and water, over another couple of weeks, is clear.
ASK YOURSELF THIS: What if this had happened at a DAYCARE center?
Do you think that DAYCARE center would still be operating?
Ummm, I wonder if animal cruelty charges were ever filed against this guy?
This case resulted in three separate sets of charges being filed by the Maryland Veterinary Board against Frederick Adams of "Rocky Creek Veterinary Clinic" in Silver Spring, Maryland. The events that led to these charges took place in February 2006.
To understand this story it is important to know that this vet apparently runs his business out of the basement of his house.
Two of these charging documents begin by noting the following about Dr. Adam's physical condition as it pertains to his ability to perform surgery:
"In a medical report concerning Dr. Adams, dated Thursday, February 16, 2006, authored by Dr. Adams' surgeon, John K. Starr, M.D., and provided to the Board by Dr. Adamas, Dr. Starr, having noted 'the chronic dyeestheeias (sic) in [Dr. Adam's] upper extremities, [the] tremor of [his] right hand, and [his] overall debilitation . . . [opined that Dr. Adams] is no longer fit for surgical practice.' Indeed, Dr. Starr noted in his report that Dr. Adams had shared with him the 'he . . .is unable to continue in his capacity as a veterinary surgeon."
The first of the three charging documents (Docket No. 06-022A] goes on to say:
"Although he had been advised by his doctor that he was no longer fit for surgical practice, Dr. Adams, later that same evening, assumed the care of 'Kita,' an eleven-month old female domestic shorthair . . . to perform an ovario-hysterectomy [spay] on the cat ... At that time [Kita's owner] paid, and Dr. Adams accepted, Sixty Dollars ($60.00) toward the cost of this procedure. The parties agreed that Dr. Adams would keep Kita overnight, perform the procedure the following day, and discharge the cat to [its owner] the following evening, following payment of the remainder of the bill."
The next evening, (when the owner would have expected to pick Kita up), the owner "telephoned Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his aunt in Baltimore had taken ill and that he had to go be with her. Dr. Adams also informed [the owner] that his associate would be at the clinic on Saturday, February 18, 2006 [the next day] and that he could retrieve Kita at that time. Dr. Adams, however, had advised another client . . . that his aunt in Baltimore had taken ill on January 19, 2006 [a month earlier] and had died on January 20, 2006" (a month earlier!)
So, as you would expect, the next day (Saturday) the owner telephoned Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams informed the owner "that his associate would not be going to the clinic that day, and therefore, [the owner] could not retrieve his cat as planned. Instead, [the owner] would have to wait until Sunday, February 19, 2006 [the next day], to retrieve his cat. That same day, however, Dr. Adams perforned a declaw procedure on another cat whose care he had assumed (to whit: Skittles, a female cat . .. ).
NOTE: Remember that this vet's Dr. had decreed that he was not fit to be performing surgery.
So, the next day, Kita's owner called Dr. Adams, several times, and left a message, but never heard from him. "As such," the document says, the owner "was unable to retrieve Kita as planned,.:
Monday, the owner called Dr. Adams, who told the owner that he [Dr. Adams] would be coming home from visiting his sick Aunt that evening.
The next day (Tuesday), the owner called Dr. Adams, but was again unable to reach him. The Board notes that "On or about that same day, however, Dr. Adams, or his associate, discharged Skittles, a female cat that also had been a patient at the clinic, to her owner . . . "
The next day, Wednesday, the owner called Dr. Adams. If my count is right, this is now the SIXTH DAY on which the owner is attempting to get his cat back -- in other words, Kita has been at this place a whole week. However, the Board says, "Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his associate would be at the cinic that evening, and that he could retrieve Kita at that time. Later that day, Dr. Adams informed [the owner] that his associate would not be going to the clinic that evening, and therefore, [the owner] could not retrieve his cat . . . "
The next day (Thursday -- a week and a day now) , the owner AGAIN tried to contact Dr. Adams and was unable to reach him. However, the Board notes, on that same day, Skittles owner brought Skittles back to the clinic.
Friday (a week and two days now!) the owner called Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams "informed him that he was attempting to track down his associate and would let him know if she would be at the clinic on Saturday, February 25th, 2006. Later that same day [the owner] unsuccessfully attempted to reach Dr. Adams by telephone."
Well, the next day (Saturday, now we are at 10 days . . . ) the owner called Adams, who informed the owner that he would be back in town the next day (Sunday) "come hell or high water."
So, on Sunday, the owner AGAIN called Adams, leaving messages, but never heard back from him.
On Monday, February 27th, the document says, "Dr. Adams assumed the care of 'Diamond' and 'Polar Bear,' two boxes . . . for complete physicals, vaccinations, and ear croppings. Dr Adams also spoke to [Kita's owner] that evening. Dr. Adams informed [Kita's owner] that his aunt had died (as noted previously, Dr. Adams had advised another client . . . that his Aunt in Baltimore had died on January 20, 2006). Although Dr. Adams was present at the clinic that day, he advised [Kita's owner] that he would have to wait until Wednesday, March 1, 2006, to retrieve his cat. [The owner] told Dr. Adams that this was unacceptable, and that he would be contacting the authorities, whereupon Dr. Adams abruptly ended the conversation."
Umm, does that mean he hung up on the owner?
"Dr. Adams later telephoned [the owner] and left a message stating that [the owner] could retrieve Kita on Tuesday, February 26th."
But Tuesday, the owner was again unable to contact Dr. Adams to retrieve Kita.
On Wednesday, March 1, the owner called Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams told the owner "that he finally would be back in town that day, and that [the owner] could retrieve Kita between 7:30-8:00pm. [The owner] teleponed Dr. Adams to confirm that he would be there, but Dr. Adams did not return his call." He was again unable to get his cat.
Finally, on Saturday, March 4th, "Officer Dana K. Shoup, Montgomery County Police, after receiving a complaint expressing concern about the welfare of certain animals being kept at the clinic, visited Dr. Adams' residence and clinic, located at 8337 Grubb Road, Silver Spring, Maryland. Officer Coakley accompanied her. After knocking on the doors and telephoning the residence and clinic, and getting no response, they made a forced entry, assisted by Montgomery County Fire and Rescue, and found Dr. Adams asleep in his bed."
"Dr. Adams advised that he had been out of town since Tuesday, February 28, 2006, because of a family emergency. After inquiring about Kita and other animals whose care he had assumed, Dr. Adams took the officers to the basement, where the clinic is located."
"Officer Shoup observed Kita in a cage without food or water. Dr. Adams stated that he had made arrangements with his daughter to care for Kita and the other animals, but was not sure if she had been to the clinic because he had not spoken to her for several days. Dr. Adams also advised that he had not been able to check on the welfare of the animals since Tuesday, February 28, 2006, and had not done so when he arrived home earlier that day.
"Dr. Adams had failed to note [Kita's owner's] name and telephone number in the patient's record. For this reason, the Montgomery County Police, Animal Services Division, were unable to notify [Kita's owner] that it had taken possession of Kita. [The owner] located Kita himself by contacting Montgomery County Animal Control."
OK, this is my county. If you knew the euthanasia rate for cats in our local shelter, the fact that this cat -- whose owner had been trying to retrieve her for over a week -- ended up in the hands of animal control would chill your blood.
The Board charged Adams with unprofessional conduct (for accepting this cat for surgery when he was told by his doctor that he was unfit for surgery); for failing to take steps to return Kita to her owner, for failint to provide basic care to Kita (including failure to ensure that she had adequate food and water).
They also charged him with neglecting Kita, and faiing to feed and water Kita according to her requirements.
But this story didn't just involve Kita. Because while Kita was being held against her owners wishes at Adams' clinic, there were other pets there too. Remember the mention of Diamond and Polar Bear, the boxers that Dr. Adams took in on Monday, February 27th (five days before the cops broke in . . . )?
And remember Skittles?
Well, these animals appear in the other two sets of charges against Adams.
First, Skittles:
On January 17th, Adams assumed the care of Skittles (a female cat) for a declaw, a spay, and shots.
The next day, (January 18th) Dr. Adams called Skittles owner and told her that he wanted to keep Skittles another day because she had ripped out the stitches from her declaw procedure and her paws were bleeding. Dr. Adams told Skittles' owner that "he was going to put a cone over Skittles' head to prevent her from licking her paws." But in fact, the Board days, Dr. Adams had never performed this procedure (declaw) on Skittles at all.
The next day (January 19th) Dr. Adams called Skittles' owner and told her that his Aunt in Baltimore had taken ill and that he had to go be with her. Dr. Adams told Skittles' owner he would call her when he got back so she could arrange to come get Skittles.
The next day (Friday, January 20) Dr. Adams called Skittles owner and told her that he would be staying in Baltimore but that he would be back the next day (January 21) and that he could come get Skittles then.
However, the next day (Saturday, January 21) he called Skittles' owner and told her that his Aunt had died the night before, an that therefore, he would not be back that day. Keep in mind that as we already read, a month later he told Kita's owner he was visiting his sick Aunt, and that she died on February 27th!!!
Anyway, on January 21, Adams told Skittles owner that his daughter was caring for Skittles.
The board says: "In a serious of telephone conversations with Dr. Adams over the next several days, [Skittles' owner] attempted to arrange for the return of her cat, but to no avail. When asked why his daughter would not be available to discharge Skittles, particularly since she was supposed to be caring for the cat, Dr. Adams stated that he could not contact her."
"On or about Thursday, January 26th, 2006, Dr. Adams informed [Skittles owner] that his aunt's burial would take place on Saturday, January 28th, 2006 and that he would be returning home on Sunday, January 29th, 2006 and that she could retrieve Skittles at that time."
Guess what happened though? Any guesses by now? YOU GOT IT . . .
"On or about Sunday, January 29, 2006 Dr. Adams informed [Skittles owner] that he would not be returning home that day because he did not have his car. He noted that he was meeting an Attorney on Monday morning, January 30, 2006, and that he would call her following that meeting."
This goes on another couple of days, and then the document does not say what communication transpired between Adams and Skittles owner between February 1 and February 15. The document says, "On or about Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Dr. Adams met with [Skittles owner]. Following a conversation she had with Dr. Adams, [the owner] agreed to let Dr. Adams keep Skittles so he could perform the requested surgeries" (spay, declaw).
The document goes on to say that he did perform the declaw (poor Skittles!) but he did not perform the spay.
On March 4th, when the cops broke into his house, Skittles was one of the animals they found, "in a cage without food or water."
The charges in this case were: unprofessional conduct for providing false information to his client (saying he had done the declaw when he talked to her on January 18th, even though he had not); for failing to take steps to return Skittles to her owner; for leaving Skittles without adquest food and water; for peforming surgery even though his doctor had deemed him unfit to do so. They also charged him with neglect for failure to feed and water Skittles based on her requirements.
Now on to Diamond and Polar Bear, the Boxers. According to the charging documents, when their owners brought them to Adams on February 27th, they paid Adams $700 toward their care and treatment, which was to include physicals, vaccinations and ear croppings. The document says that at intake Adams agreed to discharge Diamond and Polar Bear on Wednesday, March 1, following payment of the "remainder of the bill."
Of course, no surprise now, right? When the owners called on Wednesday night, Adams said he hadn't performed the services yet, because "he had been presented with an emergency case . . . a German Shepherd who had been struck by a car . . . " (What, no dying Aunt? All out of Aunts?)
He agreed to do the procedures and discharge the dogs on Friday, March 3rd. The owner called Adams on Thursday, March 2, and Adams did not answer. The owner couldn't leave a message because the mailbox was full. (Must've been Kita's owners' messages!)
Again, they called Friday and no answer.
On Saturday, the owner went to the clinic, and no one answered the door.
It was later that day that the cops broke in. The document says that "Officer Shoup observed Diamond and Polar Bear in one cage, covered with feces. She also observed that the dogs were without food or water. She noted that the dogs appeared malnourished."
By the way, Dr. Adams had never done the ear croppings. Wonder what happened with the $700?
In this case, Adams was charged with unprofessional conduct for accepting animals for surgery even though he had been informed that he was "no longer fit for surgical practice"; he was also charged with unprofessional conduct for failure to ensure care of Diamond and Polar Bear. He was also charged with neglect and failure to feed and water them according to their requirements.
Whew! Makes you wonder what would have happened if the cops HADN'T shown up, doesn't it?
So here we have a bunch of animals locked in cages without food or water, not being returned to their owners day after day in spite of repeated inquiries, "false" statements, and numerous charges of unprofessional conduct, and charges of neglect.
You'd think the board would take strong action, wouldn't you?
Instead, the Board dismissed the charge related to peforming the declaw surgery. (That was just one of several alleged instances of unprofessional conduct). For the rest of these charges, the Board suspended Dr. Adams license to practice for six months, BUT STAYED THE ENTIRE SUSPENSION.
That's right. Not ONE SINGLE DAY OF ACTIVE SUSPENSION WAS ENFORCED BY THE MARYLAND STATE VETERINARY BOARD IN THIS HORRIFIC CASE.
They prohibIted Dr. Adams "indefinitely" from practicing surgery, boarding and hospitalizing animals. But they explicitly asserted that Adams retains his ability to treat outpatients, although stating that the owner must be present.
Now, here is my question:
Was this man supposed to hold all those pets all that time? Of course not.
Did he make false statements to a client? According to the Board's document, yes he did.
Would any veterinarian with any kind of compassion for animals leave them in cages without food and water and/or covered in their own feces? Perhaps, but only if something were very wrong with either mentally or physically or both, IN MY OPINION.
So given all that, what reasonable expectation can the board have that Adams -- who retains his license -- is going to practice within these limits established by the board? He broke numerous rules and regs that were obvious in the first place. This was not one case, but THREE cases involving FOUR patients. Given that do you really beleive he will heed these purported restrictions on his license?
Moreover, do you think the BOARD believes it?
What they should have done, in my opinion, is ACTIVELY SUSPEND HIS LICENSE -- not allow him to practice. WHY did they not?
Was it sympathy for Adams?
Where is their sympathy for these animals?
Where is their sympathy for Maryland pet owners, and as importantly, for this mans patients?
The Board's Vision, according to its website, is:
"A State in which the public can be assured of safe practices by all licensed veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and veterinary hospitals."
Can Adam's clients be assured of safe practices by him, given the above?
I mean, he took $700 from a client and subsequently, those dogs were found in a cage without food and water and covered in their own feces, according to the charging documents. What kind of treatment is that?
To my knowledge, (and this is an educated opinion, because I have personal experience with the Maryland Board) they do NOT proactively send investigators to do unannounced checks on whether or not their "restrictions" are being adhered to. And even if they did announced inspections, good luck scheduling a meeting with this guy, looking at the incredible and torturous saga the owner of Kita went through trying to retrieve their cat.
They placed Adams on probation for 3 years.
NO FINES.
AND THEN . . .
They ended their decision by saying that in a mere six months from the order, Dr. Adams "may seek modification of this consent agreement and apply for reinstatement of his surgical priveleges and for the right to hospitalize and board animals." They did state that Adams would have to provide proof that he is mentally and physically fit to have those priveleges reinstated.
I remain baffled by their anemic response to this case.
The Maryland Board's website also states that their mission includes:
"effective discipline of veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and operators of veterinary hospitals under its jurisdiction, when warranted . . ."
Well, certainly you must agree that the prerequisite of "warranted" was met in this case.
But is what the board did "effective"?
Frankly, I think it's a joke, a joke that is anything but funny. Kita could easily have ended up euthanized as an abandoned animal in the hands of animal control, from what I can see. All while her owner has been calling practically daily to get her out.
And what would have happened to all of those pets had the cops not forcibly broken in? I think the ultimate outcome of inadequate or no food and water, over another couple of weeks, is clear.
ASK YOURSELF THIS: What if this had happened at a DAYCARE center?
Do you think that DAYCARE center would still be operating?
Ummm, I wonder if animal cruelty charges were ever filed against this guy?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
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:
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:
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Charles Maben Thompson: Sympathizer with Cruelty
The vets in this country who practice veterinary medicine in a negligent, incompetent, or cruel way are in and of themselves a problem -- a pervasive disease in this country that kills and injures countless companion animals and devastates their human loved ones.
But there are vets worse than they. And these are the vets who excuse and protect them.
Such is Charles Maben Thompson, President of the Tennesee Veterinary Board.
Gallatin Tennessee Veterinarian William Baber -- in my opinion an evil man if ever one walked this earth -- was profiled in this blog in February of this year.
Read about him here.
To recap, Baber was a vet employed at the county shelter who killed shelter animals by taking them fully conscious and shoving a needle with lethal fluid directly into their hearts, often while they flailed. There is video of him stepping on a cat to keep it still enough for him to shove a needle into its chest while it desperately struggles.
Here is undercover video of him:
http://www.wsmv.com/video/14496229/index.html?taf=nash
This method of "euthanasia" is considered inhumane by the AVMA.
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep08/080915y.asp
In spite of the fact that this story broke in November 2007, and Baber was charged with animal cruelty -- unsurprisingly to those of us who monitor veterinary boards all over the country -- not ONLY didn't the Veterinary Board take Baber's license away, the President of the Veterinary Board, C. Maben Thompson (Charles Thompson), had words of support and sympathy for Baber in a recent AVMA magazine article -- not for the poor tortured animals. Disgusting.
Baber was charged -- NOT by the vet board, but by local authorities -- with 12 misdemeanor counts.
Pathetic evil Baber is quoted in this article as saying "If you [the board] had a problem with it [heart shots on fully conscious animals], why didn't you say something to me?"
Um, Baber, evil moron, YOU should have had a problem with it, soulless demon that you are. YOU should have seen your own cruelty. YOU should have had a heart.
Maybe thats why you like to shove needles into the hearts of struggling animals so cruelly -- you are jealous, they actually HAVE hearts, which you don't.
But back to Thompson:
In this AVMA interview, Thompson says:
"I don't think there was ever intent by Dr. Baber—this is my personal opinion—to harm those animals,"
It is my opinion that this man is a lying sack of you-know-what. He knows damn well Baber intended to harm those animals. The AVMA considers this practice inhumane and anyone who watches these videos can clearly see how inhumane it is. You would have to be blind, deaf, and moronically stupid not to see this for what it is and KNOW that he KNEW exactly what he was doing. And I believe you do KNOW QUITE WELL.
Further, it is my opinion that these people -- both Baber and Thompson -- are nothing less than SOCIOPATHS, because sociopaths have no remorse or sympathy for others, including victims. They lack conscience. They rationalize everything and believe that they and/or their "profession" in this case are above normal morality or any rules or accountability at ALL.
Many of us have observed, and come to believe, that the veterinary field is rife with sociopaths. What a welcoming profession. Everyone adores you and thinks you wear a halo just because you are a vet. They deliver their pets to you in total trust. But behind closed doors you can do any cruel thing you want, and your victims can't talk. Not only that, your entire profession protects you. If you maim or kill, there is ZERO accountability and your colleagues will rush to your defense. You can weild a scalpal with impunity. You can step on poor homeless cats and shove needles into their hearts while they struggle. You can hit a dog and claim it was "necessary restraint." You can ignore suffering and then go lie to the owner and say you "did everything you could" and then hand them a bill for your cruelty. What a fabulous world in which a sadist and sociopath can have free reign.
This is the culture of cruelty and culture of deny and defend the abusers that RUNS the veterinary industry, folks.
But Thompson didn't stop talking there. He kept on. Did he express some regret or sympathy for those poor aninmals? No he did not.
Instead, he expressed sympathy, and seemingly solidarity, with Baber, saying:
" . . . he has suffered a great deal."
Oh poor man.
He further went on about how hard it is for vets to keep up with all the new informaton and guidelines that come out for their practices.
NO ONE NEEDS TO READ A NEWSLETTER OR GUIDELINE TO KNOW THAT THIS IS CRUEL. How outrageous, to make these kinds of excuses for the WORST of the WORST in your profession rather than to DO YOUR JOB and TAKE THAT MAN'S LICENSE AWAY.
Bad vets are bad vets, but the worst of the worst are those who are "leaders" in the profession, who set the standards (like Thompson) and who are entrusted to enforce regulations, but who in fact refuse to do so, excuse cruelty, and implicitly and explicitly send a message to ALL vets that IT IS OK TO ABUSE ANIMALS BECAUSE YOU ARE A VET AND YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND WE WILL PROTECT YOU.
Disgusting.
Inexcusable.
Evil.
Charles Maben Thompson, DVM
AVMA article: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep08/080915y.asp
Oh, and by the way: This article announces the disturbing news that Baber is now in private practice.
But there are vets worse than they. And these are the vets who excuse and protect them.
Such is Charles Maben Thompson, President of the Tennesee Veterinary Board.
Gallatin Tennessee Veterinarian William Baber -- in my opinion an evil man if ever one walked this earth -- was profiled in this blog in February of this year.
Read about him here.
To recap, Baber was a vet employed at the county shelter who killed shelter animals by taking them fully conscious and shoving a needle with lethal fluid directly into their hearts, often while they flailed. There is video of him stepping on a cat to keep it still enough for him to shove a needle into its chest while it desperately struggles.
Here is undercover video of him:
http://www.wsmv.com/video/14496229/index.html?taf=nash
This method of "euthanasia" is considered inhumane by the AVMA.
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep08/080915y.asp
In spite of the fact that this story broke in November 2007, and Baber was charged with animal cruelty -- unsurprisingly to those of us who monitor veterinary boards all over the country -- not ONLY didn't the Veterinary Board take Baber's license away, the President of the Veterinary Board, C. Maben Thompson (Charles Thompson), had words of support and sympathy for Baber in a recent AVMA magazine article -- not for the poor tortured animals. Disgusting.
Baber was charged -- NOT by the vet board, but by local authorities -- with 12 misdemeanor counts.
Pathetic evil Baber is quoted in this article as saying "If you [the board] had a problem with it [heart shots on fully conscious animals], why didn't you say something to me?"
Um, Baber, evil moron, YOU should have had a problem with it, soulless demon that you are. YOU should have seen your own cruelty. YOU should have had a heart.
Maybe thats why you like to shove needles into the hearts of struggling animals so cruelly -- you are jealous, they actually HAVE hearts, which you don't.
But back to Thompson:
In this AVMA interview, Thompson says:
"I don't think there was ever intent by Dr. Baber—this is my personal opinion—to harm those animals,"
It is my opinion that this man is a lying sack of you-know-what. He knows damn well Baber intended to harm those animals. The AVMA considers this practice inhumane and anyone who watches these videos can clearly see how inhumane it is. You would have to be blind, deaf, and moronically stupid not to see this for what it is and KNOW that he KNEW exactly what he was doing. And I believe you do KNOW QUITE WELL.
Further, it is my opinion that these people -- both Baber and Thompson -- are nothing less than SOCIOPATHS, because sociopaths have no remorse or sympathy for others, including victims. They lack conscience. They rationalize everything and believe that they and/or their "profession" in this case are above normal morality or any rules or accountability at ALL.
Many of us have observed, and come to believe, that the veterinary field is rife with sociopaths. What a welcoming profession. Everyone adores you and thinks you wear a halo just because you are a vet. They deliver their pets to you in total trust. But behind closed doors you can do any cruel thing you want, and your victims can't talk. Not only that, your entire profession protects you. If you maim or kill, there is ZERO accountability and your colleagues will rush to your defense. You can weild a scalpal with impunity. You can step on poor homeless cats and shove needles into their hearts while they struggle. You can hit a dog and claim it was "necessary restraint." You can ignore suffering and then go lie to the owner and say you "did everything you could" and then hand them a bill for your cruelty. What a fabulous world in which a sadist and sociopath can have free reign.
This is the culture of cruelty and culture of deny and defend the abusers that RUNS the veterinary industry, folks.
But Thompson didn't stop talking there. He kept on. Did he express some regret or sympathy for those poor aninmals? No he did not.
Instead, he expressed sympathy, and seemingly solidarity, with Baber, saying:
" . . . he has suffered a great deal."
Oh poor man.
He further went on about how hard it is for vets to keep up with all the new informaton and guidelines that come out for their practices.
NO ONE NEEDS TO READ A NEWSLETTER OR GUIDELINE TO KNOW THAT THIS IS CRUEL. How outrageous, to make these kinds of excuses for the WORST of the WORST in your profession rather than to DO YOUR JOB and TAKE THAT MAN'S LICENSE AWAY.
Bad vets are bad vets, but the worst of the worst are those who are "leaders" in the profession, who set the standards (like Thompson) and who are entrusted to enforce regulations, but who in fact refuse to do so, excuse cruelty, and implicitly and explicitly send a message to ALL vets that IT IS OK TO ABUSE ANIMALS BECAUSE YOU ARE A VET AND YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND WE WILL PROTECT YOU.
Disgusting.
Inexcusable.
Evil.
Charles Maben Thompson, DVM
AVMA article: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep08/080915y.asp
Oh, and by the way: This article announces the disturbing news that Baber is now in private practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)