|
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 |
|
Assistance Animal April 5 ~ 1998
June 1 ~ 2005 |
 |
In Loving Memory of Bo Bo Bear |
| ...a victim of alleged VETERINARY NEGLIGENCE and PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ... |
                visit other web pages ~ just click the paw prints |
|
Text of Complaint mailed to the
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
Music is: "The Gambler" |
 June 17, 2006
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners 333 Guadalupe Street Suite #3-810 Austin, Texas 78701 Re: David Faulkner, DVM License# 5248 Dear Board Members, Enclosed please find a formal complaint, attachments, files and evidence concerning David Faulkner D.V.M and the Hope Veterinary Clinic, Amarillo Texas, owned by him. It is my belief that this will prove negligent care with professional misconduct in the care of my K-9 entrusted to his care as a veterinarian. A supposed ethical professional, under oath, to provide medical care to animals, under laws and guidelines of this profession. Controlled and supervised by the office of "The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners ", who issue this license and are bound by law to protect the public concerning these matters. My animal was a rare black and white Lhasa Apsos (K-9), a certified issued assistance animal, protected under many laws, state and federal. The Tibetan Lhasa Apsos is considered a sacred animal of Tibet. He was highly trained, extremely intelligent, chosen for the keen hearing abilities of this breed. His name is ?Bo Bo Bear? and this is the reference to him within the framework of this complaint. Bo Bo Bear?s destruction resulted directly from the care of David Faulkner and his methods of treatment while in his supposed protection as a professional Doctor of Veterinary medicine. Bo Bo suffered a very cruel unnecessary death due to this; a nightmare that will continue for me throughout my lifetime. I would ask the Board to also look at the complete previous records of David Faulkner, disciplinary action and of other complaints filed, for a pattern of the same violations over the years he has been in practice, licensed by the Board. I have found this personally, through Board records, also other sources, I assure you it is very obvious his intent to do whatever he wishes, whenever and however he wishes, without thought of rules of the profession is evident. To him, the Board is very far away, and he depends on the fact that most people have no idea how to file a complaint, or even that they can. It is my belief that had his license been revoked years ago, many animals, mine included would have benefitted greatly, some even alive today. Bo Bo Bear was of great importance in my life, not just a pet. He had an assignment, also an important job, he took very seriously. He is not replaceable in any manner. He was loved deeply, and considered one of the family. He was not JUST A DOG . Please look into this matter deeply, with honesty, respect, and responsibility entrusted to you by your elected appointed position and office. Respectfully Submitted For: Bo Bo Bear Betty Garrity   My Hand The Board's Hand
(five ace's, one hidden, called secrecy) Do foxes guard the hen house ?
(footnote: cards and additional info. added after dismissal) To see list of violations go to VIOLATIONS page ~ ~ 2016 UPDATE: To verify
the record in defense of untruthful statements issued by Hope Clinic on Yelp
reviews & elsewhere. This case never had a direct Board Ruling in their
favor for Faulkner, the case was dismissed in the administrative process as 95%
of all ?Vet Protection? cases are, the Board never saw it in any form. . Read
Board Exposed page. Not one comma has been removed from the original web
creations. Threats to my person/life continues. Update - May 2007 The Board continues to thumb it's nose at the citizens of Texas. It's an absolute OUTRAGE that this continues to happen, leaving untold numbers of animals in this state in danger by failing to act on valid complaints. The following letter was sent to Betty Garrity from Stefani Olsen of The Toonces Project (yet another Vet victim from the state of Maryland) in the wake of the Texas Vet Board's dismissal of Bo Bo Bear's complaint. The letter is reprinted here with permission from Stefani Olsen. This editorial really speaks VOLUMES about the problems facing complainants seeking JUSTICE for the harm done to their beloved pets by negligent vets. Thank you for sharing this, Stefani!
* * ________________* * * * *_________________ * *
Betty,
I am so disheartened. I guess there was a part of me that hoped that now, as they know people are watching, they might have acted on your case. I think it is a big "F-U" to the citizen activists who are pushing for change ~ and you are one of them ~ rather than a verdict on your particular case. I am beginning to believe it is mostly discretionary, psychological , and strategic ~ ~ the complainants they take action for are the ones they feel they are stepping in on behalf of ~and there are three conditions that must exist in order for them to feel like doing that.
1) The complainant must not say much more than the facts, must not editorialize or advocate strongly on his or her own behalf, and must present the case in a mealy mouthed pleading, passive, helpless fashion, play "dumb," demonstrating little assertiveness or sophistication. If the complainant argues his or her own case forcefully, passionately, then the boards immediately feel they are defending (in advance) their own actions [or lack thereof] against the complainant rather than acting on behalf of the complainant, and immediately go into defense mode, where they begin to look for justifications to do nothing at all.
2) The complainant must not demonstrate in advance that he or she has any formed opinions about the board or the likelihood of justice (esp. not negative ones, but neither high expectations nor true advance knowledge of their history of non-action) 3) The licensee must not be powerful, have connections, or have a good lawyer, or be a member of a politically powerful group in the state. Only if all of those conditions are met is there any chance of action at all. Even then, if the sun rises at 6:43 am instead of 6:46, they might just yawn and dismiss. Of course what gets lost in all this is the TRUTH and objective enforcement of standards. Their decisions have nothing to do with the truth. They do what they feel like doing, and then rationalize it, because only they have access to the basis of their decisions, so they can tell anyone anything they want and no one has the information to call them on it. There is no proportionality to what they do, no rhyme or reason. This is true in my state (Maryland) as well. I was shocked this week to get disciplinary records that showed that they issued two fines of around $2,000 last year, yet Katz was fined only $250. Where is the proportionality? The facts don't support it. The nonsensical actions of the Texas board and failure to fairly enforce is well demonstrated by Greg's table "Alleged vs. Past" infractions and actions. The lid has got to be blown off the process, because they flip the bird to people like us. Like it or not, we are going to have to build political connections to begin to neutralize some of those THREE conditions. And put the unfairness of their actions out there for everyone to see. The vets are only a problem because the boards are a problem. If the boards were taking consistent and fair action on the merits, the vets would cease to be the problem that they are. It's the boards that allow them to malpractice our pets. In your case, I'm betting that the vet's insurance company lawyers told the board that the vet was suing you for defamation, and used very strong and threatening language with the board (not that they would really have to) that any decision the board took on your case would be challenged by them, because they are not going to let a decision stand when it would help your defense. When the board is so clearly not invested enough in their own mission, why would they want the trouble? That threat alone would be enough to make them dismiss. The board probably will dismiss any case against a vet who has already sued for defamation, not wanting their own decision to be raised by the defense. They are little motivated to take action in all but the most egregious cases anyway, and they certainly wouldn't want their actions to cause their colleague's chances of winning a "suit to silence" to fail. They also don't want the challenge of an appeal, and if they know in advance any action will be appealed (and in your case, this would be an easy guess) they probably don't want the fight. Why would they? What's a dead dog among friends when the public perception of the "club" is at stake? This I believe will become a TACTIC. Any vet who can get a defamation suit launched BEFORE the outcome of a complaint against a board is announced will have an EXTRA bargaining chip for their lawyer to use with the board, appealing NOT ONLY that any action the board takes will help the "libeling" defendant, but also WEAKEN THE GROWING profession-wide movement of vets to silence public disclosure of negative opinions about them and their services. The entire profession has a vested interest in the vets winning these defamation suits. I don't think we can assume their decision had anything to do with the merits of your case, and I think that most of the time, the decisions do not have anything to do with the merits of the case. If the board feels sympathy for the vet, that is enough for them to begin finding justifications to let the whole thing go. Rationalizations exist that are unimpeachable. A bloody glove and DNA all over the place may be evidence, but it's not proof unless the verdict says it is. The difference between evidence and proof is in the eye of the beholder, and pretty much, any decision can be justified, especially in a closed door process. Yes, that even includes DNA, videotaped confessions, and eyewitness testimony. If it can be challenged (and anything can be challenged) and the decision makers WANT to find a reason to dismiss, they will. I am not sure what the answer is, I am still too "hot" myself to really take the long road which is the one that probably holds the only hope. The long road being, hitting the state capitol, nurturing the kinds of political connections we will need to make a difference. I am pretty much still at the stage where I am most interested in screaming from the rooftops about the injustice that is going on, and the skullduggery of the veterinary mafia. Their days of operating in smug self-righteous secrecy, however, are numbered. Hugs to you. Stefani. Texas 2005 ~ 2007 cases
disciplinary actions by Texas
 My Contact & Experience with the State Bar of Texas The following shows how the State Bar of Texas Animal Law Division reacts to pleas for assistance in legal protection or animal issues:
During my search for help in the issues of Bo's intentional death & destruction and knowing there were laws of protection for assistance animals, I contacted the State Bar of Texas Animal Law Division, who state they will refer you to quilified legal help that can advise and also help you find legal councel. However my experience found quite the opposite of this advertisement. The following is a copy of my terrible experience with this office, who have never answered a call nor an e-mail since the episode. I guess they use the same system as the State Vet Board of " ignore them and they will go away " !
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
----- Original Message ----- From: <chair@animallawsection.org> To: <sxxxx@amaonline.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:39 PM Subject: Re: Animal Law Shannon, (note they don't really read the e-mail, I signed my name) I'm sorry that I'm not aware of your concern. If you have a minute I'd appreciate some insight and perhaps resolution. Kathy Humphreys-Brown Chairman ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (she encluded part of orginal e-mail to her, she is new in her office at this time) . http://bobo-bear.org My story of the experience with The State Bar Animal Law division will appear on this web site in the future. Betty Garrity
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
My Answer:
----- Original Message -----
From: <sxxxx@amaonline.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: REQUEST OF KATHY HUMPHREYS-BROWN Animal Law CONFIDENTIAL CONTACT
(answer to your e-mail, attached) Kathy, I am Betty Garrity, I used my daughters computer, her name is Shannon. My apology for the confusion. I will try to give you a brief glimpse of my experience.
While seeking information on legal assistance or conference with any attorney who does animal law an "impossible task". I contacted The State Bar of Texas Animal Law Division, a Ms. Amy Bures Danna answered my e-mail, (printed records available) after several of these back and forth e-mail's she requested I contact her by phone with a number, I was excited at the prospect of "finally" perhaps finding some answers to my questions. However when I called her, she immediately verbally attacked me. She was never given any information on the case other than "intentional destruction of an assistance animal by his Vet" ......... she preceded to tell me, among many other things, that I was just a grieving stupid old woman, mental idiot so to speak, I would be a royal pain in the - ass - to any attorney, constantly harassing him, he wouldn't make any money......etc. etc.. I was totally appalled, in tears, and shock at this reaction from a so called professional office, the pain I was going through she highly intensified. I had done nothing to warrant this attack. I give her credit, she did this by baiting me into a phone call, there is no record of her attack on me, except, your incoming phone records to # 713-210-4386 and my own outgoing phone records.....this was a day or two after September 7th 2005 according to my reply to her short e-mail........ " subject: call me please ..." I now belong to an animal group who's intent it is to change how animal's are treated in the State of Texas ........ especially by Vet's who apparently have a licenses not only to legally intentional kill, but to distribute drug's to anyone and any manner they chose. They do not have to use a prescription, may keep drugs of any kind on the shelf, distribute them all when and however they chose, animal or not, the aim huge amounts of money. In other words what appears as legal drug traffic. Protected by The State Board of Vet Medical Examiners. Who apparently has no other government monitor, also overlooked by the governors office, and are a supreme final total word on these issues......Recent Board notes, intensify this practice, (will forward to you). At this time my intentions are still the same, there is no resolution as far as I am concerned, my experience will be published via Internet. Ms. Amy Burres Danna should have used a gun, which I got the impression she would have liked to, as her rage spilled forth at me. I am sure most in The State Bar are not aware of her methods, perhaps they should be looked into intently. I would appreciate the referral to The State Vet Medical Board be confidential at this time, though a true statement, in the process of intense review. If you wish to look at some of the responses of State Offices in reference to these matter's, simply also pull up The Vet Abuse Network or Stempy Munson on your web site. You will find much information there. Bo's web site is still in a holding pattern, waiting for the Board decision, there are many other cases behind his web site coming forward in time. They are not viewable at this time..... Sincerely, Betty Garrity ( footnote: my advice is, don't inquire with the State Bar in seeking legal referrals)
Don't let them get away with it!
Texas Law's
Animal Law' Comes Into Its Own
 Ogidoda galvladi hehi ~ Galvquodiyu gesesdi detsadovi.
 |
To see list of violations go to VIOLATIONS page ~ Research Findings Approximately 85% to 90%
of all veterinary complaints filed with State Boards are
DISMISSED
as no violation found.
Many times there is overwhelming evidence supporting the negligence allegations, yet the State Boards dismiss anyway.
These Boards, that are charged with protecting the public, spend much more time protecting guilty veterinarians instead.
 Join the Blue Ribbon Online
Free Speech Campaign! ____________________
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.
Report Abuse
Through Their Eyes
this encludes Vet's ! _____________ Other Links:
Report Abuse
Through Their Eyes
this includes Vet's !
Visit other Vet Victims:
"We've Got Feelings too!"
the website is http://www.wevegotfeelingstoo.com .
 Native American Indian Traditional Code of Ethicsnacodeethics
"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal." Proverbs 12:10  |
|
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 ~ Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners ~ ~ 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. |