Disciplinary Actions in 2025

Case 25-1205. Consent Order (Meeting Date – April 3, 2025)

A consent order was approved by the board under the following circumstances. A complaint of malpractice was filed by the handler of an equine, a barrel racer still performing at the time of presentation. The client asked that the licensee inject both front fetlocks to enhance performance. The veterinarian did so without further recommendations. An area of swelling in one fetlock appeared the next day, and the area grew the following day. The licensee injected the area with a steroid and advised the client swelling was to be expected and recommended compression wrapping. Fluid from the affected area was not collected. On the third day following the original injection, the area of swelling continued to expand. The client was advised, through the associate veterinarian who conducted the examination and related the results to the out of town attending, that the swelling was caused by the method of compression wrapping. Previcox and cold hosing was recommended. The patient’s condition continued to deteriorate and 5 days following the initial injection was barely ambulatory and the area of swelling further expanded. The client requested the licensee call to discuss the circumstances as he was still out of town, but no call was returned. The next day the client consulted two other veterinarians. Both recommended emergent care for a suspected infection. The patient was euthanized due to poor prognosis approximately 2 weeks later. The investigating board member found the licensee committed malpractice and did not act within the standard of care. A $500 fine was assessed, administrative costs of $1,750 were imposed. It was determined the licensee should have acted sooner to determine the cause of the swelling by taking fluid samples to determine whether the site had become infected with a CBC to establish an early baseline upon which to determine escalating forms of needed treatment, especially considering the high rate of mortality associated with such incidents. The board approved the terms of the consent order.

Case 25-1211. Consent Order (Meeting Date – April 3, 2025)

– A licensee also licensed in another state, the area of his practice, upon two renewals declared that he was not under investigation for disciplinary action in any other state. Subsequent investigation indicated otherwise – the state where his practice was conducted had investigated multiple complaints and suspended the licensee from practice, with significant fines being imposed for a series of adverse administrative findings. When the board discovered these false representations were made upon renewal applications, it asked the licensee for an explanation, which was that he thought the investigations were over when he made the positive statement he knew of no out of state investigations on his renewal applications. Upon investigation it was determined that the licensee could not have reasonably thought the out of state investigation was over as the out of state board had within a few days prior to the false declaration requested a defense to the complaint be submitted. The second misrepresentation was found to be excusable as plausibly true – the licensee had agreed to the terms of the out of state consent order at the time of Louisiana renewal, but the out of state investigation had not then formally concluded. The licensee agreed to a Consent Order based on a finding of using fraud to obtain a license. He was fined $500 for one violation, assessed the cost of investigation ($1,000), ordered to obtain 6 additional hours of CE in a board approved program(s) on the subject matter of veterinary medical ethics and professionalism and consented to unannounced inspections of his Louisiana based facility and records for a period of five years. The board approved the Consent Order.

Case 24-0416. Consent Order (Meeting Date – August 5, 2025)

– A complaint was filed against a veterinarian alleging the patient was seen by a lay person employee of the veterinarian who had established the VCPR under circumstances where the lay assistant made the physical examination of the patient, recommended diagnostics, made a diagnosis and administered an injection at a time when the veterinarian was not on premises. Conflicting evidence was presented during the investigation phase as to whether the veterinarian was on premises and the lay assistant was simply voicing the instructions of the veterinarian, who had examined the patient records and was informed of the patient’s vitals and the clients’ declining diagnostics, and whether a diagnosis was in fact made. Conflicting evidence was also presented as to the whereabouts of the licensee at the time the patient was seen. A consent order was agreed to and a reprimand issued due to findings that the attending veterinarian should physically examined the patient irrespective of the declining of diagnostics by the owners. The Consent Order was approved by the Board, with the investigating member recused from deliberations, whereby the licensee was fined $1,000, required to reimburse the board for the costs of its investigation ($1,500) and required to obtain an additional two hours of CE.

Case 25-0617. Consent Order (Meeting Date – October 2, 2025)

– A complaint was filed against a licensee following surgery on the patient, which began exhibiting symptoms eventually found to be the result of surgical gauze being inadvertently left in the patient, as analyse by histopathology. Simple surgical negligence was found and the Board approved the proposed Consent Order, with the investigating member recused from deliberations, whereby the licensee was given a formal reprimand, ordered to reimburse the Board the costs of its investigation in the amount of $1,500 and to obtain an additional six hours of RACE-approved continuing education in the field of surgical technique.

Case 25-0327. Consent Order (Meeting Date – December 5, 2025)

A proposed Consent Order came before the Board for approval. The allegations of the complaint were that the patient, a boxer approximately 5 years and 8 months old, had been presented for Apoquel refill care but with the compliant of the patient losing weight. The initial presenting weight was 61.2 lbs. The patient had been routinely seen by the licensee over several years and had been prescribed Apoquel in high doses for an extended period of time. The licensee attributed the weight loss due to the extreme temperatures of the summer. Approximately 3 months later the patient was returned for the removal of a cyst and had lost an additional 4.2 lbs. The licensee attributed the weight loss as a pattern for the breed. Approximately 6 weeks later the patient was presented for examination and possible removal of a second cyst—having lost an additional 2 lbs. Surgery was scheduled a few days later (with an additional weight loss of 3 lbs), underwent surgery, was admitted and then discharged. At home the patient’s breathing became labored, she was inappetent, and developed diarrhea and a cough. The patient was returned to care with a diagnosis of an upper respiratory infection with instructions to observe and return with worsening symptoms, which did occur. The allegations were that the licensee offered no diagnostic bloodwork during this period and insisted the patient was fine but was, as others of the breed, “prone to things”. Two weeks later the client presented the patient elsewhere for emergency care. Diagnostics revealed nodules all over the patient’s lungs. Five days later the patient was euthanized. Several allegations of malpractice were found to be insupportable applying the standard of care. However, the licensee was found to have committed malpractice in the failure to recommend blood work despite long term and high dosage of Apoquel (4 ½ years) and in keeping inadequate medical records in that many entries were illegible, and no surgical notes were entered into the record. The Board approved disciplinary measures of $500 per violation ($1,000 total), reimbursement of the costs of investigation ($1500) an additional 2 hours of CE and a formal reprimand.