Case #24-0206, Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 6, 2024) – A complaint was filed against a Louisiana licensee by an out of state resident who had consulted with the licensee via the internet with a “immediate advice” service. Communications were by text messages and concerned whether the complainant’s dog was in need of emergency services after ingesting a large amount of pizza dough. No VCPR was established as there was no physical examination of the patient. The licensee prescribed the use of an over-the-counter medication, then advised of the propriety of the use of an old prescription medication to assist the patient. When the patient’s condition changed, the licensee was not available for follow up consultation, which prompted the complainant to seek emergency care for the patient. She was advised that the patient did indeed have a condition requiring emergency care, that the advice given by the licensee was at best incomplete and at worst erroneous, and that the prescribed medication inhibited the care required at the emergency facility. The investigating board member found probable cause to proceed with a formal hearing based on unethical conduct (treatment/prescribing without a valid VCPR) and malpractice. A consent order was approved whereby the licensee was fined $2000 (four violations, $500 each), required to reimburse the board for the costs of its investigation ($2000) and required to obtain an additional two hours of CE.

Case #24-1130, Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 6, 2024) – A licensee on renewal failed to disclose recent disciplinary action taken against her in another state. The basis for the disciplinary action in the neighboring state was the failure to disclose disciplinary action in a third state. The respondent’s explanation for the failure to disclose these matters to the board was unconvincing and supportive of a finding the falsifications were intentional and designed to avoid scrutiny of the board of the qualifications for renewal of a license. The board had accepted a similar explanation given by the Respondent upon initial licensure in Louisiana without taking action against Respondent. The investigating board member found probable cause to believe the Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct that was deliberate and unethical. Rather than accept the terms of a Consent Order, the Respondent requested that her license be revoked in Louisiana.

Case 21-1006-I, Indefinite License Suspension (Meeting Date – June 6, 2024) – A licensee practicing under a suspended license, with the suspension stayed while successfully participating in an approved drug treatment program, breached the terms of the program and took from a clinic prohibited drugs, diverting them to her own use. The stay of the suspension was lifted upon a showing of surveillance film and verbal testimony. The license is suspended indefinitely, effective June 6, 2024.

Case #24-0725, Consent Order (Meeting Date – April 4, 2024) – A complaint was filed against a licensee after a client presented the patient for testing to determine when a C-Section would be needed to deliver the pups. It was alleged the “normal time” of gestation had not passed. During the examination the licensee determined that the client was in labor and sought authorization for, and obtained, permission for an emergency C-Section. The pups were not viable and the client alleged malpractice. Following the procedure, the patient was presented elsewhere for examination when exhibiting signs of going into labor. A fully developed but dead pup was discovered and the subsequent attending veterinarian noted the pup had died of deformities. The investigating board member determined that the C-Section was necessary and did not constitute behavior below the standard of care but that the failure to discover all pups was malpractice. The licensee agreed to a Consent Order and fine of $1000 and to reimburse the board the costs of investigation. The board approved the consent order with the investigating member being recused from deliberations.

Case #24-1018, Consent Order (Meeting Date – April 4, 2024) – A licensee failed to remove a portion of the patient’s uterus pursuant to a routine spay, requiring subsequent surgical intervention. The investigating board member found conduct below the standard of care. The licensee agreed to, and the board approved, a consent order imposing a $500 fine and the recoupment of costs expended by the board in the investigation of the allegations of the complaint. The investigating board member was recused from deliberations.

Case #24-0912.1, Consent Order (Meeting Date – February 1, 2024) – A Consent Order was presented by the investigating board member for approval arising from a complaint involving the following circumstances: following a routine spay preceded by an examination and determination the patient was healthy and without evidence of any ongoing pathology, the patient, 2 days later, began convulsing and vomiting. The patient was immediately presented to another facility for emergency care running a temperature and exhibiting signs (loss of serosal detail in the abdomen and dramatic decrease in neutrophils) of septic peritonitis. The patient was euthanized shortly after presentation based on a poor prognosis. The client was emotionally distressed and did not authorize a necropsy but the subsequent attending veterinarian performed a “belly tap” and noted a discharge consistent with his diagnosis. The investigating board member determined the most likely cause of the peritonitis was the failure of the Respondent to meet the regulatory standard of care in performing the spay. The Consent Order imposed a fine of $500, required Respondent to reimburse the board for the costs of investigation ($2000) and required Respondent to obtain additional CE of 3 hours in RACE approved study of septic surgical/spay technique. The board approved the terms of the Consent Order unanimously, with the investigating board member recused from deliberations.

Case #23-0501, Consent Order (Meeting Date – October 5, 2023) – The Board approved a consent order emanating from a complaint filed by the client of the licensee. Gist: following surgery (C-section) performed by the licensee the patient presented a month later with symptoms of incontinence with the presence of blood and mucus. The licensee diagnosed the patient was suffering from a urinary tract infection and prescribed anti-biotics. However, the patient’s symptoms persisted for almost one year post-surgery and treatment was provided based on the same diagnosis until the Respondent suspected the patient may have pyometra. A referral was then made to an emergency facility where radiographs were taken. A foreign object (surgical sponge) was found in the patient, who exhibited no signs of any pathology of the uterus. The sponge had migrated to the bladder. It, along with a substantial portion of the bladder, was removed. A spay was necessary. For the failure to remove all surgical sponges and the misdiagnosis made over the course of approximately one year, without adequate diagnostics during that term, the Respondent was fined $1500 and made to reimburse the Board for the costs of the investigation ($500). No action was taken on Respondent’s license.

Case #23-1207, Consent Order (Meeting Date – October 5, 2023) – A complaint was filed by the client of a licensed veterinarian for veterinary malpractice in the treatment of a snake bite sustained by a canine patient. The patient was administered Banamine 1.36 ml, Ketoprofen 1.36 ml for pain; Tripelennamine 1.36 ml; Geneticin 1.36 ml, Excenel .68 ml and Baytril 3.5 ml 100mg/ml in four injections. The patient was also sent home with a ten-day supply of Sulfamethoxazole and Trimethoprim. The patient began vomiting blood the next day and was seen at an emergency facility and diagnosed to have sustained gastrointestinal ulceration caused by acute diarrheal syndrome/hemorrhagic diarrhea v. adverse reaction to medications. The investigating board member determined the medication regimen to be inappropriate and the board approved a consent order. The Respondent was fined $1000 for malpractice, ordered to reimburse the board for the costs of investigation ($1000) and was issued a public reprimand.

21-1006 I, Consent Order (Meeting Date – May 23, 2023) – A licensee practicing under the terms of a Consent Order, which had been modified by the Board during the term of treatment and a maintenance contract with HPFL to ease restrictions, breached the terms of the maintenance contract for the treatment of addiction with HPFL and the eased terms of the current CO with the Board. A hearing was scheduled under the confidential provisions of the Practice Act to determine what sanctions the Board would impose on the license. The licensee offered testimony at the hearing, as did the licensee’s employer at the time of the breach, along with representatives of HPFL. After much discussion and debate and considering the unusual circumstances presented to the Board, the license to practice veterinary medicine was suspended by the Board anew under a five-year consent order, with the suspension stayed as long as the licensee successfully and without exception participated in a peer assistance program administered by HPFL, which includes enhanced drug screening qualitatively and quantitatively, restricted employment and enhanced supervision, the impositions of fines and reimbursement to the Board of investigative costs, and other restrictions.

Case #19-0405, Petition for Consent Order Modification (Meeting Date – February 2, 2023) – A practitioner petitioned the board for modification of a consent order still in effect which required continuous individual therapy to practice veterinary medicine. The licensee was well within a period of compliance with the other terms of the consent order, and the counsellor had given the board a report stating she was moving from the area and the licensee no longer needed the support. Motion was made to accept the licensee’s request at the recommendation of the counsellor and the request granted. All other terms of the consent order continue until its expiration.

Case #19-0405, Petition for Consent Order Modification (Meeting Date – October 6, 2022) – A licensee who is practicing under the terms of a Consent Order petitioned the Board to be relieved of the obligation of having to work under the supervision of a Board approved veterinarian after having faithfully complied with the other terms of the Consent Order, including successfully passing random drug screening for a number of years and after successfully obtaining a revoked DEA registration and license with the Board of Pharmacy. After hearing testimony as to the exigent circumstances involved and noting the to-date full compliance with all restrictions and terms of the Consent Order and full and complete participation in the Board’s peer assistance program for impaired veterinarians, the Board fully discussed the merits and demerits of the request. The request was granted and will be memorialized by an amended Consent Order.

Case #22-0411, Consent Order (Meeting Date – October 6, 2022) –  A Consent Order was agreed upon by and between a licensee and the investigating Board member concerning the merits of a complaint filed. The gist of the complaint was that the licensee extracted 11 canine teeth from a patient whose owner did not give explicit consent, nor was consent given via the mandatory written Anesthesia Consent Form contents authorizing the veterinarian, who had client authority only to administer teeth cleaning/scaling, to provide those services the veterinarian in her judgment thought necessary during the procedure. The extractions were by a technician. The owners had not authorized the administration of pain medication because they expected routine cleaning to be done only, resulting in potential unnecessary potential patient pain. The failure to use the mandatory form resulted in a violation, as did the utilization of a RVT to extract teeth (dental operation). The Board was called upon to approve the Consent Order, fining the veterinarian $250, ordering restitution of the costs of investigation ($1250) and ordering the licensee to complete additional CE on record keeping through a course approved by the investigating Board member.

Case #18-1220, Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 2, 2022) –  A licensee against whom a complaint was filed for alleged criminal conduct entered nolo contendere pleas in a state district court to charges of aggravated cruelty to an animal, illegal discharge of a firearm near a school, illegal possession of a legend drug and illegal possession of a schedule drug (IV). A consent order was approved by the Board requiring the payment of a fine, partial reimbursement for the costs of the investigation into the allegations of the complaint, additional CE of 5 hours in the field of veterinary ethics, and board approved community service of 25 hours.

Case #21-1006 I, Petition for Reinstatement of Licensing (Meeting Date – December 2, 2021) – A licensee, formerly practicing under a Consent Order limiting the scope of practice and access to controlled substances accepted a referral for monitoring to the HPFL. After complying with the recommended outpatient counseling regimen and passing all drug screening protocols as required by the HPFL, and accepting an ongoing monitoring agreement, petitioned the Board for reinstatement of licensing – which had been suspended due to a breach of the consent order. The Board heard the petition, reviewed the evidence which established the ability of the licensee to safely and competently practice veterinary medicine and allowed relicensing, subject to ongoing compliance with the monitoring agreement suggested by HPFL.

Case #19-0405 I, Petition to Modify Consent Order (Meeting Date – October 14, 2021) – Petitioner practicing veterinary medicine under a consent order requested a modification to allow application for DEA and Board of Pharmacy Registrations, and to amend supervisory aspects of the original consent order. After review of the petition for modification, the Board granted the proposed modifications.

Case #21-0311, Consent Order (Meeting Date – October 14, 2021) –  A proposed Consent Order was presented to the Board for consideration in which respondent was assessed a total fine of $5,750 and required to complete an additional ten hours of continuing education. Following the presentation, the Board approved the proposal.

Case #21-0512, Consent Order (Meeting Date – August 5, 2021) – A consent order was approved by the Board which imposed sanctions on a licensee who failed to confirm the sex of a feline thought to be presented for a spay by its owner. Following the unnecessary incision for a spay, the feline’s sex was determined to be that of a male and a neuter effected. There was a dispute concerning the owner’s representation to the licensee’s staff as to the sex of the patient. Nevertheless, the investigating/charging Board member determined the failure to independently ascertain the sex of the patient before undergoing a surgical procedure was conduct below the standard of care. The licensee was fined $250 and ordered to reimburse the Board $300 for the costs of investigation. 

Case #21-1006 I, Violation of Consent Order (Meeting Date – August 5, 2021) – A hearing was held on a complaint filed by the Board against a licensee allowed to practice veterinary medicine under a prior consent order restricting the practice of veterinary medicine under circumstances where the licensee admitted impairment and agreeing to drug/alcohol testing, counseling and veterinary supervision, and the abstention from the constructive or actual possession of a controlled substance without a lawful prescription. The licensee failed to abide by the terms of the prior Consent Order. The license of the Respondent was suspended by the Board for 6 months. The licensee was referred to the HPFL for an evaluation and submission to treatment recommendations and allowed to petition the Board for a limited reinstatement in six months provided there be total compliance with the recommendations by the HPFL and a certification of the ability to practice competently and safely. 

Case #20-0221, Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 3, 2021) – The licensee failed to supply a client with medical records or a synopsis thereof when a written request was made by the duly authorized agent of the client. A Consent Order imposing a fine of $250, plus a reimbursement of the costs of investigation of $750 and a public reprimand was approved by the Board. 

Case #20-1210 D, Violation of Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 3, 2021) – The licensee plead guilty in state court to state law violations concerning the improper record keeping and improper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances. A Consent Order imposing a $2,000 disciplinary fine, a reimbursement of $200 for investigative costs and an additional five continuing education hours on topics specific to record-keeping and prescribing and dispensing controlled substances was approved by the Board.

Case #21-1006 I, Violation of Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 3, 2021) – A complaint was initiated by the Board against a veterinarian practicing under the terms of a Consent Order due to an impairment issue. The Board received notice of the breach of the terms of the consent order by the licensee, who acknowledged the breach and waived the formalities of a hearing. Respondent was referred to HPFL for assessment and treatment for the substance(s) of abuse. The Respondent’s license to practice veterinary medicine was suspended. Respondent is allowed to petition the Board for limited reinstatement in 6 months, provided there is compliance with the treatment and testing protocol to be recommended by HPFLA.

Case #21-0831, Consent Order (Meeting Date – April 1, 2021) – Failure to meet the acceptable standards of veterinary medicine, more particularly: 1) Malpractice in the care of the patient 2) Misleading statements concerning the scope of care that would be afforded the patient after hours and on weekends. For violation of RS 37:1526.A(14), and Rules, Title 46, Part LXXXV, Sections 1001 et seq., more particularly Section 705(B), 705(D), 705(F) and 705(K), 1065 and the AVMA Code of Ethics principle II.B; Also, LRS 37:1526.A and Rules, Title 46, Part LXXXV, Sections 106 and 1401 et seq, a Consent Order whereby Respondent pays a $1,000 fine, a reimbursement of investigative costs of $2,500, and receives a formal reprimand for said violations.

Case #17-0916 I, Petition for Amendment to Consent Order (Meeting Date – February 4, 2021) – The licensee, having filed a petition for modification of a Consent Order, appeared at the hearing, with legal counsel. Board Legal Counsel submitted evidence and argument supporting the petition and allowing credit for out of state employment to run against the term of the Consent Order. Board Legal Counsel presented the terms of the Consent Order and history of compliance. After deliberation, the Board granted the licensee’s petition, leaving intact all other provisions.

Case #21-1104, Consent Order (Meeting Date – February 4, 2021) – Failure to comply with state and federal laws regarding the maintenance, dispensing, storage and record keeping pertaining to controlled substances and prescription drugs having been sentenced to one misdemeanor violation. For violation of Section 1526 (A) (14) of the Practice Act, Section 705 of the Board Rules and Principle II B of the AVMA’s Principles of Ethics, a Consent Order whereby Respondent pays a $1000 fine and reimbursement of investigative costs of $500. 

Case #21-1006, Consent Order (Meeting Date – December 10, 2020) –  Board Legal Counsel presented the facts of the case, submitted exhibits for review, and a Consent Order for consideration by the Board. Upon conclusion of the presentation and questions, the Board approved the consent order.

More disciplinary action from 2019 and previous years is being verified and will be made available as soon as possible. Please continue to check back frequently as more disciplinary actions are added to this page.