|NOTICE: This is a PUBLIC SERVICE website designed to inform you of violations of the Veterinary Practice Act proven and alleged, by David Faulkner DVM |
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners ~ ~ Texas State Bar, Animal Law Division
|...a victim of alleged VETERINARY NEGLIGENCE and PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ...|
visit other web pages ~ just click the paw prints
Texas Vet Board / A Closer Look
Music is: "Travels"
Investigation of The Board
In my belief when a person has to go to great lengths to seek medical knowledge to protect his treasured animal from the very professional who is suppose to be skilled in the care of animals and drugs, it is frightening.
Then if the person is not skilled enough and death or harm is the results of their Veterinarian. They try to protect others by filing a complaint with The State Board of Veterinarian Medical Examiners only to be met by a strong force protecting the Veterinarians livelihood, as they refer to it.
However you find no protection of the Public, which you are a member of, defined in the Compact with the State of Texas, the board is suppose to uphold.
Once again you are expected to not only be a medical professional, but also a legal expert, who knows every rule and law written. Also to know every policy and rule interpretation of this board, to defend yourself from their tactics to destroy any evidence of your complaint. The total incident from start to finish is hidden from view of anyone in the future who may be seeking information on a particular practicing Veterinarian , according to their records he is as pure as the driven snow. Because they will always find a way to no fault and dismiss. Along with your complaint there are many others, all hidden, in what is called confidentiality of the Board. But rest assured the Veterinarians livelihood is protected.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to this Board that perhaps the Vet should have never been in practice in the first place and could have chosen a different field. In America, many lose their job each day, laborer and professional alike, in many fields, they find a different position they are more qualified for. It s not a life and death situation, however the loss of your animal is permanent. The destruction of your life and your guilt are permanent.
I wonder what it would take to have an expert from the governors office explain to the Board, exactly their obligation in up holding the Compact of The State of Texas, and to actually get them to work with and protect, The Public.
On June 14th I attended the scheduled Board Meeting and was finally allowed to speak, for exactly three minutes. In my estimation this three minutes cost me two almost three hundred dollars a minute. Now you have to be very serious in your efforts to go to this extreme. Also a long journey, Texas really is big. One of the reasons I feel my case was dismissed, to far away to consider.
Was I alone, no, several others considered, public problem, were there to speak concerning their cases and dissatisfaction with the system. However, we were being blocked and out maneuvered from speaking. Had not one very forceful deep voice spoke up after jumping to the floor before them in Pitt Bull fashion, (pardon the expression, Greg we would have all been ignored by the members of this pretend Public Protection Board, though we all had signed in and were on record.
Now this would tend to give one the impression that " Public is not a good title" with this State Office. We will all remember, when we attend the next one. We are not going away peacefully, we will see reform of this institution from it s current activities and practices. However long this may take, and we will observe thereafter, until Texas is no longer. This is our Compact with the animals who have lost their lives with no justice or respect given to them. Their lives had meaning to us, and should have to the nation they were a part of, especially The State of Texas.
Betty Garrity for Bo Bo Bear
We, the (public, as we are classified by the board, a ploy to keep from treating a complaintant as the plaintiff), cannot defend what we cannot see in our cases presented. See the Texas Boards protection law below, all state boards use this similair method, a disgrace and abuse of power.
My Statement to the Board - 6/14/2007
Before The Board:
I am Betty Garrity, from Amarillo Texas, a long journey. I filed complaint # 06297, Intentional destruction of an assistance animal by his vet, for my assistance animal Bo Bo Bear, the file large, not knowing another nightmare was before me.
In my case presented, I feel violated and abused, not protected, I wasn't even consulted. After talking to many other complainants about their cases, their feelings are mutual.
I call the attention of the Board to rule 801.205.(4), "the Board must ensure that the person who filed the complaint has the opportunity to explain the allegations. According to rule 575.27(c)(7) the investigator shall interview the complainant. The complainant never has this option, it is bypassed.
A complainant is blocked from viewing the investigative file, those records are non-accessible to the public. We are never allowed to defend our case, documents and evidence withheld from our viewing, yet we are expected to be our own attorney and present a full case of wrongdoing by the Vet to the Board, an impossible task.
Accused vets are allowed to see filings and documents presented by us, as a matter of your policies. We should receive the same consideration. Is the response and investigative report hidden from us because we might shed light & truth on these issues?
We have been told this confidentiality provision is in place to protect the accused vets livelihood. The complainant most likely has already lost a life very dear to them, other's lives changed forever. Does life have no value ? Is not your first priority supposed to be to protect the public?
Four attorneys are now members or employees of the Board. Is it for your own protection? Exactly who is protecting the public?
We are expected to file our own legal action beyond the Board in the legal system, an expense not available to the majority. This does us little good because the process has already defended the Vet, if we have filed a complaint. Bad Vets will go to any lengths and can spend any amount to hide their crimes, while hiding behind a Board that uses their greatest weapon. Secrecy.
We are left holding a hand dealt from a stacked deck in the game called Seeking Justice. We strongly object to the favoritism shown to an accused vet, we ask for equal rights, to defend our cases.
Where there is smoke there is fire is an old saying. We don’t file complaints for sport, we have serious issues if we go to the lengths necessary to file. I know from my experience that it is very difficult to get this far along in the process.
Our requests are few, equal rights and the same opportunities that the accused Vet has, we are not asking for more. We are The Public you are supposed to protect under the laws of Texas, they say nothing about protecting the Vet's.
We ask the Board, to look into these matters with honesty, respect and responsibility. This is your duty. Must we go to other methods for results?
To ignore us accomplishes nothing, we will always be present before you, we are The Public.
Thank you for your attention.
Board and Veterinarian Protection Law:
This extremely old law / attorney general's opinion of 1990 needs to be clarified to protect the public interest and their animals, the AG's office opinion is not clear. As it stands now, it protects the Board and shields the vet's wrong doing. It actually hides all records of a case. We, the (public, as we are classified by the board) a ploy to keep from treating a complaintant as the plaintiff, cannot defend what we cannot see in our cases presented. This even stops a plaintiff's attorney from viewing the investigative file or any record (if you can afford an attorney). Thus, the reason for its purpose is to protect the veterinarian.....and the Board, in their protection of the veterinarian. Their most powerful tool? Secrecy.
Attorney General of Texas ~ ~ rules in favor of complainant concerning records ~ if the complaintannt has the knowledge they may request this favor during the process of their complaint. Rest assured the board process will not mention this.
Open Records Decision # 683 ~ issued by Greg Abbott, Nov. 24th, 2009 ~ Read Opinion Here
With extensive research, personal experience, and review of other complainant's cases, it is my conclusion that The Texas Veterinarian Medical Board, slipped this old law in to effect years ago after discovering it to be a great protection tool for accused Vets. It provides total protection of any evidence or paperwork being seen by the complainant in any manner after they file their case.
The average complainant is not highly skilled in law or in veterinarian medical knowledge. Nor are they aware of this protection law of Secrecy that will be used at every opportunity by The Board, to prevent the complainant from seeing any and all paperwork concerning their own case. The complainant has trusted this office to do what they were designed to do and held accountable for by ;
The Compact of Texas under the supervision of the office of The Governor of The State of Texas, to protect the public.
May I state that from my own experience it is a total shock to discover, you the complainant becomes the enemy upon filing. You will be attacked, ridiculed, guarded, ignored, and basically treated like an idiot that has wondered in unattended. You are certainly never consulted on any issue of your case. The Compact of Texas might as well have been stuck in the paper shredder before becoming law. It is totally ignored. They are there to protect the livelihood of one of their peers, not the public, nor the lives of animals in the State of Texas. They are simply an extension of the TVMA, and will remain so until the public steps forward and demands and obtains reform. Many others I have spoken with have the same opinion.
The first steps to obtaining this reform is to change this law, and there after, request that the Office of The Governor, appoint public members to the positions of authority, not the Vets nor the Attorneys that now sit there, like vultures guarding the prey, which is usually your beloved animal that put you before them in the first place. A great majority of these animals end up dead at the hand of their Vet. Very few complainants find any recourse of their case once submitted, if they had any action of the Board it is usually a mere slap on the wrist to the offender. That offender probably has many previous complaints, you will never know about, or a discipline record that has been sugar coated for the public view.
Now they wish to change one of their own rules, to erase certain viewable discipline actions after a certain amount of time, they are constantly at work to protect and shield the Veterinarian's from past as well as present activities. This is equivalent to an inmate being released after a certain amount of time with all records abolished, no matter what the crime, robbery, child sex offender, murder, etc. there will be no record for the public to see.
As long as Vets sit in power on the Board, rules will be implemented, twisted and turned for the Vet's benefit at every opportunity it will not cease.
We, the Public must step forward and change this if we are to ever obtain the rights issued under The Compact of Texas to protect public interest and our animals. We must take a step forward; to help Texas become a state who stand's up for its animal's and the public who care about them. Others in the nation are, however Texas noted by the world for its animal's looks the other way to animal abuse. Yes, I agree, it is difficult to believe actions committed by some members of this supposed honorable profession, even more difficult to believe that a State Board would protect these actions, but the facts are evident.
It has come to my attention that the director of TBVME has issued an instruction letter to Board members. In effect it states, concerning public members who have been appearing before them with request for reasons of their action, and total disregard of their own rules, to in effect, ignore these persons, they will go away. My statement here is....according to their own rules; the Board hires the Director, not vise versa. Who's in command here? The Public, whom this State Office is sworn to protect, will not be recognized. Excuse me; this same State office has requested a large amount of additional public tax money recently to expand their operation. The Public should at least be recognized before them, even if they do not like what we are saying, and it interferes with their goals.
If you have had an issue with the Board or a medical complaint concerning your vet please use the contact page provided. I would like to hear of your experience.
Betty Garrity 8~25~07
The board has absolutely NOTHING to do with the dismissal of a complaint. Keep that in mind as you read this. The board's involvement is only if a complaint goes through due process to a consent order and/or a hearing, which is a legal proceeding. The public is being deceived into thinking that a dismissal means that the board evaluated a complaint and came to a consensus, but if you read this carefully, you'll see how they do it.
801.103 PERSONNEL. The board may employ personnel to administer this chapter.
That would be the director of enforcement, investigators, assistants, etc. Again, not being one of the nine members, they are not the Board, at least not by their own definition, above.
801.104 DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES. The board shall develop and implement policies that clearly separate the policymaking responsibilities of the board and the management responsibilities of the executive director and the staff of the board.
Hmm...So now we apparently have TWO boards the policy (actual) board made up of vets/attorneys pretend public members and the employees of that board who manage. But still no judges, and no duties that involve judicial review, decisions, or anything involving legal proceedings.
801.159 BOARD DUTIES REGARDING COMPLAINTS. (a) The board by this rule shall:
(1) adopt a form to standardize information relating to complaints filed with the board; and
(2) prescribe information to be provided to a person when the person files a complaint with the board.
(b) The board shall provide reasonable assistance to a person who wishes to file a complaint with the board.
Which board? The policymaking Board defined as six vets/three public members, or the managers employed by them? I never got any reasonable assistance from the policy Board. I did get minor help from the employee board, a mailed application,what I usually refer to as the board agency, which nobody understands because it would never occur to anyone the massive word games they play with the word board. They can call it whatever they want to confuse people, but the official description is above nine vets, three publics. THAT IS THE BOARD.
They give a little clarification here, buried though it is:
801.105 QUALIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT INFORMATION. The board shall provide as often as necessary to its members and employees information regarding their etc. etc.
Okay, so now we know there are the board MEMBERS, and board EMPLOYEES. Are they ALL considered to be the board? Still "NO" - not according to the definition that the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners consists of nine members etc., above.
So who is in the informal conference? Not the board. ONE BOARD MEMBER, as defined by their own definition. Only one. No second vet, no public member. NO OTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD. Everybody else (exec dir, enforcement dir, investigator, attorney employed by the AG office and part time by the board) falls under the category of employees of the board the managers who do not have policymaking capabilities, much less judicial ones. Also, they are not vets.
SUBCHAPTER E. PUBLIC ACCESS AND INFORMATION; COMPLAINT PROCEDURES.
801.203. COMPLAINTS REQUIRING MEDICAL EXPERTISE. (a) A complaint that requires medical expertise to review must be reviewed by two or more veterinarian board members. The board members shall determine whether to dismiss the complaint or refer it to an informal proceeding under Section 801.408. [This is the first step of those intermediate steps, mentioned at the top. When a complaint first comes in, the reviewing vet(s) look at it, supposedly independently but who knows, they can certainly communicate with each other and the vet, and no one would know, and then decide whether to dismiss or go to informal conference. Certainly no litigation at this first step. No attorney or other member involved]
SUBCHAPTER I. LICENSE DENIAL AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES.
801.401. DISCIPLINARY POWERS OF BOARD. (a) If an applicant or license holder is subject to denial of a license or to disciplinary action under Section 801.402, the board may:
1) refuse to examine an applicant or to issue or renew a license
2) revoke or suspend a license
3) place on probation a license holder or person, etc.
4) reprimand a license holder, or
5) impose an administrative penalty
(b) the board may take action under subsection (a) after notice and hearing under Section 801.407 or as provided by board rule
We are now back to the policy board NOT the enforcement committee (employees of the board), which are the people present in the informal conference. This bears repeating -- the enforcement committee is NOT THE BOARD. The reviewing vet or vets ARE NOT THE BOARD. Also, the committee actually has no power in and of itself (thats what Hartline told me) they can only make recommendations, and ONLY if given permission by the reviewing vet. (The way Hartline stated it: We are not doctors, we have to abide by the wishes of the board vet. So the committee may be fully aware that violations took place, but they can do nothing if not given the green light by the sole Decider vet (now two vets, but two vets are STILL not the board). It stops at informal conference level if the vet says so even if the rest of the group thought there was a violation. That is how unimportant they all are they can not even go over Decider Guys head because they are not doctors.
So what looks like a committee who hears the case (and worse, they actually call it the Board in conversation) is nothing more than window dressing with the meaningless name of enforcement committee,� in an informal meeting conducted by people who are not even the real board only the employees of the board who have absolutely no power to enforce anything.
Again, hardly a legal proceeding. And certainly not resolving “disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate .
In one special case before them, there was nothing proper about it, and certainly no litigation of any kind. The Director himself said at the beginning of that conference This is not a legal proceeding. He said you will notice there is no stenographer, no recording devices (the complainant noticed, and was not happy) then the complainant was asked if they had any recording devices on them of any kind . . .Gee, might the truth get out someway . . . ?
At the February meeting, new director Dewey Helmcamp clarified the definition of the informal proceeding: An informal conference is NOT A HEARING. He was adamant about this, and I am glad he brought it up because it is on the record. By contrast, the board hearings are the equivalent of a trial according to Hartline, with an administrative law judge, open to the public, court reporter, witnesses, sworn testimony, the whole deal. Although, technically, it is a done deal by the time it gets to that point.
Here is their VLA statute on this:
801.408 INFORMAL PROCEEDINGS. (a) The board by rule shall adopt procedures governing:
(1) informal disposition of a contested case under Section 2001.056, Government Code; and
(2) an informal proceeding held in compliance with Section 2001.054, Government Code.
…some other here…
c) A committee of two or more veterinarian board members and one or more public board members must be present at an informal proceeding for a complaint that requires medical expertise. The committee shall recommend enforcement action at the informal proceeding. [Not really…they can recommend it all they want, but only the reviewing vets -- can give permission to go forward. And here we are still in the informal proceeding stage the board has not yet entered the picture. This is also the first mention of the committee, I think. BUT THE IMPORTANT PART IS THAT WE ARE STILL NOT DEALING WITH THE BOARD.]
some other here
(f) Before an informal disposition is effective, the board must review and approve at a public meeting an informal disposition of the complaint recommended by board members or board staff.
NOW we see the board come in, but not in any decision making process, much less a judicial one. This review is a joke. I saw it at the February meeting. The staff simply lists how many complaints were dismissed no names, no details -- the board rubber-stamps it, and that is the end of that. There is no discussion by the board members (the vets, according to definition of members nobody jumped up and said, hey, I would like to see the details of that dismissal, let me see the original complaint, lets discuss this, where is the investigative file, what happened here, or anything of the sort. The board washes their hands of the dismissals. They simply accept the decision of the Decider vets or board staff if it did not even get to informal conference, and the dismissed complaints sink like a rock into oblivion nameless, faceless, detail-less rocks. And how can anything labeled an “informal disposition” be called a judicial proceeding.
So the Board has absolutely NO involvement in the dismissal of a complaint -- other than the one Decider vet -- despite lying vets who have dismissed complaints to the contrary.
Do you see how they do it? A complaint that is purported to be "dismissed" by the Board is actually not -- it is dismissed at a level -- either by the staff, the Decider vets, or quite possibly the attorneys, that does not involve the board (by THEIR definition).
Here is where it gets really interesting:
SUBCHAPTER J. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
801.451. IMPOSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY etc.
801.452 AMOUNT OF PENALTY etc.
801.453 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (a) On a determination by a committee described by Section 801.408 (c) or (d) … the committee may issue a report to the board stating: [Here we learn that the committee is NOT the board, because they are issuing a report to the board]
(1) the facts on which the determination is based; and
(2) the committees recommendation on the imposition of an administrative penalty, including a recommendation on the amount of the penalty. [the committee has no power to enforce only recommend to the board for enforcement "IF " the Decider vet says so. Only at that point does the enforcement committee actually become an enforcement committee, but not sooner.]
(b) Not later than the 14th day, etc. etc.
c) The notice given under this section must:
(1) include a notice of each alleged violation;
(2) state the amount of any recommended penalty; and
(3) inform the person of the persons right to a hearing on the occurrence of the violation, the amount of the penalty, or both.
801.455. HEARING ON COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS (a) if the person requests a hearing or fails to respond timely to the notice, the executive director shall set a hearing and give notice of the hearing to the person.
(b) A hearing set by the executive director under Subsection (a) shall be held by an administrative law judge of the State Office of Administrative hearings.
c) The administrative law judge shall:
(1) make findings of fact and conclusions of law; and
(2) promptly issue to the board a proposal for a decision as to the occurrence of the violation and the amount of any proposed administrative penalty.
NOW it goes to a hearing, the first real possible legal proceeding in this whole mess, unless you count agreeing to a consent order a legal proceeding. That is the only way to avoid a hearing the committee (i.e., the "committee" is really only the Decider vet, since the others have already admitted they have no power to do anything) recommends to the board at the public meeting that such and such complaint was found to result in violations. It is only at that time that the actual vet board (not the employee board) rubberstamps it, along with the many dismissals, which receive no such discussion or review by the actual board at any time. Greg Munson found this out when he attended the board meeting back in October, expecting to hear a discussion of the dismissed complaints. It didn't happen. It never happens.
Back to the process...at this point, the vet can take his medicine and agree to a plea-bargained consent order that usually bears no resemblance to the original allegations by the time his atty/ins company gets hold of it, or he can fight it and take a chance at a hearing, where he will almost certainly lose (Hartline says they only take cases they are guaranteed to win, because of the done deal aspect of the process that is why so many are plea bargained down to nothingness.) If the vet fights it, it has to go to hearing BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION CAN BE ENFORCED. Either the vet agrees to a consent order, or off to trial� he goes. So not even the Board/Enforcement Committee has any real power to discipline a vet if the vet does not agree to be disciplined. The vet and his attorney must "accept" the disciplinary action, and we know they fight this every step of the way.
801.456 DECISION BY BOARD (a) Based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and proposal for a decision under Section 801.455 (c), the board by order may determine that:
(1) a violation has occurred and impose an administrative penalty; or
(2) a violation did not occur [this is misleading their determination that a violation did not occur does not apply to the informal conference stage; the other side might use this section to prove� that a decision was reached by the board to dismiss the complaint. Not true - this only applies if its reached this point in the process based on findings of fact, conclusions of laws and for whatever reason even though it has gotten this far, the vet manages to weasel his way out of it. According to Hartline, this basically never happens (i.e., done deal).
(3) (b) The notice of the boards order given to the person under Chapter 2001, Government Code, must include a statement of the persons right to judicial review of the order.
801.457 OPTIONS FOLLOWING DECISION: PAY OR APPEAL (a) not later than the 30th day etc…the person shall:
(1) pay the administrative penalty
(2) pay the penalty and file a petition for judicial review contesting the facts of the violation, the amount of the penalty, or both; or
(3) without paying the penalty, file a petition for judicial review contesting the fact of the violation, the amount of the penalty, or both.
Elaboration of findings:
So if you can make sense of all this b.s., basically what is going on is whatever they say is going on -- the board, or policymaking board, or managing board, or employees, or members, or whatever the they choose to call themselves at any given moment because who on earth is going to slog through this swamp. This is one of the reasons the PUBLIC has no clue as to what is really happening up there its so confusing and the board likes it that way. I am thinking of getting an artist friend to draw a diagram of this whole mess because I think it is the only way anyone is going to really understand it, and even then it is going to look like some deranged cartoon.
But the bottom line is that the other side will try to confuse the DISMISSAL of a complaint with a HEARING of a complaint where a vet is already found in violation of statutes, as if the dismissal process is the same as the disciplinary process. It is not. They are not equal because they take place at two entirely different points in the process (one legal, one not), and that is just one of the ways the deck is stacked against complainants. It would be great if we DID go through to a board hearing where the actual board could see and hear actual evidence and then decide as a group.
Dismissals once were controlled by ONE vet, which allows the majority of the complaints to be tossed, especially the most severe violations where the vet is completely shielded at a level where everything is secret; the remaining few disciplinary actions involve the whole board, the Attorney Generals office, and eventually the administrative law judge in a real legal proceeding. But even now, with the Sunset changes, the two reviewing vets DO NOT constitute the board, as defined in their own VLA. If they are going to say a complaint was dismissed by the board, then the ENTIRE BOARD SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. They are not.
Everything else is bull. The two (now) reviewing vet's are not a judge. They did not issue a ruling. Nothing was litigated. There was no adequate opportunity to litigate because litigation is not even an issue in the informal conference. Dismissed complaints -- whether dismissed by form letter or at the informal conference level -- are tossed out the window without any benefit of a legal proceeding, and it is all done behind closed doors, unlike an actual hearing where it is public. The Vet will talk about being fully exonerated � by the board, Also honored by the Judicial Systems as true, making civil suits impossible to win ! he was no such thing. The enforcement committee was not only NOT acting in a legal capacity; it does not even have the authority to do so. I mentioned before that the language of the dismissal letter was changed to make it clearer that two reviewing vets dismissed the complaint; the dismissal letter says there was a board investigation. There was no such thing. That is why they changed it; because they knew they were misleading the public also the Legal Systems and letting vets continue their lies of being exonerated�. And they knew web sites were up. They would not have changed it otherwise. But it's not enough - the process itself needs to be changed so that these dismissals do not disappear without benefit of ACTUAL BOARD REVIEW.
Other states do not have this informal conference nonsense in Maryland, Stefani was able to appear before the board with her lawyer - the vet the same. They each got 15 minutes to present their case. The board (the real one) got Katz. In NC, Nancy got to present their case, and on top of that, at the public board meetings, they actually DISCUSS the dismissed complaints including the names of the vets, because there too, everything is public record. The NC Board got Monce. In South Carolina, Marcia was able to beat back a proposed informal conference� statute that was being considered because she knew what I had been through with this farce. She went after it to make sure it would never pass, because it is nothing more than a secret pre-screening process to protect the worst offenders and allow them to later claim they were cleared by nonexistent board. Other State's at least have a clue.
So now do you see how they do it? The dismissed complaints vanish without benefit of a true board hearing or even consideration by the board, and then they are misrepresented to the public as a judicial proceeding (not) decided on by the board (not). Mathews once told me that the entire board couldn’t be expected to evaluate a case because they don't have time and they don't get paid. My answer? Then they shouldn't be on the board.
The system has to change. And not just little cosmetic changes. It has to be an OPEN process from beginning to end. The public complainant has a right to defend their case. If other states can do it, so can we. Is The Texas Board a State Public protection agency or not, as it stands now, they are not. It is clearly a Vet Protection Agency, controlled by Vets.
Appointment of Board Needed
Boards need to be composed of mostly Public members to balance the injustice of protecting only the livelihood of a brother in the system. If this is a Public Protection Agency, let The Public sit on the Board in balance, and also in the high positions. With no affiliation to money gain in animal business of any type. But familiar with animals, as pets or animal protection.
The few stories on the right side of this page should convince you that Boards need to be made up mostly of Public Members, with only retired Vets reviewing medical, to actually protect the Public. Attorneys or Vets should be part of the Board's staff, but not in control. Otherwise it is simply an extention of the TVMA, and has little if any benifit to the public.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
" THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS STRANGER THAN FICTION"
Ogidoda galvladi hehi ~ Galvquodiyu gesesdi detsadovi.
Stop Animal Cruilty
in all forms.
They cannot fight for themselves
against such odds !
Approximately 85% to 90%
of all veterinary complaints filed with
State Boards are
as no violation found.
Many times there is overwhelming evidence supporting the negligence allegations, yet the State Boards
These Boards, that are charged with protecting the public, spend much
more time protecting guilty
Research Discovery Fact
This isn't the first time that a complaint has been filed with the State Board against David Faulkner, DVM.
for the State's Disciplinary Records
Bo Bo Bear
"I couldn't tell Mom what they were doing to me, I only speak Lhasa Apso. I tried to be brave but the pain was horrible.
They knew how much they were hurting me and didn't care.
This Vet & his Staff are Monsters"
Somewhere over the Rainbow
My Baby waits for me
Thank You For Visiting
Bo Bo Bear's
click for information
Visit other Vet Victims:
I've got to find a good Vet
How do you read
this National Directory?
Read Jack Wolfson's
address to The Board
Strong supporter of
" Intrinsic Value "
the best answer to their safety
I'm staying up here.
No more vet visits for me.
I've already had 20 shots too many!
My immune system is shot now.
I'm protected from nothing
I might catch.
"BOTTOM LINE: Stempy had a perfectly manageable condition
and he would NOT have died if
he had received competent and
conscientious veterinary care.
Ann Thomas, DVM
Stempy paid the
Rajah was diagnosed as having bladder stones in the same vet visit she was given a vaccination.
The operation to remove the stones was cancelled, but not before she was prepped and given anesthisa. Dr. Dorn handed her to me with an explanation that did not relay the seriousness of what was happening to my baby.
An already sick dog given an vaccination was a death sentence. The damage was done and the fight to keep her alive ended . . .I submitted all my information researched and records I retrieved to the state board.
It took 2 years for them to not hold
Dr. Dorn responsible.
My life was forever changed. I miss her.
Of you only God cares more than I.
ROMI, whose horrific, needless & untimely death on 4/25/04 occurred following the inappropriate and casual prescribing/dispensing of Pfizer's drug RIMADYL by her trusted veterinarian.
"As a Senior Citizen, Romi was my sole friend and companion dog ... my partner died a horrific and cruel death - she was KILLED due to the greed of the drug industry and the lack of ethics in the veterinarian community!"
Click on Usdi's Story to learn about the use of Steriods
Steroids are not safe in any dosage.
They only mask a problem that usually can be treated with safer drugs or therapy.. yet Vet's will pump them into your beloved pet in vast quanities, usually without permission !
Or even your knowledge.
What Steven Ginsberg DVM
did to Lucy.
Reported by a Vet Tech
A DOCTOR UNABLE TO CONTROL HIS TEMPER
Was he on his own drugs?
* * * * * *
Many Vet's are abusers of their own drug cabinet !
And why not they are not monitored on them, nor must they write a precription !
If your don't buy their inflated priced drugs, your animal doesn't get his medication !
How many veterinarians does it take to kill a Labrador retriever?
"Luke, a black Labrador retriever died. He was only seven years old. Luke was a victim of the bad veterinarians whose job it was to cure him. Instead, Luke was tortured and killed.
I call it murder."
" (CLINIC NAME TEMPORARILY REMOVED FOR LEGAL PURPOSES)
(NAME TEMPORARILY REMOVED FOR LEGAL PURPOSES)"
This is usually what you see on web sites
of greiving people who have created them to present the truth. As normal proceedure the Vet will file a law suit against the person. . .
automatic dismissal by The Board, who doesn't want to get envolved in legal matters. Great tactic on the part of the Vets to get out of a disciplinary action of The Board!
Way to go Vet Boards protect that Vet's livelihood !
Forget your real purpose of protecting animals and The Public ! You only have one problem.
The Creator of All, Watches All !
Explain it to him ( :
READ ABOUT ALEX & GUS
"THERE IS A HOLE IN YOUR LIFE
UNTIL THE TRUTH IS FOUND.
THE HOLE IN YOUR HEART
The NCVMB also issued a Letter of Reprimand and $3000 fine to Kevin Monce about his part in Alex's care and the conditions under which he rendered it.
On rare occasions, an attorney will take your case against The Vet, but be prepared with
"the big money" !
Each state veterinary board is responsible for licensing veterinarians and regulating the practice of veterinary medicine for the State.
Some states might even act on your proven complaint.
Texas however doesn't seem to be one of them.
Dover Veterinarian Referral Hospital
(past pres. NHVMA)
Pocket's final injection was administered by Cathy Gajewski, DVM
(board member NHVMA)
Many abuser Vets sit on State Boards
Resting Now In Our Creator's Heavenly Arms are all the above victims of the Earth God called Greed !
|NOTICE: This is a PUBLIC SERVICE website designed to inform you of violations of the Veterinary Practice Act both proven and alleged, by David Faulkner, DVM ~|
The Texas Veterinary Medical Examiners Board. ~ And The Texas State Bar, Animal Law Division
|Copyright © 2006 ~ 2017 by Betty Garrity. For Bo Bo Bear. All rights reserved.|
Legal notice: The bobo-bear.org website, along with Betty Garrity, makes no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or fitness for a particular use of the information on this website. This information is ADVISORY ONLY and the user / website visitor assumes all liability and waives any and all claims or causes of action against this website, its hosts, designers, webmaster, and/or Betty Garrity for all uses of, and any reliance on, this information. The bobo-bear.org website, along with Betty Garrity, specifically disclaims any and all liability for any claims or damages that may result from providing the website or the information it contains, including any websites maintained by third parties and linked to and/or from the bobo-bear.org website. Links provided to other websites from the bobo-bear.org website is not an endorsement of the third party website or its content. This paragraph shall accompany all distributions of this information and is incorporated into this information for all purposes.