|
FY 2007 Disciplinary Records for Texas Now Available Here
|
The Toonces Project now presents, below, disciplinary records provided by the State of Texas for the year 2007. These are presented in alphabetical order by vet last name.
We have elected NOT to print disciplinry records associated with Continuing Education violations at this time; a summary of these actions will be added to this page. However, it is clear from a review, that the Board continues to issue stiffer fines and penalties in cases where a vet fails to meet his or her CE requirements (even when they have a good excuse, like a hurricane) than it does in patient care related violations, where the actions of the vet arguably either did, or could have, caused or contributed to the injury or death of a patient.
Because records for 2007, 2006, and 2005 are grouped separated on this page, if you simply want to search for your vet's name on this page, please click on your browser's EDIT menu, select "Find (on This Page,)", and then enter your vet's last name and click "Find Next." This will search through all posted links across all years.
|
|
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners - Action Summaries
What these very high level summaries do not tell you is what happened to the pet as a result of the veterinarian's violations. We know that most consumers bring complaints out of heartbreak and outrage when their pets are injured, or die. Like most states, the information Texas makes publicly available is stripped of meaningful context, as the allegations and evidence submitted by the complainant are never made public.
Even more disturbing, however, is the fact that the vast majority of complaints -- over 90% -- many of them compelling in our perspective -- are in Texas as elsewhere, dismissed without any action. This, and the fact that complaint information is never made public, leaves pet owners without potentially life-saving information about their veterinarian's ethics and competence (or lack thereof).
We are outraged and alarmed by the compelling evidence provided by complainants whose complaints were dismissed outright. To read the stories of two of them, visit Suki's and Stempy's sites.
Suki's guardian filed a complaint with the Texas State Board against Edward Nichols of Crestway Animal Clinc, and her complaint was dismissed without action. To read Suki's story, and allegations regarding the veterinarian, Edward Nichols, go to http://www.vetabusenetwork.com
Stempy's guardian filed a complaint with the Texas State Board against Ann Thomas, DVM, and the complaint was dismissed without action. To read Stempy's story, go to http://stempy.bravehost.com
Also dismissed was the complaint brought by the guardian of Bo Bo Bear against veterinarian David Faulkner. To read Bo Bo's story, see http://bobobear.bravehost.com/. Dr. Faulkner already has a disciplinary record in the State of Texas. To read summaries of prior disciplinary actions taken against veterinarian David Faulkner, see the website of the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, http://www.tbvme.state.tx.us/Docket%20-%20website%20A-L.pdf
As we stated on our home page, both Julie Catalano and Betty Garrity in Texas are being sued by the very same veterinarians they once trusted and gave their hard earned money to -- the very same veterinarians that they alleged destroyed their pets through acts of malpractice.
Dr. Faulkner's existing disciplinary record is reprinted below. In addition, The Toonces Project is now making available the disciplinary records of the Texas Veterinary Board for the years 2005 and 2006. As you can see, even when they do take disciplinary action, the actions taken are more often than not preposterously and pathetically miniscule.
|
First Listed Violation for David E. Faulkner per Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners website (http://www.tbvme.state.tx.us/Docket%20-%20website%20A-L.pdf) as of January 30, 2007.
Name: Faulkner, David E
Docket Number: 1990-13
Date of Action: 2/7/91
Violation: Narcotic/Script
Summary: Failure to demonstrate a veterinary/client/patient relationship; Failure to maintain records for controlled substances; Violation of the State Brucellosis Vaccine Program; Violation of the State Rabies Vaccine Program
Sanction: 5-year suspension, all probated but 6 months; Civil Penalty of $2,500; Surrender DEA/DPS Narcotics Certificates; No participation in USDA Accreditation Program for 5 years; Submit quarterly reports; Take and pass jurisprudence Exam; Obtain 20 hours of Continuing Education per year of probation.
Second Listed Violation for David E. Faulkner per Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners website (http://www.tbvme.state.tx.us/Docket%20-%20website%20A-L.pdf) as of January 30, 2007.
Name: Faulkner, David E
Docket Number: 1991-30
Date of Action: 10/22/92
Violation: Violation of Board Order
Summary: Practised Veterinary medicine while on suspension from previous Board order (1990-13)
Sanction: Continue 5-year suspension, all probated by 6 months; Civil Penalty of $2,500; Surrender DEA/DPS Narcotics Certificates; No participation in USDA Accreditation Program for 5 years; Submit quarterly reports; Take and pass jurisprudence Exam; Obtain 20 hours of Continuing Education per year of probation as stated 1990-13; Civil Penalty of $1,000. |
TEXAS VETERINARIANS DISCIPLINED IN 2005 |
SYNOPSIS OF ABOVE CASE:
After Dr. Anderson had already supposedly performed a hysterectomy on "Dixie," a dog, she went into heat. Exploratory surgery conducted by another vet found that Dixie's "left ovary and uterine horn were intact." In short, Dr. Anderson had "failed to perform a complete ovariohysterectomy." Dr. Anderson, when confronted by the owners, refused to reimburse them for the botched procedure. The vet board found that Anderson was in violation of the professional standard of humane treatment.
What was the board's disciplinary action in this case? All they did was issue the vet an "INFORMAL REPRIMAND." That's it. Shameful? We think so.
Violation Found: Professional Standard of Humane Treatment
Is Violation Patient Care Related? YES
Fine? No
Suspension? No
Revocation? No
Other? Informal Reprimand |
SYNOPSIS OF ABOVE CASE:
Violation Found: Misuse of DEA Narcotics Registration. (Prescribing/dispensing without current DPS/DEA registration).
Is Violation Patient Care Related? No.
Fine? Yes Amount $500
Suspension? No
Revocation? No
Other? No |
SYNOPSIS OF ABOVE CASE:
Violation Found: Misuse of DEA Narcotics Registration. (Prescribing/dispensing without current DPS/DEA registration).
Is Violation Patient Care Related? No.
Fine? Yes Amount $500
Suspension? No
Revocation? No
Other? No |
SYNOPSIS OF ABOVE CASE:
Violation Found: Performing Unauthorized Treatments
Is Violation Patient Care Related? Yes.
Fine? No
Suspension? No
Revocation? No
Other? Informal Reprimand |
SYNOPSIS OF ABOVE CASE:
Dr. Bennett performed a spay procedure on Ramsy, a Rottweiler. Later that day, Ramsy died less than 5 hours after being picked up by her family. Dr. Bennett had never offered, or performed, pre-surgical bloodwork on Ramsy. During the investigatin, Dr. Bennett stated that during surgery, he noticed that Ramsy had an enlarged spleen, anemia, and had petechia in her abdomen. In the record he had written, "possible ehrlichia." Yet he never informed Ramsy's family of Ramsy's condition, did no bloodwork, and did not discuss the option of seeking care at an emergency clinic with Ramsy's family. As stated above, Ramsy died within 5 hours of being released.
Violation Found: TWO. Violation 1: Professional Standard of Humane Treatment. Violation 2: Patient Record-Keeping.
Is Violation Patient Care Related? Yes.
Fine? NO
Suspension? NO
Revocation? NO
Other? Formal Reprimand |
SYNOPSIS OF ABOVE CASE:
Violation Found: Misuse of DEA Narcotics Registration. (Prescribing/dispensing without current DPS/DEA registration).
Is Violation Patient Care Related? No.
Fine? Yes Amount $250
Suspension? No
Revocation? No
Other? Official reprimand |
SYNOPSIS OF ABOVE CASE:
This action was taken based on two cases: The case of Diamond, the Golden Retriever Puppy, and the case of Gizmo the dog (breed not cited).
When she was brought to Dr. Burchers for her puppy vaccinations, Diamond was coughing. Dr. Burchers gave the vaccinations and informed Diamond's family that the "cough was not a concern" at that time. A month later, Diamond's family brought Diamond back as she was still coughing. Dr. Burchers then prescribed a dose of antibiotics that was twice the dose that should have been given to a dog her size - - a drug overdose. Over the next several days Diamond got much sicker, until she was "in a weakened state and had difficulty breathing." The family took her to a different vet. This vet did a fecal test which showed intestinal parasites, and took exrays, which indicated possible pneumonia. They gave her a transfusion, different antibiotics, and supportive care. In spite of this care the next day, Diamond died.
In the case of Gizmo, Dr. Burchers performed a cesarean section, delivering seven puppies, three of whom died. He also performed an ovariohysterectomy, however, he did not do any pre-op bloodwork. After the procedure Dr. Burchers used "catgut" stitches and did not prescribe antibiotics. Approximately 1 week later, Gizmo's family brought her back to Dr. Burchers because they saw that she was bleeding from her incision. Dr. Burcher's said that she had a "hernia" and that part of the omentum (peritoneum) was protruding from the incision site. He performed surgery to fix the hernia but Gizmo stopped breathing during or after the procedure. The board found that:
No supportive fluid therapy had been given to Gizmo prior to either of the surgeries
No pre-anesthetic bloodwork was done or suggested
No written consent forms were used
No antibiotics were prescribed for Gizmo after her C-section and hysterectomy
Dr. Burchers did not use all available means to revive the puppies that died
During the C-section, the amount of anesthesia Dr. Burchers had used was "excessive and could have led to fetal suppression." (Meaning, I presume, could have contributed to the death of the puppies.)
Dr. Burchers did not use all available means to revive Gizmo when she stopped breathing after the hernia surgery.
Dr. Burchers' use of catgut to suture Gizmo could have contributed to her developing a hernia.
Dr. Burchers records contain "no entries on the anesthesia procedures, anesthetic agents, medications, and other details of surgery.
Violation Found: Three found. 1) Violation of the professional standard of humane treatment; 2) Violation of Patient Recordkeeping rules; 3) Violation of Controlled Substances Records Keeping
Is Violation Patient Care Related? YES
Fine? Yes Amount $1,000
Suspension? No
Revocation? No
Other? Formal Reprimand; Continuing Education |
Synopsis of Above Case:
Mr. Carter signed a voluntary suspension of license after having been arrested and charged with public lewdness and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and after he subsequently left an evaluation and rehabilitation program against medical advice. (NOTE: The Board document does not state whether or not Mr. Carter was found guilty of the charges.)
Violation Found: N/A (see above - Voluntary Suspension of License)
|
Synopsis of Above Case: Editorial Comment: This case is difficult to summarize, as the course of events described in the board document is complex. Please refer to the document for more information.The events described are very disturbing, and raise serious questions about the veterinarian's treatment of her patient. This case involves Bailey, a dog who died of rat poisoning.
Violation Found: Violation of the professional standard of humane treatment
Is Violation Patient Care Related? YES
Fine? Yes Amount $500
Suspension? No
Revocation? No
Other? Formal Reprimand |
|
Texas Disciplinary Actions, 2006
Below are the disciplinary actions taken by the Texas Vet Board in 2006. An interesting pattern emerges when comparing the disciplinary actions for 2006 with those for the prior year, 2005. In spite of the fact that the board received 212 consumer complaints that year, the percentage of disciplinary actions taken that were actually based on consumer complaints dropped dramatically. A much larger percentage of the total number of disciplinary actions were related to NON-PATIENT CARE violations, such as failure to take continuing education classes in a given period. By "padding" their disciplinary actions with continuing education violations, the vet board effectively significantly reduced its actions taken on behalf of consumers, while making the decline in enforcement less obvious by stepping up enforcement of continuing education violations. Moreover, as you will notice, the board issued FINES much more frequently in 2006 than in 2005 -- for CE violations!
It seems apparent that some conscious and deliberate decision was made by the veterinary board to dismiss a larger proportion of consumer complaints, yet effectively seek to obscure the decline in enforcement by issuing lots of CE violations. And how nice for them -- they are actually generating revenue by issuing fines against vets who miss a class. But what are they spending that money on???? NOT investigations of consumer complaints, that's for sure! |
|
