Disciplinary Actions in 2026

Case 26-1218. Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 4, 2026)

A complaint was filed against a non-veterinarian who had graduated from a school of veterinary medicine but had not passed the national examination. The graduate was engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, seeing patients unsupervised by the employing veterinarian and diagnosing illnesses and issuing prescriptions. At times the Respondent was the only veterinarian (a “lay person”) under Board Rules on the premises, seeing walk in patients, making diagnoses, performing consultations and prescribing medication, all while unlicensed. The Respondent allowed her name to be listed on the roster of licensed veterinarians. A Consent Order (compromise with a lay person in a manner approved by the entire board) was effected. The Respondent was fined $2,500 and reimbursed the Board investigative expenses of $250, having admitted to the violations without hesitation on notice of the filing of the complaint.

Case 26-1118. Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 4, 2026)

The board pursued its own complaint against a CAET upon reasonable belief the CAET had been performing euthanasia at the shelter of employment with an expired certificate. The CAET admitted the violation but contended it was unintentional as she believed the renewal would be done by the shelter and that follow up reminders by the Board were general emails sent to all the practice. It was determined that the certificate of approval expired on September 30, 2025 and was not renewed until November 18, 2025. Records indicated the Respondent conducted the euthanasia of 16 animals during this period. The CAET was fined $250 in this non-confidential Consent Order.

Case 26-1024.1. Consent Order (Meeting Date – June 4, 2026)

A complaint was filed against a veterinarian who mistakenly transposed the dosages of an antibiotic and Lasix to a patient, resulting in a significant overdose of Lasix. The mistake came at the end of a long night shift and was immediately realized, reported to the practice owner and to the client. The patient died a few days later from CHF, not the insult to the patient’s kidneys. All subsequent expenses for patient care, including the expense of a second opinion, through euthanasia due to pleural effusion and the inability of the patient to tolerate diuretics were paid by the practice owner, the employer of the licensee. A consent order was approved by the Board and the licensee was fined $500 and formally reprimanded. 

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. 

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.