Disciplinary Actions in 2026
A public record request can be done by completing the online request form.
What is a Consent Order?
An order involving a type of disciplinary action may be made to the board by the investigating board member with the consent of the person. To be accepted, a consent order requires formal consent of a majority of the quorum of the board. Such quorum does not include the investigating board member. It is not the result of the board’s deliberation; it is the board’s acceptance of an agreement reached between the board and the person. A proposed consent order may be rejected by the board in which event a formal hearing will occur. The consent order, if accepted by the board, is issued by the board to carry out the parties’ agreement. (Rule §1411 of the LA Veterinary Practice Act)
Case 26-0926. Consent Order (Meeting Date – February 5, 2026)
The Board received a complaint against a licensed veterinarian alleging surgical malpractice. Following an investigation, it was determined there was probable cause to initiate formal disciplinary hearings. The allegations were that the licensee, in attempting to remove a patients descended and non-descended testicle instead removed the patient’s prostate gland, cutting the patient’s urethra, and leaving the non-descending testicle. The patient required revision surgery by a specialist and a permanent tube to effect urination and periodic replacement. The clients now have to drain the tube 3-4 times per day and take steps to avoid infection in the area. By Consent Order, the Board (sans the investigating member) approved the following terms: a) A fine of $1000 for failing to meet the acceptable standards of care; b) Reimbursement of the costs of proceedings and investigation to the Board: $1750; and, c) An additional 9 ½ hours of Continuing Education in RACE approved courses specifically chosen by the investigating member.
Case 26-1120. Consent Order (Meeting Date – April 2, 2026)
A complaint was filed against a veterinarian for practicing veterinary medicine with an expired, but renewable, license, which is forbidden by Rule and the provisions of the Louisiana Veterinary Practice Act. There were, however, mitigating circumstances. The licensee had been employed by a veterinary practice for several years, which generally handled the renewal of the licenses annually. The Respondent had obtained all required CE well before the due date. Shortly before the expiration of her license, Respondent’s employment with the practice was terminated. She was not notified that her license had not been renewed by her former employer. She began working relief for another practice several weeks after her license had expired. Notwithstanding that another person cannot appropriately answer the personal questions required in the renewal application, the investigating board member accepted Respondent’s statement that her late renewal was inadvertent and that she thought the reminders of the need of renewal sent by the Board prior to the expiration of her license were general mailings to all licensees. A Consent Order requiring the licensee to pay a fine of $500 was approved by the Board.