Minnesota Vet's License Finally Revoked after Horrifying, Long Track Record Regarding his Treatment of Both Pet Patients and Human Colleagues

The case of Todd Varnes provides a heartbreaking example of the many additional victims whose wellbeing and very lives are placed in jeapardy when veterinary boards allow vets who are known to be dangerous to continue practising.

From 1991 through 2004, veterinarian Todd Varnes has held veterinary licenses in Georgia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota.

In 2000, the Indiana Veterinary Board placed Varnes' license on indefinite suspension after issuing the following Findings of Fact:

"On January 13, 1996, [Varnes] undertook the care and treatment of patient N, a female canine that eight days earlier had undergone an ovariohysterectomy." (Spay.)

"Patient N presented with a history of recent bleeding and passing fluid from the area of the incision, including passing blood clots in the urine.

"[Varnes] diagnosed N with a urinary tract infection based on urinalysis findings. [Varnes] did not obtain a blood cell count to verify the presence of infection"

"[Varnes] failed to properly and adequately diagnose the condition of patient N . . . "

"[Varnes] failed to properly and adequately treat the suspected urinary tract infection, including but not limiting to prescribing an inadequate dosage of antibiotics."

"On September 8, 1996, [Varnes] undertook the care and treatment of patient B.B., a male feline suffering from multiple traumatic injuries."

"[Varnes] performed emergency surgery on B.B. on September 8, 1996."

"[Varnes] failed to adequately assess and repair the traumatic injuries to B.B. during surgery, including but not limited to failure to reestablish connective tissue and musculature continuity in areas where it had been torn from the rectum, anus, and penis."

[Comment: What is this cat doing with traumatic injuries to his rectum, anus, and penis? Would that not raise a flag to you?]

"[Varnes] failed to properly and adequately assess and diagnose B.B. for severe internal injuries sustained as a result of trauma, including but not limited to chest contusions, trauma to the mediastinum and cardiac system, and extensive bilateral lung trauma."

"In his care and treatment of B.B., [Varnes] failed to obtain radiology testing to assess and evaluate the patient's severe traumatic injuries." (That means he didn't take x-rays.)

"[Varnes] released B.B. to home on the day of the surgery, although the animal was unstable and in need of postoperative monitoring."

"[Varnes] assured B.B.'s owner that the animal was safely 'out of the woods' and failed to provide adequate instructions for monitoring and follow-up care."

"As a result of [Varnes] conduct described above, B.B. suffered unnecessarily and subsequently died on September 9, 1996."

"On November 14, 1996 [Varnes] was charged with the responsibility of the supervision of The Pet Practice, a 24 hour emergency animal hospital clinic located at 4030 West 86th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana."

"[Varnes] left the clinic at approximately 1:00 a.m. on November 14, 1996. [Varnes] did not return to the clinic during his shift."

"The veterinary technician assigned to work the night shift with [Varnes] on November 14 was a new employee on her first shift of work for The Pet Practice. The technician, S.E., was untrained and unfamiliar with this specific facility, and had not been oriented to the layout, policies, or procedures specific to The Pet Practice."

"[Varnes] was contacted by S.E. at approximately 6:00 a.m. on November 14, 1996, and given a report regarding an emergency patient who had presented for treatment."

"[Varnes] replied that he could not be present in the clinic in less than one hour's time to treat the animal reported to him by S.E."

The Board found Varnes in violation of statutes related to failure to supervise staff, failure to "exercise the reasonable care and diligence ordinarily exercised by members of his profession," and stated that he had become "unfit to practice due to failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or practice."

They indefinitely suspended his license.

So, what does Varnes do?

He begins practising in Minnesota, where, as of March 2004, the Board there had also launched an investigation against him.

I am beginning to get a clue as to why this guy may have licenses in FIVE states.

A public record available online from the State of Minnesota makes it clear that the actions described above were not the only complaints people had about Dr. Varnes while he was practicing in Indiana. The Minnesota document, available here:

http://www.vetmed.state.mn.us/portals/22/Varnes.pdf

Says that Varnes' "file from the Indiana veterinary practice contains negative information about Licensee's conduct, including statements that licensee failed to follow clinic policy by refusing to attend to certain patients; that the Indiana practice received numerous complaints from staff and clients regarding Licensee's treatment of them; and that Licensee handled an aggressive dog unnecessarily roughly; that Licensee, while in a fit of temper, threw all of the articles from a desk on the floor, cursed loudly enough that the clients in the lobby heard him and called one of the staff members a vulgar name."

So, how did Varnes behave when he moved to Minnesota?

The Minnesota Board said:

"The Board received complaints about [Varnes'] conduct while in practice at Affordacare Veterinary Clinic in Blaine, Minnesota. The complaints included allegations that [Varnes]:

Was unable to control his anger, became angry during his treatment of animals, and had fits of rage during which he screamed, threw objects, cursed, slammed doors, and left the clinic to drive around while animals were still under anesthesia;

Engaged in threatening and abusive conduct toward clinic staff;

Used profanity and made vulgar statements and statements of a sexual nature to female staff;

Engaged in abusive conduct toward animals, including being unnecessarily rough when moving animals, throwing animals or squeezing their limbs, and screaming at animals;

Performed declaw procedures on cats that were not fully anesthetized;

Failed to use a pulse oximeter during all surgeries when prevailing standards of practice would require the use of a pulse oximeter, including in the case of a dog that died after [Varnes'] veterinary technician failed to properly place an endotracheal tube and [Varnes] failed to check the endotracheal tube to ensure it was properly inserted;"

[Note: the endotracheal tube keeps the animal's airway open while they are anesthetized']

"Failed to render appropriate care to a sixteen year-old dog that had trouble breathing following dental extractions;

"Directed unlicensed veterinary technicians to extract animals' teeth, which constitutes unlicensed practice of veterinary medicine;

"Failed to maintain sterile packs for each set of surgical instruments and did not consistenly wear a gown, mask, or head covering during surgery; and

"Failed to comply with state and federal regulations regardign the maintenance of controlled substance records and inventory."

PHEW!!!! But get this -- it goes on to say:

"In connection with the [Minnesota] complaint review Committee's investigation of the complaints against him, [Varnes] voluntarily underwent a multidisciplinary assessement at Rush Behavioral Center in Downers Grove, Illinois. The evaluators diagnosed [Varnes] as having a personality disorder not otherwise specified with narcissistic and schizoid features . . . "

BUT GET THIS!!!! IN SPITE OF ALL OF THIS, the Minnesota Vet Board allowed Varnes to continue practising -- and continue treating Minnesota's pets on a "conditional" license. The conditions, being basically that he participate in specified mental health counseling, and well - stop behaving the way he had been behaving.

These conditions were placed on his license in Marcy 2004, and in September 2004 the Minnesota Board finally revoked his license after he continued racking up new violations so heinous that they boggle the mind. Frankly, it seems that Varnes was thumbing his nose at the Vet Board and the world.

In September 2004, the Vet Board found that between March 31, 2004 and September 1, 2004, Varnes did the following things while practising at a clinic he owns in Blaine, Minnesota:

". . . employed abusive language directed at clinic staff and other veterinarians . . . "

". . . made degrading or demeaning comments . . . including calling female staff 'worthless broads' . . . and criticizing the veterinarian's surgeries in front of other staff" (HA! He's got his nerve!)

" . . . was very angry exiting an examination room and knocked a receptionist into a hallway wall"

". . . threw objects . . . "

" . . . authorized veterinary technicians to perform dental extractions and give diagnoses over the telephone . . . "

Violations related to drug storage and recordkeeping related to drugs

Also, according to signed affidavits from veterinarians and veterinary technicians, he:

"[Varnes] masked down dogs and cats for anesthesia isoflurane alone without any pre-anesthetic, causing many of the animals to struggle, whine, urinate, defecate or express their anal glands while the gas anesthesia was being administered. Many dogs licensee anesthetized without a pre-anesthetic required three people to restrain them . . " These animals were terrorized!

"[Varnes] had no pain management protocol in place for his surgical patients and did not provide pain relief for multiple animals" after surgery

"[Varnes] did not take any measures to prevent post-surgical hypothermia in animals or to adequately monitor them. The animals were simply put in cages after surgery. [Varnes] used no warming blankets or other heating devices and there was not even any bedding in the cages. In addition, the animals were not monitored after they were put in the cages."

Varnes "did not intubate cats for ovariohysterectomies." [Intubation is important to keep the airway open so that the animal can breath!)]

Varnes "talked on the telephone for up to 15 or 20 minutes while animals were under anesthesia, thereby unnecessarily increasing the anesthetic risk to the animals."

That isn't even all of what the staff alleged, you have to read it.

http://www.vetmed.state.mn.us/portals/22/VarnesRevocation.pdf

Varnes admitted many of these allegations, and denied others.

With his licensed finally revoked in September 2004, Varnes was eligible to reapply for license reinstatement 3 years later.

My question is this

Do not the veterinary boards bear some responsibility for the many victims of this man, for failure to take strong enough action sooner -- when this many had an 8 year multi-state record? Most especially -- when the GRAVE dangers Varnes posed were KNOWN in March 2004, when Minnesota could have revoked his licensed THEN, instead of allowing him to continue practising on "conditions" -- isn't the Minnesota Veterinary Board personally responsible for each and every one of Varnes' victims in the period of March 2004-September 2004?

I believe they are.

Many thanks to the dedicated staff -- other veterinarians and vet techs -- who obviously had to persist time and time again to finally get Minnesota to stop this guy from practising.

But my question is --

Is he now headed to YOUR state?

Links:

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/2732/MN/US/

http://www.vetmed.state.mn.us/portals/22/Varnes.pdf

http://www.in.gov/apps/pla/litigation/viewer.aspx?id=10094

http://www.in.gov/apps/pla/litigation/viewer.aspx?id=10092

http://www.in.gov/apps/pla/litigation/viewer.aspx?id=10090

http://www.poynter.org/resource/71570/0915-Main-A-002-F.pdf

Virginia Vet Gives "Sparky" the Dog an Overdose of Chemotherapy Drugs

Virginia Vet Stephanie Henderson -- a practising vet at Middleburg Animal Hospital in Middleburg, Virginia, "misread the dosage chart for [Sparky's] chemotherapy medication and administered approximately 50 mg. of Cisplatin instead of the required 30 mg. As a result, 'Sparky' suffered from an overdose and was euthanized on November 27, 2006."

What did Sparky experience before he died as a result of this overdose?

Well, in the case of a human overdose with Cisplatin, the victim experienced:

"progressive hearing loss, kidney failure, a reduction of body calcium and festering sores because his immune system was weakened. " Ultimately, the victim died.

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE7DC163CF93BA25755C0A963958260)

Let's compare what happened to the doctors involved in these two cases, shall we?

In the case of veterinarian Henderson -- she was fined $300, and ordered to take 4 hours of continuing education classes in calculating and administering chemotherapy.

In the case of the doctor in the human case (whose "name has not been disclosed" -- gee, wouldn't you like to know who he is so you and your loved ones can avoid him?), the hospital suspended him from clinical duties. In other words -- at least for the time being -- he was stopped from practising . (That was apparently proactive action taken by the hospital, not the medical board).

If your vet is treating your animal for a condition, such as cancer -- have you investigated his or her skill level in treating the disease? Do you have assurances that this vet is experienced enough to -- for example -- competently calculate doses for your pet? Have you done online research yourself and/or gotten a second opinion to double-check on the dose and treatment protocol?

And if the vet makes an error like the one described above -- WHAT do you think the State Vet Board, and/or the owners of the hospital where the vet is employed, should do? Do you think that the actions taken are strong enough to protect our pets?

None of the questions above are intended to imply that any of what happened to poor Sparky -- who was obviously a VERY loved dog -- is the responsibility of his owner. QUITE THE CONTRARY. The responsibility for such tragic and horrifying incidents is entirely with the culpable veterinarian and her employers -- who clearly employed no fail-safes to double check doses. The owner should have been able to trust that this veterinarian would give the right dose to her dog, whose life she or he was obviously desperately trying to save, probably at great cost! Instead of saving Sparky, the vets error was responsible for his death, as it led to him having to be euthanized.

However, although the veterinarians are ENTIRELY to blame for these things, as I have learned myself the hard way, these people will NEVER take responsibility and the system that regulates them will never protect us -- from sloppiness, errors, or worse. Therefore, it's very advisable to double check on your vet whenever you can. There is nothing we as owners can do to entirely protect our pets from veterinary errors like this, but our only choice is to be as vigilent as possible -- because heaven knows, the vets and vet practices and those who regulate them, hardly do anything about these things and aren't vigilent at all.

After reading about this story, I began wondering if there was any thing that could have been done to save Sparky after this overdose was given. I found the following information on the use of plasmapheresis in cases of cisplatin overdose, although I would guess this must be done before the kidney damage caused by the overdose has progressed too far in order to work:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1334209

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/6/1/abstract


Link to disciplinary record:

http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/Notices/VetMed/0301201185/0301201185Order12142007.pdf

"Moocher" Dies While Boarding; No Explanation Given . . .

. . . and other frightening and outrageous acts of Texas vet Patrick Griffin.

"Lucky" and "Moocher" were two dogs boarded by their owner with Griffin in 2006. The owner "visited the dogs at the clinic and noticed that 'Lucky' had apparently lost weight and appeared listless. Dr. Griffin told [the owner] that the dog's kidney's were apparently failing and there was nothing he could do. [The owner] picked up Lucky and took him to another veterinarian (not identified) who treated the dog for a kidney infection and pressure sores. The dog eventually recovered."

[Commentary: Do you know what pressure sores are? There those bedsores that elderly people get in nursing homes when they aren't being taken proper care of! Oh, and clearly, Griffin's lazy-man diagnosis was incorrect!]

"Since Moocher was diabetic, [the owner] left insulin and instructions for use, and was told by the clinic staff that the dog would be exercised and fed an appropriate diet while [the owner] was gone. After about 9 days of boarding [the owner] went to the clinic and was told by Dr. Griffin that Moocher had died about three days after boarding had begun. No explanation of the dog's death was offered. [The owner] suspected that the dog had not been given his insulin and the care promised during boarding.

"Dr. Griffin did not produce any records relating to the two dogs' conditions and care during boarding. Dr. Griffin reported that he had closes his clinic in Temple and is now working as a relief vet in Abilene."

BUT GET THIS -- the board concluded that "Due to lack of records, there is insufficient evidence on which to determine the adequacy of care of the two dogs by Dr. Griffin."

PUHLEASE!!!!! Are you deaf, dumb and blind vet board????

What do you, dear reader, think about this? DO YOU lack sufficient evidence to determine the adequacy of care of these dogs -- one dead, one suffering bed sores and a treatable-but-untreated infection - by Dr. Griffin?

So, on this case, the Board found Griffin ONLY in violation of recordkeeping statutes, and issued ONLY an INFORMAL reprimand!

Now onto the second disciplinary action -- when the Board launched its investigation into the case described above, they contacted Griffin and asked him to respond to the allegations raised by the owner. He did not respond to two letters. Then an investigator called him and the phone had been disconnected at his work; they called his home, no answer and no machine. Over FOUR MONTHS after the first letter was sent, the Board finally sent a certified letter to his house, which was signed for by one "Kayla Griffin." After that they called his house again and no pick up, no machine. A few weeks later, they were finally able to leave a message with an answering service, and he finally responded.

When they did finally talk to Griffin, Griffin told the board that the records for Lucky and Moocher were in storage, and he would send them. But HE NEVER DID. When they held an "informal" investigatory conference, Griffin said that the bank, which had FORECLOSED ON HIS TEMPLE CLINIC, had destroyed the records.

How convenient is that?

The Board can't find fault with his treatment BECAUSE, they say, they don't have records.

BUT the dude first says the records are in storage, THEN he claims they are destroyed? How convenient for him!

Do you really think the Board buys that? Do you buy it? Because I sure don't!

But one thing is for sure -- in the absence of those records, THEY SHOULD still be able to evaluate the "care" of the dog that died and the dog that got bedsores and no treatment for a treatable kidney infection. What are they trying to pull?

The Board only found Griffin in violation of his "duty to cooperate with the Board." And gave him yet another reprimand. Oh, this one was "formal." Big whup.

Rest in peace, Moocher.

Pet owners of Abilene -- beware. As of late 2006, this man is practising in your town.

South Carolina Vet Lindy Wang

In November of 2003 South Carolina Vet Lindy Wang "receive[d] a three-year old toy poodle named Lucy for the purposes of performing a canine ovariohysterectomy (spay). Lucy was in heat at the time of sugery . . . . "

Wang "performed surgery on the patient and applied a belly band. [Wang] informed the Complainant that the dog had lost a substantial amount of blood during the procedure, then requested and received permission for the dog to be kept overnight for observation. The patient records did not indicate the amount, route, frequency or the type of drugs used for sedation, anesthesia, or maintenance of anesthesia."

"The patient died on November 14, 2003 while under the care of [Wang]."

"Although, according to the chart, patient Lucy was faint, her gums were white and her temperature was too low to register, over four hours elapsed before her temperature was raised to near normal. There was no indication in the charts of any laboratory work, the use of any emergency drugs or of any response to the Oxyglobin that was administered on November 14, 2003. Further the chart did not indicate the amount or route of Oxyglobin administered, nor was there any indication of an assessment to rule in or rule out internal bleeding or a coagulation disorder, or of any laboratory work to differentiate either disorder. [Wang] testified that she did follow up with the patient for care and observation at approximately 9:00 am on the morning of November 14, 2003 however there was no record of the time of follow-up observation. [Wang] admitted that her recordkeeping was not good at that time."

[Commentary: So, PULEASE??? NOW that the dog is dead and a complaint has been filed, she says she checked on the dog, she just didn't write it down?

Why did Wang not raise Lucy's temperature for 4 hours?

It seems likely that not enough was done to save Lucy.]

The Board added that although Wang "was not cited for failure to use and/or have equipment available for hematocrit testing at her clinic, the Board did inform [her] that use of the same was required by S.C. Reg. 120(8)8.2(c) and (d).

The Board concluded that Wang was in violation of recordkeeping regulations in three instances, and had "engaged in unprofessional conduct or engaged in practices in connection with the practice of veterinary medicine that violated the standards of professional conduct; and that Wang's "conduct was incompetent or negligent in the practice of veterinary medicine as evidenced by her substandard record keeping and her failure to conduct an assessment to rule in or rule out internal bleeding or coagulation disorder, or to order any laboratory work to differentiate either disorder."

Wang was given a penalty of $250 (big whup!) but was also ordered to pay the $1,443.75 costs of the investigation. Quite oddly, Wang was ordered to buy a book and read a chapter on recordkeeping and then submit a "recreation of a complete surgical record for patient Lucy along with two other surgical cases."

What I find odd about that is -- why are they giving her an opportunity to create records for this dead dog so long after the fact? Records that might well end up documenting self-protective fictions "CYA" style?

When Vet Techs Take the Fall

When I requested disciplinary records from the State of Alaska for 2005, I received two disciplinary records for veterinary technicians. Because of my own personal interest in issues surrounding veterinary technicians, one of these caught my attention.

The Alaska Veterinary Board memorandum of agreement with the veterinary technician, Cyd Hanns, stated that "Hanns admits to the following facts: . . . During the time that Hanns was employed with the Health Department, Hanns euthanized animals without veterinary supervision, diagnosed the medical condition of animals without veterinary supervision, and administered or dispensed prescribed drugs to animals without veterinary supervision . . . Hanns activities as a Veterinary Technician . . . were beyond the scope of her licensed practice."

Yes, I know -- this blog is about BAD VETS, not bad vet techs -- but my inclusion of this record is very intentional.

What is very interesting about this Board action against a vet tech is that it is NOT accompanied by a disciplinary action against the vets that were presumably responsible for Hanns' supervision, and who should be held responsible for technicians or assistants who do things that are legally outside the boundaries of what they should be doing. It is not safe to have unqualified staff performing medicial duties such as those described here. It is fine to hold the vet tech responsible for practising outside his/her permitted scope, but what about the vet?

After all, the vets are the ones who are RESPONSIBLE to assign duties to staff and SUPERVISE to ensure that duties performed are in accordance with appropriate roles and training, and that they are performed correctly.

Does the Board really believe -- and expect us to believe -- that the vets who SHOULD have been supervising Hanns weren't tasking Hann's with some of these out-of-scope duties, or didn't know that Hanns was doing them? I certainly don't believe that. But even if they didn't know, THEY SHOULD HAVE.

Why no disciplinary action against those BAD VETS?

Guess it's just easier to let the vet tech take the fall alone.

Who the Heck Knows What this Guy Did?

Some Bad Vets have disciplinary records with their state boards, but if you got a copy of those records you would have no idea what they had done to earn it. Such is the case with Herbert Topp, a Mechanicsburg Ohio veterinarian who signed a settlement agreement with the Ohio Veterinary Board in 2005, in which he agreed to a month-long active suspension, 2 years probation, and a fine of $2,000. I can tell you that as vet boards go -- those are comparatively strong actions. Yet, the public is -- because of the lack of information in the Veterinary Board documents made available to the public -- left without the critical information that they need to make decisions about this vet, and whether or not he is the kind of vet they would ever want to take their pets to.

What we do know is that the board alleged that Topp violated "Ohio Revised Code 4741-1-03(A), (B)(3)(a), (B)(5)(h),(B)(3)(e), (B)(6)(a), and (B)(6)(c) and 4741-1-21(1) and (2)."

So what we can learn about these alleged violations we must infer from referencing the cited sections of the code.

In alleging the Topp violated Ohio Revised Code 4741-1-03, the Board was alleging a violation of Board requirements for "Minimum Standards for Stationary Veterinary Facilities" (http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/4741-1-03).

In alleging that Topp violated Ohio Revised Code 4741-1-21(1) and (2), the Board was alleging violations of statutes related to patient recordkeeping (http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/4741-1-21).

It is my estimation, from reviewing hundreds of disciplinary records from Vet Boards all over the country, that "recordkeeping" violations are a catch all category that the board uses when, in many cases, more concerning behavior than mere recordkeeping irregularities took place. Moreover, the punitive actions taken by the board in this case are comparatively stiff.

My advice to any pet owner within Dr. Topp's area of service is -- since the public record doesn't include enough details for you to figure out what gave rise to these allegations, you should assume the worst.

California Vet Allowed to Continue Practicing In Spite of Being Charged with 13 Violations Including Animal Cruelty, Unprofessional Conduct, & More

John Quick, a veterinarian practicing in Morgan Hill California, is yet another good example of a vet that the State Board has pretty much thrown the book at -- and YET they let him continue practising!

John Quick is the owner of Animal Care Center of Morgan Hill in California. In early 2007, he signed a "stipulated settlement" "admitting to the factual basis for the imposition of discipline based on [13] charges and allegations" the Veterinary Board filed against him. These charges are so egregious and shocking that they speak for themselves. They incude two charges of animal cruelty, circumstances surrounding the overdose of a patient, and actions that could have exposed humans and animals to his HIV-infected blood.

The 13 charges are summarized below, as taken from the California Veterinary Board's Accusations and charges:

First Cause for Discipline: Conviction

"[Quick] . . . was convicted of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of veterinary medicine, in that on November 12, 2004, [Quick] was convicted by the court on a plea of nolo contendere of . . . (wreckless driving) . . . in lieu of a violation of . . . (driving under the influence), in Monterey County Superior Court, Case Nmber MS225443, entitled People v. Quick, John Norman.

Second Cause for Discipline: Violation of Statutes Regulating Controlled Substances

". . . [Quick], on several occasions, obtained the drug Augmentin from the Animal Care Center Pharmacy, and provided and administered it to his daughter, Ashley Quick, to treat her strep throat. "

Third Cause for Discipline: Administering Controlled Substances to Self

[Quick] ". . . admittedly used cocaine and methamphetamine up until 2004, and has a history of chronic substance abuse. . . .[Quick] used alcoholic beverages in a manner as to be dangerous or injurious to himself and/or others . . . "

Fourth Cause for Discipline: Violation of the Veterinary Practice Act

[Quick] "is subject to disiplinary action under section 4883(c) of the Code, in that he failed to properly maintain patient records for "Junior," a 13-year old canine patient, who received surgery to repair a partially ruptured anterior cruciate ligamen on May 16, 2003. SAid records were lost or destroyed and were not available for inspection by the Board upon request."

Fifth Cause for Discipline: Violation of Regulations

[Quick] is subject to disciplinary action under section 4883(o) of the Code, in that his conduct as described in paragraph 19, above, further constitutes a violation of a regulation adopted by the Board, to wit: Title 16, California Code of Rgulations ("CCR"), section 2032.3(b) (failure to maintain animal patient records for at least three years).

Sixth Cause for Discipline: Violation of Regulations

[Quick] . . . "failed to appropriately observe and/or to provide properly supervised trained recovery personnel for Junior, who was recovering from general anesthesia. As a result of inadequate monitoring during initial surgical recovery, Junior sustained second and third degree burns afer coming in direct contact with heated saline bags. As a result of the burns, on or about June 11, 2003, Junior underwent debridement surgery, by Dr. Shanna Compton, DVM (an associated employed by respondent [Quick], and pain control medication was prescribed."

Seventh Cause for Discipline: Violation of Regulations

". . . Juniors prescription for pain control medication was improperly filled/compounded by a non-licensed technician employed by [Quick]. [Quick], by his own admission, was present when Junior's owner, a registered nurse, questioned the change in volume and appearance of the pain medication refill (Torbutrol). [Quick] heked the refill and instructed the unlicensed technician to dilute the medication and have Dr. Compton, an associate in the respondent's clinic, check the refill for accuracy. The improperly filed/compounded medication was neverthelss dispensed and Junior received a fatal dose."

Commentary: Can you imagine how that poor owner feels -- first they burn her dog to the point where he has to have a surgery, then, after this massive and painful screwup, the prescribe him "pain medication" which she then gives him a FATAL dose of because they compounded it wrong - using unlicensed staff and not properly supervising them? Imagine!

Eighth Cause for Discipline: Negligence

"[Quick] is subject to disciplinary action under section 4883(i) of the Code in that [his] conduct . . . constitutes a departure from the standard of practice of veterinary medicine."

Ninth Cause for Discipline: Unprofessional Conduct

"[Quick] is subject to disciplinary action under section 4883(g) of the Code (general unprofessional conduct) in that, while admittedly HIV positive, [he] did not practice universal safety precautions to prevent blood to blood and/or saliva contact between patients, clients, and/or employees. On one specific occasion in 2003, [he] intentionally smashed microscope slides, causing them to break and cut [his] hands. Respondent bled onto te slides and directed his employees, who were unaware that respondent was HIV positive, to clean up the mess. On said occasion, respondent backed Dr. Compton against a wall, got close to her face, and yelled at her, potentially exposing her to his saliva, which is considered to be potentially infectious, under certain conditions. More generally, [Quick] admittedly did not use gloves to protect humans and animals from any possible blood to blood transmissions."

Tenth Cause for Discipline: Animal Cruelty

". . . in 2002, [Quick] examined a poodle, Fritz, who had staples or stitches in his head, after having a mass removed. In the course of providing said examination, [Quick] continually bumped the dog's head, causing the dog to snap at and bite respondent, after respondent twicerefused his female employee's offer to muzzle the dog. AFter being bitten, [Quick] grabbed the dog by its choke chain and held it suspended over the examination table until its tongue and gums turned blue, and Fritz was gasping for breath. After the incident, Fritz was extremely aggressive whenever he visited the premises."

Eleventh Cause for Discipline: Negligence

"[Quick] is subject t disciplinary action . . . based on the conduct set forth in paragraph 25 above."

Thirteenth [sic] Cause for Discipline: Unprofessional Conduct

"[Quick] is subject to disciplinary action . . . based on the conduct set forth in paragraph 25, above.

Thirteenth Cause for Discipline: Animal Cruelty

[Quick] "took a bald eagle "Bumbles" to his home to care for him for approximately six months. [Quick] returned to the clinic with Bumbles after six months. Bumbles was extremely thin and malnourished. Bumbles was released to a local bird rescue group."

So, you would think -- with all of the dangers the board clearly believes he poses to humans and animals, they would put this vet out of practice once and for all, wouldn't you?

BUT OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T. Becase vet boards protect bad vets, not our pets.

They revoked his license -- BUT STAYED THE REVOCATION. That means he was free to go back to work immediately. Although they placed hi on probation with some terms, none of these terms will prohibit him from taking "care" of YOUR PET in his own special twisted way.

What in the world does a vet in California have to do to get his license revoked -- REALLY revoked? When will the State Vet Boards start taking dangerous vets out of practice?