Disciplinary Actions in 2024
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 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.