LAWSUITS
Regarding state's
medical expert's opinion on Rooks' negligence in the
Rusty
Patrice
case.
Click
here
to view
Attorney General v. All-Care Scheduled court date April 28, 2003, 9 a.m.
Case No.: AV 2000 27
FIRST AMENDED
ACCUSATION
October 25, 2002
(Added text appears in bold
emphasis)
BLUESTONE WINS $39,000.00
Anderson
v.
All-Care
All-Care v.
Ballard
Berry
Brooks
v.
All-Care
All-Care v.
Cutter
All-Care v.
Deaver
Eskridge
v.
All-Care
All-Care v.
Fannan
Fuller
v.
All-Care
All-Care v.
Greve
Hall
v.
All-Care
Hayslett
v.
All-Care
Higgins
v.
All-Care
All Care v.
Higgins
All-Care v.
Higgins
Higgins
Kraft
v.
All-Care
All-Care v.
Lopez
Menkes
v.
All-Care
Miller
v.
All-Care
Oropallo
vs. All-Care
Patrice
v.
All-Care
Payne
v.
All-Care
Tabbytite
vs. All-Care
All Care v.
Wikert
Grant and Sarkissoff and Veterinary Referral Service and Trauma Center Inc.
ALL-CARE IN THE PRESS
Good Dogs, Bad Medicine
May 21, 2001
O.C. Animal Clinic Charged
State says Fountain Valley center falsified records and misrepresented many
employees' qualifications.
Sept. 7, 2001
Orange County Register
ISU
alum, veterinarian successfully moves case to Calif.
Supreme Court
By William Dillon
Daily Staff Writer
October 16, 2003
Noted veterinarian gets probation, fine
He is said to have hired unlicensed aides
and misrepresented workers' expertise.
By
STACI HUPP
August 30, 2003
Vet penalized for allowing aides to
anesthetize pets
A state board has fined Dr. Robert L. Rooks
$5,000. The group says he let unregistered techs do medical work.
Monday, June 2, 2003
By: LARRY WELBORN
SOURCE:
The Orange County Register
Vet Med alumnus charged with
practice violations
By William Dillon
Vet rightly
faces loss of his license
April 27, 2003
By:
Maite Kropp
Animal Hospital Faces Charges
"
The
California Veterinary Medical Board has filed additional charges
of negligence and deceit against All Care Animal Referral Center
in Fountain Valley."
Jan. 4, 2003
The
OC Register
Pet clinic
complaint amended
Report:
Officials allege facility's use of unlicensed personnel extends
beyond time previously noted.
Jan. 7, 2003
Renowned O.C. Animal Hospital Prosecuted Courts: State says one vet was a
phony, two were
asked to inflate credentials and files were falsified.
Orange County
September 7, 2001
Complaints
about pet care trigger a 'cat fight'
August 9, 2000
Suit says vets did not keep pace - Animals: Bakersfield couple came all
the way to O.C. for pacemaker
July 5, 2000
Long-term
All-Care probe frustrates pet owners
June 27, 2001
Fountain Valley Animal Hospital Under Scrutiny
May 4, 2001
Suspicions and doubts
June 10, 2001
If
you suspect Veterinary Malpractice
24-hour Veterinary Hospitals in Southern California
What other states are doing about veterinary
abuse
Veterinarian suspended for one year
Secret system hides concerns on S.C. veterinary care
Three men plead guilty to animal abuse in beating calf
Animal Rights Law
Reporter
Washington State Veterinary Board of
Governors
Court Rulings could
up ante on DVM malpractice
Owners or guardians?
LINKS
If
you suspect Veterinary Malpractice
Animal Rights Legal Foundation
American Animal Hospital
Association
American Veterinary
Medical Law Association
Abuse
of Animals by Veterinarian
Toasty's vet
malpractice guide
Alleged
vet malpractice following shooting
Moon's story
Other items in the
News
& Shelter/Rescue
Info
Underfed
dogs removed from unlicensed kennel
Hundreds
of dogs seized from illegal kennel
To adopt one of the
rescued dogs, call Baldwin Park Animal Shelter at
Are
veterinarians running too free?
FAQ
How to find a pet lawyer
CONTACT
Judgment in favor of Anderson
Judgment in favor of Ballard
Ballard refused to pay for what she said was
"unauthorized" aggressive surgery on her cat Squad Car, resulting in his
suffering and death. "All Care" sued her and lost.
Berry v. Robert L.
Rooks and All Care Animal Referral Center; Judgment
pending; case will be heard January 8, 2003.
Case pending. Transferred to a higher court.
Judgment in favor of Cutter
Judgment in favor of Deaver
The Deavers refused to pay for what they claimed was
incompetent care by Rachel Gilligan and "All Care". They claimed that "All
Cares" I C U was run by incompetents. "All Care" sued them and "All Care" lost.
Judgment in favor of Eskridge
Sued "All Care Animal Referral Center", Robert Rooks,
Craig Bergstrom, Frank Borostyankoi for giving them the impression that
Bergstrom was a Board Certified Neurologist, causing improper treatment
resulting in their dogs death. Eskridge won.
Judgment in favor of Fannan. Case dismissed.
Was unlicensed to do the procedures she was doing at "All
Care", and she was trained by "All Care", to do them improperly (as were the
others trained with her) She performed them for 2 months. When she discovered
that she was doing them incorrectly. She asked "All Care" to inform their
clients and refund the money. "All Care" told her it would be impossible to
track down all the animals that had been mistreated.
Pending
Judgment in favor of Greve
Read the Pleading
All-Care
settled out of court; Amount "CONFIDENTIAL"
Veteranarian who formerly worked at "All Care". Sued for Fraud,
Unjust Enrichment based on Fraud etc. etc. Claimed that Rooks and Bergstrom
would hand off cases to her after they failed to render proper and professional
followup care. That Rooks falsely accused her of killing animals. That Rooks
diverted assets and accounts receivables and converted them to his own personal
use without any accountability. Treated his own personal expenses as if they
were the expenses of the business entities i.e. dry cleaning bills, grocery
bills, housekeeper charges, personal clothing items, home furnishings,
acquisition of antiques and house payments on various homes. Claimed abuse of
the corporate privelege would sanction fraud by sheltering Rooks as an
individual.
Judgment for the Plaintiff (Hayslett) in the amount of
$3,607.92 plus costs
of $48.00. Plaintiff (Hayslett) does not owe All-Care any
money on
their claim. OTHER: Claim of defendant (All-Care) DENIED.
The Haysletts were told by "All Care" on October 23, 1999
that they had a Cardiologist to perform Pacemaker Surgery on their 3 year old
dog Alex the following day. All Care sent their van all the way to Bakersfield
to pick up Alex. Time is of the essence in this procedure. The Haysletts
claimed that they then discovered that All Care had no Cardiologist to do the
surgery, nor did they have proper equipment. All Care did an unauthorized liver
Biopsy and other procedures that made him weaker. All Care took Alex off his
heart medicine. They stalled the Haysletts and according to them kept running
up the bill. Finally the Haysletts called U.C. Davis and were referred to a
well known Cardiologist who has done hundreds of pacemakers, only 20 minutes
away from All Care. In fact when the Haysletts called this Cardiologist they
discovered he had told All Care to transport Alex to him in their van and he
would do the surgery immediately. All Care did not do this. They held on to
Alex claiming they were waiting for "the best" Robert Rooks to return and do
the surgery in a week. Pacemaker surgery should be done by a Cardioloigist,
unless there is no other possibility. In the L.A area thats not an issue. Alex
died 7 days after being admitted to "All Care" on the day the Haysletts were
going to drive down and take him to the Cardiologist. They sued because they
claimed that All Care fraudently accepted Alex's case, when they had no
business doing so, and in fact should have sent Alex to the proper Board
Certified Cardiologist. They claimed Alex died due to "All Cares" Fraud and
Negligence. The Haysletts won.
Judgment in favor of Higgins
;
December 4, 2001;
Defendant Rooks, Robert L. & All-Care Animal Referral Center shall pay
plaintiff Higgins, Andrew $500.00 plus costs of $80.00.
Filed Jan. 11, 2002;
Complaint
for (1) Breach of Oral Contract (2) Fraud
Case Dismissed
Filed Aug. 30, 2002
Case Dismissed
Complaint of
Malicious Prosecution
Filed Oct. 2, 2002;
Higgins
v
. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP, Aaron Malo, Animal Critical Care
Center, Inc. dba All-Care Animal Referral Center, Robert
L. Rooks;
Pending
Pending
Defendant
DOES NOT OWE
plaintiff any money on plaintiff's claim.
OTHER: On court's motion, case is
dismissed without prejudice
All-Care paid off out of court.
Sued for Negligence, Emotional Distress and Fraud.
Claiming that "All Care" intentionally, unlawfully, maliciously,wantonly and
recklessly undertook a spinal tap on their dog Henry D. Pugg without their
consent and in direct contravention of the Menkes directions not to perform the
spinal tap. the Menkes states that as a direct result of the spinal tap, their
dog was killed.
All-Care paid off out of court.
Sued for incompetent treatment,and stated that "All Care" billed her for
services they claimed they performed on her dog, 2 mos. after he died there.
All-Care ordered to pay
All-Care paid off out of court.
Sued for Unnecessary Surgery, Fraud and Negligence resulting in her healthy
cat "Rustys" untimely death.
Read the Judgement
Rooks paid off out of court.
Sued for Negligence, Vet Malpractice.
Claimed "All Care" did surgery, was supposed to perform careful and competent
care during his recuperation, but instead they allowed an infection and tick
infestation to occur while her dog was in their care... resulting in his death.
Pending
Judgment in favor of Wikert
Read the Pleading
Sued Rooks for Recession and Damages based on Fraud, Negligent Representation
Breach of Contract etc. etc.
Case settled Out of Court by Rooks, with a Confidentiality Agreement.
Davis,
Sued Rooks and Huntington Valley Veterinary Emergency Clinic Inc.for Breach Of
Contract.
Newsweek
-Jim Hinch
Register Staff Writer
10/15/2003
O.C.
veterinarian‚s license on the line
Robert Rooks handled
tough cases, but complaints built up.
The Orange County Register
Doctor calls case 'smear
campaign'
Daily Correspondent
April 28, 2003
-Jim Hinch
-MONTE MORIN
Times
Headlines
Long Beach
Press Telegram
View
this article
Orange County Register
The Reporter
Vacaville, CA
Pet owners filed a dozen complaints in two years against Lowcountry
doctor
July 26, 2002
-JOE GUY COLLIER
TheState.com
View
this article
Woman finds Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners lacking in its charge to
protect animals
Jul 21, 2002
-John Monk, Staff Writer
TheState.com
View
this article
July 26, 2002
The Associated Press State & Local
Wire
Pineville,
MO
View this article
click here to view
DVM Magazine
click here to view
Cities change identity of pet owners, hoping to
promote welfare
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
click here to view
In
Memory of Lucy
(626) 962-3577
click here to view
Welcome!
T he information on this website has been obtained through various sources of public records. It is with great sorrow and feeling for these individuals and their beloved companions that we believe the compilation of this information be brought forth.
In each case we were able to
obtain, we found that either the court sided with the individual and not with
All-Care Animal Referral Center; or in court cases filed in Superior Court, we
found that All-Care Animal Referral Center settled out of court. Some court
cases listed are still pending.
We believe that the information contained in this website is enough to warrant
very serious attention. Furthermore, we are also aware that for each court case
filed, there may be dozens of other instances that go unreported. With this in
mind, we invite any individual having knowledge of other related cases to
contact us.
Please be advised that this site is a compilation of factual information and no
unsubstantiated information will be posted on this site.
Since the creation of this site
, we have
been contacted by other individuals with similar experiences. While these have
not been filed in court, they are, without a doubt, nonetheless heartbreaking.
Please be aware that All Care Animal Referral Center and Robert Rooks are now in partnership with V.C.A. and it is now called V.C.A. All Care Animal Referral Center.
Rooks appealed his sentencing on Oct 15, 2003 at the Veterinary Medical board and lost.
AUGUST 2003
Veterinarian license number 6717 issued to respondent Robert Lee Rooks and premise permit number 2704 issued to All-Care Animal Referral center are revoked by reason of legal conclusions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15.
However, the revocation is "stayed" and respondent "Robert Rooks" and "All-Care" are placed on probation for a period of three years and must pay court costs and fines to total $88,300.00 and three years probation.
The court found that Robert Rooks practiced deception in veterinary medicine!!
Robert Rooks and All Care had a professional connection with an illegal
practitioner of veterinary medicine.
Robert Rooks and All Care violated the Veterinary Medical Practice Act.
Robert Rooks and All Care permitted unregistered assistants to induce
anesthesia in animals.
Judge Meth stated that:
"The evidence respondents (Rooks and All Care) knew of and committed acts of
deception...............is substantial."
"The evidence clearly established a pattern of practice within All Care to
refer to its Drs. as specialists..........Accordingly, the evidence established
the respondent (Rooks) was deceptive"
"All Cares clients came to All Care expecting to have their pets treated by
specialists, and All Cares non-licensed employees ensured that that the clients
believed their pets were being treated by specialists."
"Respondents (Rooks) claim the actions of his unregistered assistants did not
constitute induction is less than flimsy, and showed how far he was willing to
go to defend his practice. Respondent (Rooks) has yet to recognize he was
wrong".
MORE BREAKING NEWS! Feb 21, 2004
BLUESTONE WINS $39,000.00 IN LAWSUIT!
JURY FINDS NEGLIGENCE IN CARE OF PET WHO DIED!
A JURY ESTABLISHED THAT A PET HAS "UNIQUE AND SPECIAL" VALUE TO ITS OWNER AND
AWARDED MORE THAN $30,000.00 IN DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT TREATMENT.
It was the first time in a California court that a jury established such an
emotional value of a pet to its owner. "If a jury can establish a special value
for a grandmothers wedding ring, then certainly a living, breathing animal can
have a special value to its owner," said attorney Theresa Macellaro.
ROBERT L. ROOKS D.V.M. OF "ALL CARE ANIMAL
REFERRAL CENTER" PENALIZED BY CALIFORNIA VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD
TO THE TUNE
OF $88,300.00!!!
AFTER A 5-1/2 WEEK HEARING BY THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY
GENERALS OFFICE, JUDGE
ALAN METH CONCLUDED THAT ROBERT L. ROOKS D.V.M. OF "ALL CARE ANIMAL
REFERRAL
CENTER", IN FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, SHOULD BE PLACED ON
THREE YEARS PROBATION, PAY $83,300.00
IN PROSECUTING AND INVESTIGATIVE COSTS,
AS WELL AS $5,000.00 IN FINES.
Rooks is not allowed to supervise or teach interns.
For those cases of individuals who took their animals to All Care, because they were told by All Care that their animals were being treated by specialists and who won their cases against All Care in court when they alleged that their amnimals died as a result of the misrepresentations, their cases speak for themselves and the verdicts against All Care stand. All information on this website is taken from public records.
***************************************************************************
January 2005, The Veterinary Medical Board issued a Stipulated Settlement and Order in which the Board retained the money they collected from Rooks and All Care and the formal discipline became a 3 year Citation against Rooks and All Care, which is now called "V C A All Care Animal Referral Center". This demonstrates how crucial it is for the public to do their own extensive research on any vet they are recommended to (no matter who does the recommending, even another vet) The public has to understand that full page ads etc. are "sales" tools, even in the various medical professions. The Courts generally do not consider "animal" issues that important, which is why jury trials usually fare better in these kinds of cases. When finances are a consideration, the average person can prepare thoroughly and utilize Small Claims Court, which costs practically nothing. The award limit is $5,000.00, but the cost is approximately $25.00 or so. The Veterinary Medical Board is made up in the majority of vets, with some public members who are political appointees. In the same rationale that there is a Police Commission to oversee the Police Department to insure checks and balances, a seperate Commission to oversee the various professions (not made up of the members of that profession) appears very much to be an idea whose time has come. Much progress is being made in the courts across the country regarding animal cases, but much more needs to be done. In the meantime, when choosing a vet... DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
***************************************************************************
In an entirely different Veterinary Medical Board case in Northern California, a vet was found to have physically abused an animal. The vet was put on Probation. He appealed his sentence in a local civil court and the judge dismissed all the charges against him, despite the fact that the vet admitted the abuse. More information on this story in the future.
* * * MORE BREAKING NEWS * * *
* UPCOMING TRIAL *
JANUARY 5, 2004
ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
PLAINTIFF: BLUESTONE
V.S.
DEFENDANTS: ALL CARE ANIMAL REFERRAL
CENTER, ROBERT ROOKS, CRAIG BERGSTROM ET AL
CASE # 00CC00796
CHARGES:
DECEIT, NEGLIGENCE, MALPRACTICE, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
CONVERSION,
TRESPASS TO CHATTEL.
Aug 2001 - Attorney General files Accusation
Attorney General
Amends their Accusation
October 25, 2002
Click here to view details of this case
|
In the matter of revoking the license of veterinarian
ALL-CARE ANIMAL REFERRAL CENTER |
Case No.: AV 2000 27
FIRST AMENDED
(Cal. Gov. Code 11503) (Added text appears in bold emphasis) Filed Aug. 28, 2001 |
Bill Lockyer
Att
orney General
of the State of California
Thomas S. Lazar
State Bar No. 120621
Deputy Attorney General
Linda K. Schneider
State Bar No. 101336
Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
110 West "A" Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
PO Box 85266
San Diego, CA 92186-5266
Tel: (619) 645-3037
Attorneys for Complainant
BEFORE THE
VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Accusation Against:
Robert Lee Rooks, DVM
and
All-Care Animal Referral Center Respondent.
Click here to view details of this case
MOST RECENT NEWS
Bluestone
v.
All-Care
Week of Jan 12-19, 2004
Dept C-6 Orange County Superior
Court.
Berry v. Robert L. Rooks; All-Care Animal Referral Center
Regarding state's medical expert's opinion on Rooks' negligence in the Rusty Patrice case. Click here to view
Higgins
v.
All-Care
Judgment in favor of Higgins
Filed December 4, 2001
Defendant Rooks, Robert L. & All-Care Animal Referral Center shall pay
plaintiff Higgins, Andrew $500.00 plus costs of $80.00.
All-Care
v.
Higgins
Filed
January 11, 2002
Complaint
for (1) Breach of Oral Contract (2) Fraud;
Case dismissed
All-Care
v. Higgins
Filed
August 30, 2002
Notice of Ruling and of Orders to Show Cause
Animal Critical
Care Center, Inc.
v
.
Higgins;
Dismissal Entered: September 5, 2002
Complaint for Malicious Prosecution
Filed
October 02, 2002
Higgins
v
.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Aaron Malo, Justine
Casey, Animal Critical Care Center, Inc., dba All-Care Animal Referral
Center; Robert L. Rooks;
Pending
Do You Suspect Abuse?
As a client suspecting your pet was abused, you should file a complaint to your state Veterinary Licensing Board . These boards have the authority to investigate such allegations and suspend or remove the veterinarian's license. Unfortunately this happens very seldom, but to let it go unreported gives the impression to authorities and to society that abuse by a veterinarian is not that serious, and perhaps even acceptable. If you have witnessed abuse by a veterinarian, it is your first and foremost responsibility to file a report with both the states licensing board and to your local police department.
From the
Veterinary Medical Board
Issuing a Citation and Fine
The VMB implemented the citation and fine program in 1990 to augment its
complaint
review process
. The program is used to address minor licensee violations and
minor unlicensed activity violations. The program allows the VMB to address
violations of the law that do not warrant revocation or suspension of a license
or criminal prosecution. The VMB established regulations that provide a flexible
guide to determine an appropriate civil penalty related to the nature and
gravity of each violation as it affects the health, safety, and welfare of the
public.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, where a fine is paid to satisfy an assessment based on the findings of the law or where a fine is paid to satisfy an assessment based on the findings of a violation, payment of the fine shall be represented as satisfactory resolution of the matter for purposes of public disclosure. If an appeal petition has not been filed, payment of any fine shall not constitute an admission of the violation charged.
Referring a Case to the
Attorney General's Office
When the allegations are confirmed and are serious enough in nature, the
complaint may be submitted to the AG's Office for formal disciplinary action.
Once a case has been accepted by the AG's Office, a formal legal document called
an accusation is drafted. The accusation is the first public document in the
disciplinary process. By signing the accusation, the VMB's executive officer
becomes the complainant. Once the accusation is filed, a hearing date is set and
document becomes public information. At the hearing, the VMB must demonstrate by
"clear and convincing evidence to a reasonable certainty" that the
allegations contained in the accusation are true. For that reason, it is
generally necessary for the person or persons who submitted the original
complaint to testify.
In many cases, defense counsel and the Deputy Attorney General representing the VMB may negotiate stipulated agreements prior to the hearing. Stipulated agreements generally include admission to one or more of the violations alleged and a proposal for appropriate discipline. The terms and conditions in a stipulated agreement are based on disciplinary guidelines developed by the VMB.
If the case goes to a full administrative hearing, the hearing is presided over by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). After the hearing is finished, the ALJ will issue a "proposed decision" stating the findings and offer a recommendation for resolution of the case (i.e., dismissal, revocation, suspension or probation). The ALJ utilizes the VMB's Disciplinary Guidelines in formulating his or her recommendation. The Proposed Decision is distributed to the VMB members for a vote. If the VMB votes in favor of the proposed decision, it becomes final thirty (30) days after adoption, unless appealed. If the VMB votes to "non-adopt" the proposed decision, the hearing transcript is requested and reviewed by the VMB, written arguments are solicited from the defense counsel and the VMB's counsel, and the VMB subsequently issues its own decision. Once a decision is final, it is a matter of public record and copies are available upon written request.
It should be noted that the time frame involved in the disciplinary process (from the time the VMB receives the original complaint until a final decision is rendered) is generally a minimum of two years.
Should Unlicensed Practice Be
Reported to the VMB?
Absolutely! If you have evidence which indicates that an unlicensed person is
participating in activities for which a license is required, you should report
such activity to the VMB. The VMB will investigate and pursue appropriate
administrative action.
"What we are up against..."
"For
all advocates fighting to make the public aware of abuses by veterinarians in
all forms -- abuse of animals, abuse of clients and client trust, abuse of
public trust, abuse of their position as doctors, and abuse of the system
designed to protect our pets --
please read the following to know what we are
up against.
"
"It's a report by Susan Geranen, Executive Director of the California
Veterinary Medical Board, taken in its entirety from the VMB web site. It
informs their licensees (vets) of the need to basically monitor the media for
any "inflammatory" stories that are "unfairly" portraying
vets. As self-serving as this report is, the good news is that efforts to make
veterinary abuse known to the public is having an effect, the media is covering
these abuses, and clearly, the Board doesn't like it. It's to be expected that
as we make inroads to educate the public about abusive veterinarians, the Boards
will fight back to protect their interests."
Comments from animal advocates have been added as footnotes and are not part of the original report.
Source: unknown
Executive Officer's Update
Source:
Veterinary Medical Board Web
Site
http://www.vmb.ca.gov/about/eoupdat1.htm
Reach
Out and Touch Someone
Consumer Outreach-is it just a “buzz” word
or a viable goal? Although licensing boards have many varied mechanisms for
attempting to “reach out” to consumers, including newsletters, web sites,
brochures, press releases, radio, television, etc., getting information out to
the public can be more difficult than it seems.
The California Veterinary Medical Board has
made it a priority to conduct annual strategic planning sessions and each year
consumer outreach is its number one priority. Some of the questions that arise
when discussing the logistics of “reaching out” are:
• Who is our audience? Who do we need to
“reach out” to?
• How do we identify members of that audience?
• Who needs to know about the licensing board?
• What do they need to know and what types of
information will help the public and their pets?
• How do we insure that the information
provided is accurate?
• How do we get feedback from the different
public and professional groups we are trying to reach so the information can
be modified to meet specific needs?
The Board has found it difficult to identify
its audience, insure that the information is accurate and informative, and to
identify the most effective news medium in which to distribute that information.
Difficult-but not impossible.
Information accuracy is critical in any
outreach program. Informational articles published on the Board’s web site, in
its brochures, and in its newsletter are subject to a multiple level review
including its own legal counsel, so that the accuracy of the information
disseminated is assured. The review includes a designated board member, legal
counsel, the Department of Consumer Affairs Communications Unit, and the
Director of DCA.
The Board has little, if any, control over the
accuracy of information disseminated by the news media. For example, a few
months ago, a reporter from KPIX in the San Francisco Bay area, distorted the
facts in his newscast, in order to create a sensational, attention-grabbing
story. The positive is that the story reached a large number of people who may
not have known that the Board exists. The negative is that the story incorrectly
portrayed the Board as a bureaucracy that did nothing against a veterinarian who
was found to be guilty of negligence and animal cruelty. The truth was that the
Board had revoked the veterinarian’s license, then stayed the revocation and
required five years probation with specific probationary terms and conditions.
Professionals are human. Mistakes can be made.
Euthanasia is one of the most difficult decisions a veterinarian has to make,
especially since veterinarians take an oath to ease pain and suffering and save
animals’ lives. In this case, the veterinarian had no prior discipline and the
need for euthanasia was substantiated. The veterinarian made a mistake and is
paying for that mistake. The news reporter’s inflammatory distortion of the
facts in this case was uncalled-for and undeserved.
It is difficult to balance the need for a wide
range of distribution methods for consumer outreach information against the very
real possibility that the news media can distort the facts. The Veterinary
Medical Board is a public agency and the majority of information is publicly
disclosed as a matter of course. The relationship with the news media is both
positive and negative because often times the information is distorted because
the administrative process is difficult to understand.
Therefore, since we cannot control the news
media’s presentation of the facts, accountability is key. Newscasters must be
acknowledged both when they do a good job of presenting the facts and when they
do not. It is up to the Board to acknowledge accurate reporting and to rebut
distorted facts.
Consumer outreach is a critical component of a
licensing board’s mission. A board must be diligent in identifying its
audience and its informational needs. It must then utilize all available methods
of distribution to reach out. Finally, it must be responsible for insuring that
the information is accurate.
by Susan Geranen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*"Staying"
a revocation means that the revocation is in name only -- the vet was allowed to
continue to practice under a "probation" that for all we know was also
in name only. The Board has its own definition of "revocation," which
does nothing to protect our companion animals.
**Typical
justification of veterinarians as humans who make mistakes, nothing more. A
reporter portraying a tragic event has every right and duty to inform the public
of the anguish and loss associated with what happens to animals when vets
"make mistakes." It's not "inflammatory" -- it's freedom of
the press, and Boards are traditionally not thrilled with the First Amendment.
***If the Board process is "difficult to understand," who is
responsible for that? The Board can change its process at any time to make it
easier to use and navigate, but that would mean they couldn't play fast and
loose with their own laws when they choose not to enforce them. The process is
deliberately confusing and arbitrary to discourage people from using it, because
the Board's job is protect the vets, not our pets.
****Translation: "We know we can't control the media, but it's up to us to
reward the puff pieces that portray us in a favorable light, and when the truth
gets out, we need to refute it and punish the reporters who are relating facts
that we don't like. We will define what is 'accurate.'" And notice the
opening sentence: "...accountability is key." Too bad the Board
doesn't have the same philosophy regarding the actions of its own licensees.
Apparently the news media (which they lament is out of their control) must be
held accountable. Abusive veterinarians, however, must not.
FOR CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS:
If you want to report a problem, contact The Veterinary Medical Board at 916
263 2610 and request "Complaint Forms" to be mailed to you. Your complaint must
be in writing on the Boards form. When you send in your complaint send it
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Stay on top of your case throughout
the process.
Attorney General Office that prosecuted "All Care Animal Referral Center"
Phone number: 619 645 2001.
The Deputy A.G.s were:
Linda Schneider, and Susan Ruff.
FOR RESIDENTS OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA:
Find out your States Veterinary Licensing Boards Procedures for Complaints.
Stay on top of them, because many of them are bogged down in bureaucracy.
Contact: "The Animal Legal Defense Fund" for information on Attorneys in your
area: 702-769 7771.
Locate Animal Adoption Groups (newspaper ads, pet stores etc,) and share your
experiences and ask for help.
No vet can prevent you from revealing their name or the name of their facility if...
• You filed a formal complaint against the vet with the licensing board or other enforcement authority, regardless of the outcome
• The vet was or is under investigation by the state licensing board
• The information is a matter of public record. This includes disciplinary action, lawsuits filed, arrests, criminal records, property records, driving records, or any other personal or professional information that is public record.
Do You Suspect Abuse?
As a client suspecting your pet was abused, you should file a complaint to your state Veterinary Licensing Board . These boards have the authority to investigate such allegations and suspend or remove the veterinarian's license. Unfortunately this happens very seldom, but to let it go unreported gives the impression to authorities and to society that abuse by a veterinarian is not that serious, and perhaps even acceptable. If you have witnessed abuse by a veterinarian, it is your first and foremost responsibility to file a report with both the states licensing board and to your local police department.
From the
Veterinary Medical Board
Issuing a Citation and Fine
The VMB implemented the citation and fine program in 1990 to augment its
complaint
review process
. The program is used to address minor licensee violations and
minor unlicensed activity violations. The program allows the VMB to address
violations of the law that do not warrant revocation or suspension of a license
or criminal prosecution. The VMB established regulations that provide a flexible
guide to determine an appropriate civil penalty related to the nature and
gravity of each violation as it affects the health, safety, and welfare of the
public.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, where a fine is paid to satisfy an assessment based on the findings of the law or where a fine is paid to satisfy an assessment based on the findings of a violation, payment of the fine shall be represented as satisfactory resolution of the matter for purposes of public disclosure. If an appeal petition has not been filed, payment of any fine shall not constitute an admission of the violation charged.
Referring a Case to the
Attorney General's Office
When the allegations are confirmed and are serious enough in nature, the
complaint may be submitted to the AG's Office for formal disciplinary action.
Once a case has been accepted by the AG's Office, a formal legal document called
an accusation is drafted. The accusation is the first public document in the
disciplinary process. By signing the accusation, the VMB's executive officer
becomes the complainant. Once the accusation is filed, a hearing date is set and
document becomes public information. At the hearing, the VMB must demonstrate by
"clear and convincing evidence to a reasonable certainty" that the
allegations contained in the accusation are true. For that reason, it is
generally necessary for the person or persons who submitted the original
complaint to testify.
In many cases, defense counsel and the Deputy Attorney General representing the VMB may negotiate stipulated agreements prior to the hearing. Stipulated agreements generally include admission to one or more of the violations alleged and a proposal for appropriate discipline. The terms and conditions in a stipulated agreement are based on disciplinary guidelines developed by the VMB.
If the case goes to a full administrative hearing, the hearing is presided over by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). After the hearing is finished, the ALJ will issue a "proposed decision" stating the findings and offer a recommendation for resolution of the case (i.e., dismissal, revocation, suspension or probation). The ALJ utilizes the VMB's Disciplinary Guidelines in formulating his or her recommendation. The Proposed Decision is distributed to the VMB members for a vote. If the VMB votes in favor of the proposed decision, it becomes final thirty (30) days after adoption, unless appealed. If the VMB votes to "non-adopt" the proposed decision, the hearing transcript is requested and reviewed by the VMB, written arguments are solicited from the defense counsel and the VMB's counsel, and the VMB subsequently issues its own decision. Once a decision is final, it is a matter of public record and copies are available upon written request.
It should be noted that the time frame involved in the disciplinary process (from the time the VMB receives the original complaint until a final decision is rendered) is generally a minimum of two years.
Should Unlicensed Practice Be
Reported to the VMB?
Absolutely! If you have evidence which indicates that an unlicensed person is
participating in activities for which a license is required, you should report
such activity to the VMB. The VMB will investigate and pursue appropriate
administrative action.