Am I reading that Texas case correctly that the "standard" is the "average" practitioner, similarly situated?  So, all the profession has to do to get off the hook is keep the averages down?  Is that just Texas or is it most states?

PJBoosinger August 19th, 2009 09:56:43 AM

PJB: That's it in a regulatory nutshell. It's sad that the incentives for higher standards will ultimately be dictated by what outsiders to our profession deem acceptable. What that says about us (as those who should be moving to raise professional standards from the inside) is just deplorable. It shouldn't take the public to force us to move towards a better veterinary medicine. 

Dr. Patty Khuly August 19th, 2009 10:01:02 AM

Don't you think the AVMA is partially responsible for the fact that animal cruelty laws are too lax?  I find it terribly ironic that in many court cases where the rights of animals could be advanced, the AVMA has stepped in with lawyers helping the defence and arguing against it.  I know they're not defending blatant animal cruelty, but they are defending against any changes that would make animals any more than "replaceable property".  If animals are never deemed to have value above and beyond their monetary worth, can we truly hope to see laws that really protect them and their well-being?  I'm sure the AVMA doesn't want to see cats mutilated, but their insistance that animals are just personal property, like a suitcase or umbrella, means that some animal cruelty cases will be seen as just "vandalism", and that in lieu of terrible, obvious neglect, people like your sister's nemesis will be allowed to keep the animals in their possession. 

Do I know how to change the laws to make them effective yet sensible?  No.  I do know, however, that ownership disputes should be decided based on what's in the best interests of the animal, not on the current basis of "finders, keepers".  There was a case mentioned in Veterinary Practice News in June, I believe, where a dog was awarded to a party in a divorce case based on who already had the animal in their possession.  This was despite the fact that almost everyone involved agreed that the losing party was a better owner who had an emotional connection with the dog.  Not only did the AVMA applaud the fact that the judge didn't make a final ruling by invoking "best interests of the animal" criteria, they sent lawyers to help the defence ensure that this standard was not applied.  There are numerous legal cases listed on ALDF.org where the AVMA has sent lawyers to help defend the status quo.   I think puppy mills are another excellent example of many borderline animal abuse cases never getting prosecuted because current legal standards don't allow a court to consider whether or not an animal is "happy", or whether it feels safe.

I understand that the AVMA exists to protect veterinarians, and that if pets were legally given "emotional value" it could open up the floodgates for lawsuits, some frivlous, against vets.  I understand that if vets face punitive damages, it will not only raise prices for clients, but may put many good vets out of business.  Still, in the effort to protect you guys, the AVMA inadvertently protects some animal abusers as well.  Can't we sit down and find some way to protect defenseless animals in the same manner that we protect children?  There will certainly be people who bristle at the thought that animals are equal to humans, but I think many of us have come to view them that way.

Leigh-Ann August 19th, 2009 10:17:41 AM

Leigh-Ann: Preaching to the choir. Part of the problem, however, is that veterinarians are easy targets while cruel treatment by owners is much more difficult to prove. As you can imagine, the percentage of those who would abuse or neglect their pets is far greater in the pet-owning population than in veterinary medicine. When you consider that disparity you can understand why veterinarians would not want a system where they end up out on a limb in disproportionate numbers relative to allegedly abusive pet owners. That's not fair either.

For example, many cases brought against veterinarians come attached to owners who deserved to be countersued for taking too long to make a decision, for putting off procedures, for electing to limit expenses instead of treating the way a veterinarian recommended, for medicating inappropriately, etc. I've seen two cases like this over the past year. Veterinarians who do elect to countersue end up like my sister: stressing out for years in a maze of legal machinations. Sucks. I've seen it first-hand. 

Nonetheless, the AVMA and the state boards should be more proactive. If we prove we can police our own there will be less of a public outcry against veterinarians as a whole. When there's a working system of redress there's far less of a need for laws that unduly target professionals who are simply trying to do the right thing. 

Dr. Patty Khuly August 19th, 2009 10:28:23 AM

I guess in most peoples eyes animal cruelty applies to pets only. Not a word  from people with regard to animal cruelty in factory farms or research labs. Vick should have put a dog on a spit over a fire and claimed it was food. When it comes to food anything goes and it is not consider cruelty.

Robert Garnett August 19th, 2009 10:41:34 AM

Dr. K, wow, I don't know what to say except thanks for that comment on Texas.  Yes, boards often do attempt to "hide" the truth about what a vet did.  Here in Maryland I had an assistant attorney general twist facts incredibly to justify failing to enforce a standard that the vet ADMITTED IN WRITING to violating. I am told repeatedly by others who have been through the system that I am "lucky" the board did anything at all, however measely.  The fine they gave the vet was among the lowest given in YEARS.  But things in Texas do appear to be particularly bad.

As for Tennessee and Baber, the Board Executive Director actually expressed so much sympathy for that monster in a press interview about all he had "been through" and "suffered" as a result of being found out for the monster that he is.  Travesty.

But at least vets can be found guitly of animal cruelty in Tennesse.

In about half of US states, they cannot be prosecuted for animal cruelty for ANY action taken while "practising" veterinary medicine.  Based on this law, in about half of US states, a vet can hit a patient and then claim it was "necessary restraint" and some have indeed done so.  Even hanging them by their leashes till vessels burst in their eyes or even eyes pop out -- cannot be prosecuted as "cruelty"  in about half of US states, so long as the act is done while working.

Part of the reason things remain this way is that there is no consumer counterbalance to the veterinary lobby, which shows up in force to defeat any legislation that would hold the members of the profession more accountable.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that the AVMA and boards should be more proactive, and police their own.  That is our common ground.

As an outspoken human victim of veterinary malpractice (yes, I do consider myself a secondary victim, certain that I suffered PTSD) I have been contacted by hundreds of people who have experienced similar things.  With very RARE exceptions, pet "owners" (I just don't get into the owner/guardian debate) do NOT really want MONEY in the wake of something like this.

They want the vet to be held accountable, to be punished strongly enough to deter future such actions, and for **someone** to make sure that steps are taken so that it will not happen again. If he or she is a repeat malpractitioner and/or the action is particularly egregious -- such as outright cruelty or abuse ala Baber -- we want their license to practice permanently revoked.  I do not think that is unreasonable. I would not have asked, and did not ask, for that outcome in my case, as it would have been excessive; nonetheless I felt that an active suspension was warranted, and did not get that.

The process that currently exists via the vet boards is a sick sham (with the possible exception of Idaho .. . really).  This FORCES pet "owners" to take things to COURT if they have the means to do so.

No one really wants that, considering the emotional and financial toll involved in prosecuting such a case, but they are left with no other choice.

Stefani August 19th, 2009 10:51:51 AM

This is especially a hot topic issue in exotics.  Neglect can cause them to have horrific quality of life, and yet good luck getting it prosecuted.   A guinea pig we recently rescued literally died of starvation from being fed an incorrect pellet.  Her rads showed that her bones were swiss cheese as her body desperately cannibalized itself trying to stay alive.  We were told that she had provided food, and there was nothing to be done.  She lived in agony for months before she was surrendered, and passed soon afterwards.

Butterfly August 19th, 2009 11:17:50 AM

As one who has been duking it out with the Texas veterinary board for 10 years now, I thank you for the mention of the disgraceful Texas vet board. There have been two investigative reports on them in the past three years, on TV stations in Dallas and  San Antonio (in which both Greg Munson and I were interviewed about our experiences) and hopefully lots more to come as awareness continues to be raised about the appalling conditions in Texas and how frequently these vets walk. The monster who "treated" my cat Suki walked, as I watched in disbelief and horror as ONE vet had the authority to let this "doctor" get away with everything he did -- repeated violations of the standard of care, medical records that were a joke, and no evidence of owner consent to anything he did (anesthesia on a 20-year-old dying, dehydrated CRF cat with no presurgical labwork or preanesthetic evaluation , a tooth extraction, no IV fluids, no potassium supplementation for hypokalemia - the list goes on and on, you can read about it in Suki's Story).It was, by far, one of the most blatant and fully documented cases of numerous and repeated violations of the standard of care, I would venture to say, in the history of the Texas vet board. I sat there as the "deciding" vet figuratively spit in my face -- smiling at me condescendingly and closing the case, dismissing the complaint, while the arrogant vet sat there and enjoyed every minute of his "exoneration." He now waves a letter around saying he didn't do anything wrong, calling me a liar, and eventually suing me and trying to get an injunction to dismantle my site and force me to remove his name and his treatment of Suki (the judge threw out the injunction request, and the vet also lost in the appeals court).

You can see the TV coverage of the board's questionable practices on my web site for The Veterinary Abuse Network.

On the vet/animal cruelty front, we actually did have a vet here in Texas convicted of felony animal cruelty for bludgeoning a miniature dachshaund to death in front of the dog's owner, claiming the animal was after the vet's chickens (he had similarly bludgeoned another dog to death for the same "offense"). The maximum penalty for felony animal cruelty in Texas is three years and $10,000, and there are more than a few layperson serving their time in prison for it. The vet was sentenced to anger management classes. Obviously, as you can see, some animal abusers are more equal than others.

Julie "Suki's Story" August 19th, 2009 11:35:35 AM

Wow, and I thought the "reasonably prudent attorney" standard was too low.  At least we can argue it doesn't meet that standard even if the attorney claims to be "above average" but vets actually have a disincentive built in to keep the averages down to reduce liability.  Looks like this Texas court adopted the "reasonably prudent" standard for veterinarians too.  It also sounds like things have been going the wrong direction for about a decade.  Julie, we're probably going to have to put a lot more of those lay people away before we can push the vets back up to a higher standard here.

PJBoosinger August 19th, 2009 03:21:20 PM

I believe that it is going to take a lot of retirements and a generational shift for things in the veterinary community to change.  It wi not be as fast as some of us want but it is going to happen with the changing of the old guard.  It has aways been that the folks in charge of the AVMA and state boards have generally been the older members of our profession that were in such a place in their careers that they could take the necessary time to participate (clinic paid for, student loans paid off, chidren out of school, semi-retired, financialy secure)  The newer vets entering this phase will have different viewpoints than their predecessors. 

Hobson August 19th, 2009 04:32:01 PM

Hobson: I already see the shift at the level of my local VMA. And now we're actively recruiting young veterinarians for the board. We're offering social events and young vet-specific CE exactly for the purpose of increasing involvement of the younger generation. The perspective is definitely different.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 19th, 2009 04:55:10 PM

I truly, truly wish that there was a way to prevent stupid spammers, and as un-PC as it sounds, certain ethnic spammers, could be prevented from posting here!!!!

KateH August 19th, 2009 05:33:19 PM

Make it so unless someone registers, they can't post. Not sure what the purpose of allowing people to make a posting account here is, if not to be able to easily ban or delete spammers.

Pai August 19th, 2009 06:04:37 PM

Florida has a good animal cruelty statute and a good felony animal fightiing law. Miami's Cat Killer, if found guilty of felony animal cruelty-which he most certainly is if he is the one that killed those cats- could be sentenced to 5 years per count, and ordered to undergo psychological counseling or complete an anger management program. (Although I suspect for him it is a lost cause.) Florida's animal protection laws are actually pretty good-unfortunately enforcment is not.  I had a case where a woman told my client that she wanted to feed the three emaciated pit bulls chained in her back yard but her son would not let her because he wanted them to be mean when he fought them. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office had no interest in prosecution. Fortunately the three dogs were signed over to rescue.

Marcy LaHart, Esq. August 19th, 2009 07:02:43 PM

Let me just add to the public outcry by sharing the story of our new pup Wyatt Ray Dawg... "Chopper" was left tied up in an Oakland, CA back yard unti one day his people discovered his leg tangled and dangling (fo who knows how long). When their vet told them he would need to amputate the leg, they said they didn't want a three-legged German Shepherd and to put him down. A compassionate tech said no, we'll take him. They removed the leg and contacted the local GSD rescue, who renamed Wyatt and thought of us here at Tripawds.

Whenever we tell Wyatt's story people ask, "were the people prosecuted?" Well, from this post you obviously know our answer. Thanks for understanding!

tripawds.com August 19th, 2009 07:17:00 PM

PJ, I'm sure you're familiar with the highly publicized case of Howard Baker, who was caught on tape beating a patient (Dalmatian) for no reason, calling the dog "a piece of garbage." He was convicted in lower court of 14 counts of animal cruelty, had his license taken away, promptly got a dream team of lawyers, appealed, and the NJ superior court overturned the lower court's convictions. His license was promptly reinstated. Dan Abrams, NBC legal analyst, went on Dateline saying he was completely puzzled as how this happened, that superior courts don't usually overturn convictions based on the "credibility" of the witness (in this case Rokke).  Baker then turned around a sued the tech, Michelle Rokke (an undercover investigator) for taping him. The jury found for Rokke.Fourteen counts of animal cruelty and the guy didn't serve one minute in jail.

Then there's the vet here I mentioned, the dog-bludgeoner.Again, no jail time.

The disturbing part is that just like the vet boards, criminal courts are loathe to find vets guilty of animal cruelty. Why? How is it any different from a priest being found guilty of molestation? Or a day care worker being found guilty of abuse? Even pet groomers found guilty are given harsher sentences. The public is outraged and disgusted at those cases, and yet vets litarally get away with murder. Is the idea of an animal-abusing vet so heinous that judges go into denial, or is it a blatant case of protectionism?

While I can understand (and despise) the cronyism behind the vet board covering for one of its own, how on earth can a judge (both of the cases above involved judges, NOT juries) rationalize about the horrendous acts of cruelty that were inflicted on innocent animals by vets? Is it because animals are worthless? It can't be, because laypeople in those situations were rightfully and harshly punished. So animals must have SOME worth in the criminal justice system -- as long as it doesn't involve a vet, right?

In our screwed up priorities, vets are seen as more important and valuable than the animals they abuse. This is not the case with priests, coaches, day care workers, or other abusers of children. Everyone in those scenarios is a PERSON. But because animals are property under the law, judges must feel that it's ridiculous or unseemly to sentence a "doctor" of that property to a proper prison term for mistreating that property.

I don't know what the problem is, but I live for the day when a vet goes to jail for animal cruelty. Then maybe the public will finally GET it.

Julie "Suki's Story" August 20th, 2009 12:12:37 AM

Well, a certain prosecutor in Montana -- yes, Montana -- just got a particularly heinous offender a 20 year suspended sentence for felony animal cruelty.  And if she violates probation ... no more "suspended."

In case you didn't catch it, Montana Montana Montana.

Which is where I am right now, plugging away doing my part to get these good, good dogs out into appropriate homes.

So it can be done -- if the crime is atrocious enough.

H. Houlahan August 20th, 2009 04:24:37 AM

Julie, Unfortunately, the answer in Texas is really quite simple.  Most of the cases you reference that involve other humans (children, disabled, elderly) don't get prosecuted either.  In Texas, you merely follow the money.  Our criminal courts are set up to do 2 things here.  1) remove violent criminals (or at least give the appearance of having done so) to preserve the economy: crime is bad for business; and 2) to impose fines small enough that people don't fight back but large enough and in sufficient quantities to provide governments with income (yes, much of that income goes right back into law enforcement and the judicial system but again that looks good: tough on crime is good for business).  The City of Houston Municipal Courts used to even put out a pie chart of their income!  This is the system the vast majority of Texas citizens see but don't grasp that it is really this simple.  Then there is the group that has money or power and clout.  They are virtually exempt from the rules so long as they don't get someone in the legal system ticked off at them.  The third group lies between these 2 main groups and is comprised of the variety of professional and non-professional providers that both of the other groups need.  They will be protected and allowed to protect themselves and one another so long as they keep their heads relatively down.  Despite public appearances, they usually pay a price behind the scenes if they make waves.  It isn't enough though.

We also have a disturbing trend in our civil courts.  Each judge's rules tend to override the general court rules that override the statewide court rules which override the statutes which override the state constitution which overrides the federal constitution.  The pyramid is almost exactly upside down.  It's done in the name of judicial efficiency, meaning the judges can't be bothered to do their jobs.  I find it disturbing to hear echoing in the halls of justice that used to buzz with activity.  I've had several bailiffs attempt to get me to leave because their judges didn't want observers in their courtrooms.  The last municipal court I was in instructed all non-participants to sit in the back row and then held all the hearings at the bench so nothing could be heard by the public.  Then there's the batteries of attorneys in all of our legislatures who pass more laws than they could possibly have read, let alone considered and debated.  How can those possibly even be kept up with, let alone enforced?  And this is my former profession and I haven't a clue where we should begin to clean it up.

Most attorneys don't seem to take their oath of office very seriously.  They're competitive and simply want to win and make money.  They advise their clients accordingly.  And that often means they're telling their clients how closely they can snuggle up to the fine lines without getting slapped and then get paid big money to defend them if they step over the line a tad.  Organization counts and as frustrating as I find the professionals to be in their arrogance, I find citizens to be more frustrating.  We don't take our obligations as citizens seriously either.  We aren't educated or active so we get herded around like cattle.  We put blinders on until something happens to us personally and, even then, we rarely do more than rant about it.

And doing an old fashioned sit in these days means going up against officers with tasers and assault rifles.  That combined with the fact we're mostly so comfy these days and I don't know what it would take to raise a peaceful revolt of some kind or if it's even possible to change things if we could.  I mean, seriously, how many people would go to a sit in for a week with no food, no water, no A/C or heat, no iPods or internet?  We had a little bit of a revolt start up in Houston after Ike but it got little attention and the protesters appear to have faded away as soon as the electricity came back on; in fact they faded as THEIR electricity came on and the news coverage was of the few small pockets where people were sharing but they were in the minority by far.

I've come to think that most of us would put up with just about anything so long as the water, lights, internet, and cable stay on and there's enough cheap junk food for us.  This being Texas and guns plentiful, I often wonder why more people aren't shot for some of the things they do to others.  The short answer is that the public has to GET IT first, then the vets (and other professionals) who cause harm will go to jail but only if we make it happen.  History is very clear that little good comes from the top down; only when the peasants revolt and we don't seem to be willing to revolt en masse any more.

PJBoosinger August 20th, 2009 04:56:00 AM

PJ, I don't think it's just Texas.  The Baker case Julie cites was in New Jersey. 

Stefani August 20th, 2009 09:49:44 AM

Right now I can't read all the comments about similar cases. Well, yes I can read them, but need to wait for a stronger frame-of-mind, which over the years I've learned to heed for my sanity.

Thirty years ago I got a dream job as a young activist working for Gretchen Wyler, a powerhouse animal welfare/rights player before her death in 07. I remember the feeling of despair that washed over me when she enlightened me to the fact that words like cruelty, inhumane and abuse are impossible to define legally. Till then I'd never thought about how plastic those critical terms are. We see the results in the law enforcement/justice/regulatory bodies that routinely give cruelty a pass.

oh holland August 20th, 2009 02:57:28 PM

PJB, the third paragraph in your last post demonstrates one reason why many veterinarians are leery of changing the legal status of animals. I am not concerned myself, I  think the change as a whole will be beneficial to me and veterinarians in general. I feel that my practice policies and protocols could stand up to legal scrutiny.  Greedy  and morally bankrupt lawyers are scary to some, I am just disgusted with them. (I have become al too famiiar with them in the famiy law arena.)  

Hobson August 20th, 2009 03:04:37 PM

Slightly veering OT, but H. Houlahan -- you noted a particular strong action in Montana. (Although I am sorry it was suspended . . . .)

I actually have started to wonder if anyone has studied whether the rural states may actually, in SOME ways, be SUPERIOR to states with large urban populations when it comes to enforcement on animal issues?  I don't know the data on this but I am wondering aloud, because since I FOIA vet board records every year, the ONE state that has stood out to me as being the best vet board in terms of the strength of their actions is Idaho.  If I were a vet in Idaho, I would NOT want to get reported to that vet board, but in other states I would not care.

No, they don't give active suspensions much more than other states, BUT they force the vet to pay all investigative costs if they find against him and those costs are not small.  Also, they actually hold the vet accountable for hte AVMA Principles of Ethics (which NO other state board does that I've read) and cite violations thereof.  Moreover, when there is a he said/she said between the client and the vet, they actually put all that in the public record, rather than just taking the vets version of events as gospel.

I saw a case where they made a vet write a letter of apology to the clients. 

My jaw fell to the floor.

Not quite the "teeth" my actions would have if I were in charge, but way better than ANYTHING I've read coming out of any other vet board.  One group of vets had to pay over $12k in investigative fees. 

Stefani August 20th, 2009 04:00:30 PM

Stefani: That is ONE out of Fifty---49 more to go!

BarbA./NH August 20th, 2009 05:57:05 PM

A letter of apology...now that sounds like it should be a basic to every situation in which a veterinarian is sanctioned in any way. 

On another note: Would any of you here like to contribute to a column I'd like to write for Veterinary Practice News on Board complaints and how we MUST reform the way we treat our own at the state level? 

For starters, I'm looking for hard data on mirror professions' Boards and how they handle complaints relative to the Veterinary Boards. My mother has served as the non-lawyer citizen for the Florida Bar's ethics committee and was appointed to the Board of Architects for a five year stint, so I know (anecdotally, anyway) how tough these organizations can be on ethics violations. But when it comes to a percentage of complaints dismissed, I need some help.

Anybody game? It may be one way to make a difference. I'm especially curious about dentist and physician complaints.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 21st, 2009 07:54:48 AM

I don't have any statistics to contribute, but I think that's a wonderful idea. Hopefully you will get some "takers"! There definitely are different standards for different professions.

Anything that will help deal with those who abuse/neglect animals (including vets and staff) is worthwhile.

OT - in Michigan they just decided to stop licensing and checking on the animals who find their ways to pet stores (it's all about the money dontcha know?). It's just a darn shame that animal protection and welfare isn't more important.

dottie August 21st, 2009 08:32:18 AM

Dr. K, I wish I could jump at the chance (I'd be interested in the comparison myself) but I have data for only vet boards, and even so, incomplete (not for the whole country for a series of years.

I do have several states vet board stats for 2-3 years as well as the public records associated with actions, if someone else has data/information on other boards and would like to do the comparison. So if anyone knows about the medical and dental boards, I can probably give you what I have from the vet boards.

If you want to do a 1-year comparison I have lots of states, many of which provided me with raw complaint stats as well (although content of those complaints is not public in most cases).

I can email a list of the states I have for 2008 upon request.

Stefani August 21st, 2009 01:13:20 PM

Dr, Khuly,

That is an interesting idea for an article. I can only say what the NH pharmacy board does, and that is a pretty good discipline record, or at least you have public access.

But regardless, isn't sort of comparing apples & oranges? Because in dentistry & human medicine there is legal recourse available and the public doesn't or rarely thinks of filing a "complaint". They are more likely to get the yellow pages open and search for a med or personal injury lawyer.

The pet owner opens up the yellow pages & finds next to nothing! That is--if the pet-owner has any $$$ at all, which most don't.

But you are absolutely on point, change needs to come from within. An organization like CAPA - www.forourcompanions.com  can only hope to raise public awareness & hope pressure from the outside will make changes on the inside.

How many people believed me or tried to stifle my free speech about "Pocket", 2 years ago? Lots! Well, not anymore, they know there is no "ulterior" motive (as if someone would be sick enough to think up that level of abuse". But I can say with 100% confidence, that it takes a heck of a lot of willing participants and government corruption to have kept this "scam & evil" going on for probably 2 decades, at least one that I am "sure of".

Why, do you ask? I often wonder that myself. IS there any excuse for inhumane death? My only guess about the "keeping a dying dog alive" probably stems from how rare pet owners are that DO spend substantial money on their pets.

And since NH is a anti-vivisection state, ethical resourcing of bodies is probably a problem, particularly if working within a limited budget.

Still, how can that possibly "excuse" deceit and egregious behavior? They would have been far better off to just honestly approach me for her body post-death or necropsy. But then again, that wouldn't have put $3000 in the kitty OR allow God knows what to be done with her.

I'll never be ok with this, it literally ruined my life, family, and enjoyment. Selfish, ego-ridden, sick & warped "professionals" that all still get to call themselves "Dr." 

If you should want any answers or comments, heck, I haven't shut up yet??!! 

Pocket's Story--lived long enough for the sake of NH pets

Barbara A. Albright/NH August 21st, 2009 08:18:00 PM

PJ, it's true -- predators of humans are just as likely to escape prosecution as those abusing animals. I suppose it is the nature of the (legal) beast.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the breakdown of how the criminal courts operate, and it's a shame. I don't know what the solution is, but I also totally agree with your description of most of today's lawyers. The one who represented the vet who came after me was a disgrace. It's funny, because for a while we had a counterclaim against the vet for malpractice and fraud (it was dismissed due to statute of limitations), but it went on for almost a year. The lawyer in that action was a defense atty hired, of course, by his insurance company. He was a tough lawyer, but fair. I respected him because he did the job he was hired to do, but didn't make my life a living hell just for the fun of it. He spoke with my attys respectfully and they did try to come to some civilized arrangement prior to the dismissal of the case. I always appreciated that he wasn't a psycho and so did my attys.

But the lawyers that the vet hired independently to sue me for defamation were completely out of their ever-loving minds (two women - I used to call them Frick and Frack, among other things lol). Stunt after stunt after stunt, all designed to delay, stall, and of course, keep the meter running on Dr. GotRocks (at least that gave me some consolation). Tactics that bordered, to me, on the inhumane -- downright psychological warfare designed to break me and bankrupt me. And they enjoyed it. They reveled in it. They were like the grownup version of "mean girls" -- just sick, slimy b.s. that bore no resemblance to what I always believed the legal system stood for -- the search for truth. There was no search there (they knew the truth of what the vet had done as well as I did) -- it was just brutal, sick games. They not only tormented me, but also my attorneys -- screaming at them, hanging up on them, mocking them, sniping at them. Totally uncalled for. They were just cheap lowlife trash, you know? It was sickening to watch, especially since they thought they were the greatest things since Clarence Darrow (NOT). My attys are old school -- polite, respectful, by the book -- and would just shake their heads and laugh at those two, but the whole thing made me sick.

It's really a shame what greed has done to us on so many levels.

Julie "Suki's Story" August 22nd, 2009 12:51:16 AM

Dr. Khuly, the Medical Board (human) in Texas has come under fire in the media for their lack of action against MDs. If you would like more information on that let me know (vetvictims at hotmail.com).

Also, Greg can speak to the practice of the optometry and podiatry boards having the policy that complainants in those cases are permitted to see the doctor's response to the complaint. We, on the other hand, are not permitted to see the vet's response to our complaints. That a policy we've been trying desperately to get changed here in Texas, to no avail. A bill that was slated to be passed in this last session was withdrawn at the last minute. Greg contacted the TVMA in an attempt to find out if they were behind the death of the bill, and they admitted they were. Greg is currently awaiting a vital ruling by the AG's office on this very thing.

I personally have little hope that the vet boards will ever treat their own in any way other than the way they are treating them now. First, it's a numbers thing -- there are more vets OFF the board than on. And those numbers can, and do, put pressure on the board members to "do right by" the people they are representing -- the vets.

And the issue of WHO exactly the boards are designed to protect is at the very heart of this issue. My contention has always been that vet boards are neither fish nor fowl -- they give lip service to being protectors of public health and safety -- and there are to be sure some elements of that -- but most of what we have seen is the protection of the vet. Bottom line, when all is said and done, in matters of client vs. vet, the vet is almost always certain to prevail. The statistics bear that out.

Also, the appointees to these boards really tell the tale. Texas has three of its cities in the top ten in the nation -- Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. And where are the board vets from? Tiny, rural towns. The Podunkiest of Podunks. Where are the big city vets? Nowhere to be found. My guess is that in small towns, there's little competition. If your vet is an incompetent crook protecting his/her cronies, you're pretty much stuck with him/her. In a big city, you find out things about your vet, you go to one of the other 500 vets in town. So I think they populate these boards with rural vets who already rule the roost in their little animal kingdoms back home and have nothing to fear from competition.

The appointments are also politically-based, not consumer-based and certainly not animal-based. The "public members" are anything but. They are usually farm or ranch related, often meat inspectors or some such. Last year, two of our public members were lawyers -- hardly the vox populi.  Where is the average pet owner who might actually represent the people and not big business? Not on the board.

The problems with vet boards are endless. The biggest one is that they are usually nothing more than a front for the local VMA to get vet-friendly legislation passed, and stop pet-friendly laws from ever seeing the light of day. All of their other offenses stem from their ability to control which laws get passed and which don't. From there it's an easy skate to protecting as many vets as they need to from any sort of accountability.

Julie "Suki's Story" August 22nd, 2009 01:10:26 AM

I can pretty much echo Julie/TX for the NH Board workings: For the most part, from the rural areas, appointed by Governor, 3 with their own complaints, 2 active while on the Board---who better to dismiss? You dismiss mine & I'll dismiss yours!

Complainant never sees rebuttal or version of the facts, gets a phone interview that basically rehashes what is already in the complaint---can't ask additional questions about rebuttal now, can we?

Complaint is forever sealed. If a 3rd "independent party" was cited for participation, you can not "see" that evidence or verify its accuracy.

Person designated as "investigator" can have personal or professional relationship with the accused without worry of impropriety. It goes on forever. Its meaningless to the citizen.

But as Julie stated, you can bet there was darn quick action to modify state statutes for the perpetrator's sake (although it is NEVER retroactive) , to enable future " abuse, but legally".

A blatant mockery.

Barb A./NH August 22nd, 2009 04:32:16 PM

I'll play.  Stats for physicians here and the dentists aren't free but can be purchased here, ditto for lawyers here.  Couldn't find stats for pharmacists but these guys probably have them.  Who else you want?

PJBoosinger August 23rd, 2009 03:29:44 AM

Barbara, There's a federal databank for doctors but the access is limited to the doctor themselves obtaining the information.  (A smart lawyer would make them sign the consent for during discovery but few know to do it.)  Most professional boards have a requirement that litigation results be reported and the variety of legal sources are getting better at making the reports directly to sources where the boards can pick them up so many of the boards are developing serious penalties for failure to report litigation losses.

PJBoosinger August 23rd, 2009 08:58:31 AM

PJB: who has more fun- you, the blogger or readers with your posts? Gosh darn, I do know about that federal databank, but are veterinarians included?  Our group is going to have to tackle that, because indeed there is a regulatory professional board and after all doctors & drugs & patient/clients are involved.

I think I have a pro ac vice litigation position open, interested? ;)

You're a peach, PJ, thanks

Barb A./NH August 23rd, 2009 05:25:42 PM

Poor Dr. K gets my sympathies.  I know I can be a great big pain in the a**.

Been a while (LONG while) since I checked on the databank but it only included M.D.s back then.  There have been a few attempts to get national databases for all professionals.  It's much too easy for someone to move to another state and get licensed and start practice when they know they're about to get in trouble in their old state.  On the other side of the argument is that each jurisdiction has its own rules and standards so a violation in one state isn't one in another and the database would have to account for that somehow.  In addition, these state boards have LOTS of internal politics that could be incorporated in a national system resulting in someone being punished nationally for standing up to their state agency.

Funny you should mention pro hac vice.  Although it's most often used when some big profile attorney from another jurisdiction is brought in on a case, I've seen it used for law students and retired attorneys to be granted permission to handle cases in the past.  When the non-lawyers saw that students could be admitted pro hac vice, they started filing for them.  Traditionally, a motion to practice pro hac vice is filed with the court handling the case and is a matter between that court and the parties involved.  However, state bar associations have started requiring that an application be filed with them (and a fee paid) and many states have passed rules in accord.  Texas and California are a couple of examples.

Mind you, state bars only have jurisdiction over their members so this is a way to force anyone representing another party into membership with the bar so that the bar can then punish non-lawyers for the unauthorized practice of law.  Alternately, in some jurisdiction, having a license in at least one jurisdiction is a prerequisite to filing the application so it does away with the possibility a client can hire a non-lawyer.  Short answer to your question is I'd have to get my license reinstated and, since I told SBOT to "stuff it", they may not be very cooperative or I need to sue them; either will take some time :)

Lawyer's Full Employment Act is my term for the protectionist provisions lawyers have like the new pro hac vice provisions.  When I say my own former profession needs some serious cleaning up, I'm not kidding.  Accountants who become lawyers just cringe a lot because accountants have serious ethical provisions that make sense while lawyers have ones mostly intended to protect their own.  Is it any wonder they don't generally grasp the concept of unethical behavior?

PJBoosinger August 23rd, 2009 07:05:00 PM

The fact that the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) isn't public really steams me.  The excuse they use is that it includes some data that are not public (e.g., internal hospital disciplinary actions, which are reported but are not considered public data).  I suspect that is merely an excuse.

Yes, for human doctors you can find much of the public data online through the pay sites, (HealthGrades, etc) or else you can search a variety of sources for public records, but the free public records are strewn all over the place, the ones that aggregate them into one easy-to-access records set on the practitioner are, as far as I can tell, pay sites.  Obviously, what the consumer wants is ONE report on the doctor with all suits/settlements/judgements/releasable disciplinary info. 

The kicker is, of course, that WE THE TAXPAYERS are paying for the NPDB.  We paid to establish it, we pay to maintain it, and we aren't allowed to access it for the purpose of checking on our providers.  When there was a push to make it public guess who fought it?  Yawn, the AMA, for one.

I heard that vets were included in this, and there is also the national database maintained by the AAVSB's VIVA but I know that not all states report into it and it doesn't release info to the public.

My own state of Maryland does NOT make publicly disclosable disciplinary actions available on their website.  They are with the back of the caboose on that score, far behind many states. 

Stefani August 23rd, 2009 11:18:19 PM

"includes some data that are not public" Uh, yeah, like it has to be photocopied like the old days instead of just excluding those data fields on line or in printouts.  Yep, excuse is the right word for it!

Well you talked me into going to read their website for the first time in ages.  Yep, more data on physicians and dentists but now expanded to include some data on physicians, dentists, and "other health care providers".  Since they're now tracking DEA violations, it would include anyone with a drug license.

Oh, the absurdity of it all.  Common carriers, warehousemen, and those handling drugs in the "normal course of their business" need not have a drug license.  Therefore, they're never going to be in that database and, of course, that's where so much of the diversion and insertion of counterfeit products happens; during the transit process.

PJBoosinger August 24th, 2009 01:02:03 AM

I noticed the "other health care providers", but heck, while I'm in the spilling guts mood, it was the NH BVM secretary that first told me about the database. I was supposed to feel like justice was served, because a "black mark" went into this data base.

She verbally told me the day of the VOTE, before the VOTE, and my letter of dismissal arrived the next day. I happened to have it for my AG appointment with the 2 (that didn't disclose that they represented the BOARD!!!)and the first thing they did was verify the postmark.

Oh yes, forgot that supposedly the BOARD never got to see my 2 followup letters to my original complaint, but that was "changed" to oh, yes they did by the AAG attorney.

What the heck, I have so much in my research, of corruption evidence, it isn't funny one bit. Well, I guess it "would be", if the subject wasn't so pitifully sad. But that "black mark" sure as heck didn't prevent the #@&*** from getting a license in a neighboring state (without a DEA).

PJ, actually the laws are mostly the same from state to state, it is enforcement and lack of checks & balances that aren't working....including "Federal" agency. There are the ethical and non-ethical. GO GET your license reinstated!

Barb A./NH August 24th, 2009 06:06:40 PM

Laws are becoming more uniform in language and that's a deliberate effort going on nationwide.  That also contributes to the incredible variability in enforcement, much of which comes from the history of older laws that are being replaced; serious lag time involved.  I think it can be counter productive to pass these uniform laws when the lesser non-uniform ones weren't brought up to enforcement levels because then the new ones really won't get enforced and there becomes a tolerance for scofflawism.

Always save those envelopes and staple them to the letters.  Those postmarks can make really nice evidence sometimes.

PJBoosinger August 25th, 2009 11:11:31 AM

cheap UGG Kids

cheap UGG Kids November 9th, 2009 01:56:29 PM

ugg boots sale-Warm ugg boots for all the family remain at the heart of our collection,find your favorite UGGs from stunning designs-ugg boots uk. nike dunks-Strong grips,durable ankle support and very comfort.dunks sb are the most desirable skate shoes.Get your nike sb dunks Now!Free shipping. All kinds of adidas shoes On Sale.We hot sell the latest Adidas Shoes& cheap adidas shoes.The products are first-class quality, adidas shoes sale welcome you to purchase. UGG Boots sale uggs bailey button Classic Tall UGG Boots Classic Short UGG Boots nike dunk high buy bose headphones ghd straighteners ghd ugg boots UK & Classic UGG Boots-To ensure your toes are in heaven,ugg boots made by UGG Australia are your must-have boots.50-70% off.Free shipping. People to enjoy music, a need for a high-quality sound equipment to show the moving melody to enhance the music quality of life,It is the use of bose headphones.Now Bose in ear for sale in hot,Let''s go to buy bose headphones.

ugg boots November 10th, 2009 12:31:44 AM

<a href="Longines'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Longines/">Longines replica</a><a href="Louis'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Louis-Vuitton/">Louis Vuitton replica</a><a href="Maurice'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Maurice-Lacroix/">Maurice Lacroix replica</a><a href="Montblanc'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Montblanc/">Montblanc replica</a><a href="movado'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Movado/">movado replica</a><a href="omega'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Omega/">omega replica</a><a href="oris'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Oris/">oris replica</a><a href="Panerai'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Panerai/">Panerai replica</a><a href="Patek'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Patek-Philippe/">Patek Philippe replica</a><a href="Piaget'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Piaget/">Piaget replica</a><a href="Rado'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Rado/">Rado replica</a>

xdfsdg November 11th, 2009 08:22:32 AM

However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard names discount tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.

tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 03:19:32 AM

Bvlgari watches

Bvlgari watches November 13th, 2009 09:42:37 AM

UGG Classic Cardy

Discount Uggs Boots On Sale

Ugg Classic Tall Boots

Ugg Boots Cheap

Ugg New Styles

ugg boots on link November 13th, 2009 10:38:31 AM

Rolex Day-Date II watch for sale

replica watches

A.Lange &amp; Sohne watch for sale

Audemars Piguet watch for sale

Bell &amp; Ross watch for sale

Breguet watch for sale

Audemars Piguet watch for sale November 13th, 2009 11:11:12 PM

Mohon Dukungan Sahabat Semua Untuk Kontes seo Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa dengan memberikan backlink pada post Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa dan Panti Asuhan

khay November 15th, 2009 03:35:58 PM

replica Tiffany Rings

Tiffany 1837 November 17th, 2009 07:18:35 AM

Bvlgari watch for sale

Cartier watch for sale

chopard watch for sale

Concord watch for sale

croum watch for sale

Burberry watch for sale November 17th, 2009 03:39:44 PM

replica Montblanc

replica movado

replica omega

oris watch for sale

replica Montblanc November 18th, 2009 09:44:54 AM