"If tears could build a stairway, and heartache make a lane, we'd walk the path to heaven and bring you back again."
firmly believe that Stempy was a victim of VETERINARY
that resulted in his
preventable death at the hands of BAD vet
ANN THOMAS, DVM ~ RODEO DRIVE VETERINARY HOSPITAL ~ MESQUITE, TEXAS
visit our related websites in honor and in
memory of Stempy.
Won't Back Down -
Vet Board Visits
We attended the scheduled meeting of the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners on October 12, 2006 in Austin, Texas. We both addressed the Board with scathing 3 minute speeches (board imposed time limit - speech text below) during the citizen comments portion of the meeting. We provided the Board with our incoming phone records from April 7, 2006 that provides indisputable proof that Board Investigator Dennis Barker lied about calling and interviewing Stempy's human mom, Cindy Munson (co-author of this website). We also went over grave concerns that we have with the complaint process and many other unresolved issues regarding the complaint. Board rules state that the investigator shall interview the complainant (which is us) as part of the complaint process. Now that we have given the Board indisputable proof of the unethical behavior of it's investigator, will the Board take action? (Update 4/14/07 - Does not look like it. The Board has still DONE NOTHING.)
CINDY MUNSON SPEECH TO THE BOARD 10/12/06
My name is Cindy Munson. My husband and I filed a complaint with the board, #06-111, in regards to what we allege was negligent and substandard care that we believe resulted in the death of Stempy, our beloved Shih Tzu. We are present today to hear the information regarding his complaint as provided for in Board rule 575.27g. (see handout)(below) Most of you should be familiar with this case. We mailed copies of the complaint and appeal to all veterinarian board members. The appeal was dismissed on August 3rd 2006.
We come to the board today with grave concerns about the complaint process. How is it possible that we submit a complaint ABOUT a veterinarian, but yet we are never allowed to communicate with the reviewing veterinarians? We are not privy to the respondent veterinarian’s reply to our complaint, therefore we are not allowed to object or dispute her account of events. The respondent and reviewing veterinarians can communicate freely with each other throughout the entire process. The complainant, however, is not allowed any contact at all with the reviewing veterinarians. That is completely unfair and most certainly is NOT looking after the best interest of the patient.
According to board rule 575.27c7(see handout)(below), the investigator shall interview the complainant. We were never interviewed by the Investigator. According to an email from Peter Hartline (see handout)(below), the Investigator claims to have called and interviewed me on April 7, 2006. Right now is the first time I have EVER spoken to ANYONE with the Board. We have obtained our incoming phone records for April 7, 2006. (see handout)(below)These records provide indisputable proof that the Investigator did not call and interview me on the day in question. We could possibly understand the Investigator being mistaken about the phone call. What we do not understand or accept is the fact that the Investigator then goes on to fabricate a conversation. That changes his conduct from mistaken to intentional. This is a very serious situation that must be dealt with immediately.
Several key issues remain unaddressed.
The procedure done on September 27th 2005 was UNAUTHORIZED. Isn’t an unauthorized procedure BELOW the minimum standard of care?
Dr. Thomas did not have the experience to perform the unauthorized procedure (according to Hope, a longtime employee, “That’s the FIRST time Dr. Thomas has EVER done a cut like that in 20 years of being a vet.”….as stated to us on September 27th 2005.). There is NO QUESTION that Stempy should have been referred to a specialist. Isn’t the failure to refer BELOW the minimum standard of care? (see handout)(below)
Dr. Thomas provided NO aftercare management that is REQUIRED for Stempy’s condition. Proper aftercare management should have been started or recommended after his first surgery in November 2003. We provided the opinion of another Mesquite veterinarian who always recommends aftercare management. (see handout)(below) Isn’t providing ZERO aftercare management BELOW the minimum standard of care?
My husband, Greg, will present the remaining issues. Thank you.
GREG MUNSON SPEECH TO THE BOARD 10/12/06
My name is Greg Munson. I am Stempy’s Daddy.
Dr. Thomas’ staff DENIED Stempy care on 9-29-05 at 5pm when we called and requested to bring him back in because his condition was deteriorating. We were told specifically, “NO! Do NOT bring Stempy back in. He will be in pain for 2 or 3 more days.” The clinic stated Stempy would be in pain, yet Dr. Thomas had taken Stempy completely OFF of painkillers. She prescribed tranquilizers with no analgesia, yet led client to believe he was prescribed a different painkiller. This is not BELOW the minimum standard of care?
Dr. Thomas sent Stempy home wearing a catheter 3 times to wait days for surgery, including twice when no radiographs had been done. Upon mentioning this to world-renowned veterinarian Dr. Carl Osborne of the University of Minnesota, he states that Dr. Thomas’ actions prompts a reply that encompasses negligence.
In the dismissal letter,with regard to diet, Mr. Mathews states that the reviewers note that Hills G/D can be used in dogs where one suspects both oxalate and struvite stone types and that this diet was appropriate. We believe that to be incorrect. Please review the information we will provide (see handout)(below) from the Minnesota Urolith Center. It states that where one suspects both stone types, the diet for calcium oxalate TAKES PRECEDENCE, therefore Hills G/D was the INCORRECT diet. This is not new information. The copyright at the bottom is 2002. We believe that no diet will work 100% of the time, that is why AFTERCARE MANAGEMENT is crucial. Stempy received NO aftercare management. Isn’t that BELOW the minimum standard of care?
Mr. Mathews states that Dr. Thomas acknowledges that as a solo practitioner, she often does not have time immediately after surgery or appointments to fully complete the records. Isn’t that very conducive to forgetting crucial information by the time she gets around to writing in the records, such as forgetting that she was unquestionably told on 11/1/03 of Stempy’s prior seizure history? Isn’t failing to notate crucial information in his records BELOW the minimum standard of care?
Mr. Mathews mentions a postsurgical radiograph. That is incorrect. Look at the records. Dr. Thomas NEVER took postsurgical radiographs to verify removal of all stones. Postsurgical radiographs are a part of providing a reasonable standard of care.
Why didn’t the Board request the ORIGINAL records? Photocopied records are much less likely to expose altered records.
Exactly what unauthorized procedure was performed? A urethrostomy would require a new permanent opening. There was none. A urethrotomy would require a new temporary opening. There was none. What unauthorized procedure would require an incision that extended from his anus to his scrotum, with NO new openings made? We had only authorized a cystotomy. Period.
How can all of these issues not be BELOW the minimum standard of care? We would appreciate ALL of the appointed board members responding to these issues in the very near future. Thank you.
***NOTE: WE SENT FOLLOW UP LETTERS ONE WEEK AFTER THE MEETING AND WE STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED EVEN ONE RESPONSE TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. IT APPEARS THEY JUST DO NOT CARE. THAT IS PATHETIC.***
(Below is the text of the handout)
Applicable Board Rules
(g) Report to the board of dismissed complaints. The executive director or the director of enforcement shall advise the board at each scheduled meeting of the complaints dismissed since the last meeting. The information will consist of a summary of the allegations, investigation conducted, reasons for dismissal, and file number.
(7) After the licensee’s response to the complaint is received, further investigation may be necessary to corroborate the information provided by the complainant and the licensee. During the investigation, the investigator shall interview the complainant. The investigator may request additional medical opinions, supporting documents, and interviews with other witnesses.
(c) Responsibility of Licensee to Refer a Case. A licensee shall have a duty to a client to suggest a referral to a Specialist, or otherwise more qualified licensee, in any case where the care and treatment of the animal is beyond the licensee's capabilities. A licensee's decision on whether to accept or continue care and treatment of an animal, which may require expertise beyond the
licensee's capabilities, shall be based on the exercise of sound judgment within the prevailing standard of care for a licensee faced with the same or similar circumstances.
(2) Complaints Regarding Failure to Make Proper Referral. Board investigations of complaints alleging failure to properly make referrals will include evaluation of the training and experience of the licensee, the availability of a specialist or more qualified licensee, the timeliness and adequacy of information provided to the client regarding the possible need for a referral, the requests of the client, and the likelihood that an adverse result could have been prevented by a timely referral.
Peter Hartline Email
----- Original Message -----
From: Pete Hartline
To: Greg & Cindy Munson
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Follow Up
First, let me briefly explain the appeal process. There is no "right" to an appeal of the reviewing veterinarians' decision. There is no Board rule covering an appeal. It is done as a courtesy and informally on a case-by-case basis. We are not required to grant an appeal. Our reviewing veterinarians are excellent veterinarians and give each case a thorough review. We do not reveal the identity of the "appeal veterinarian." His/her job is to look at the WRITTEN record and decide if the initial decision to dismiss the case on the written record was appropriate. If he/she has any doubt, the case can move forward to a settlement conference. If he/she is satisfied that the respondent veterinarian met the minimum standard of care, the dismissal will be affirmed. Review is based on the overall "picture" of the case, and not one individual aspect or event.
You do not have the right to talk to the reviewing Board veterinarian. Any attempts to contact him/her will terminate the review. Again, this review is based on the WRITTEN record.
As for the radiographs, the reviewing veterinarians did not see a reason to review them at the time, however, we have requested a copy of them from Dr. Thomas, and they will be reviewed when they arrive. If, in the opinion of the reviewing veterinarian, they reveal important information that could influence the reviewer's decision, we will take that into consideration.
The interview of the complainant by the investigator generally consists of a phone call. This call was made on April 7, 2006, when Investigator Barker spoke with Mrs.. Munson.
I appreciate your concern with this matter. You obviously feel strongly about it. However, I must now ask you to cease sending me e-mails with new questions and points of concern. This also includes phone calls. I believe your position has been well stated, and we know what the issues are. Please let the appeal process proceed. We will let you know the outcome before the end of June.
Peter C. Hartline
Director of Enforcement
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
This message contains personal thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not represent official policy of the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical examiners.
Phone Records of Greg & Cindy Munson – April 7, 2006
***We have blacked all numbers except the area code of
each phone number for privacy reasons.***
***Austin, Texas, where the Vet Board would be calling from, is area code 512.
As you can see, there are no calls from or to area code 512 on the day in question.***
Aftercare Management – Other Mesquite, TX Veterinarian
Minnesota Urolith Center
Calcium Oxalate and Struvite Uroliths
College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Minnesota
Dogs can form calcium oxalate uroliths following successful management of struvite (magnesium ammonium phosphate hexahydrate) uroliths, and vice versa. Sometimes both struvite and calcium oxalate are present in the same urolith. When this occurs, the likelihood of an initial episode of calcium oxalate urolithiasis, which has predisposed the patient to infection-induced struvite urolith formation, should be considered. In those situations where dogs have documented occurrences of both calcium oxalate and struvite urolithiasis, uncontrollable risk factors (defective inhibitors of crystal formation and defective inhibitors of crystal aggregation) may be present. This scenario creates a therapeutic paradox in that control of some risk factors for struvite urolith formation is opposite to that recommended for prevention of calcium oxalate urolith formation.
If uroliths should recur despite control of risk factors, they may be removed non-surgically by voiding urohydropropulsion, if detected early. Uroliths removed by voiding urohydropropulsion should be quantitatively analyzed. If attempts at non-surgical urolith removal are unsuccessful, surgery remains the most reliable way to remove active uroliths from the urinary tract. We emphasize, however, that surgery may be unnecessary for clinically inactive uroliths.
Lulich JP, Osborne CA, Unger LK, et al: Nonsurgical removal of urocystoliths by voiding urohydropropulsion. In Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Vol 203, pp. 660-663, 1993
Osborne CA, et al.: Canine and Feline Urolithiases: Relationship of Etiopathogenesis to Treatment and Prevention. In Canine and Feline Nephrology and Urology, Osborne and Finco 1995, pp 798-888.
Osborne CA: The Management of Recurrent Urolithiasis In Patients with a History of Calcium Oxalate and Struvite Urolith Formation. In Partners In Practice, Hill's Pet Nutrition pub. Vol V, No. 1, 1992.
Osborne CA, et al.: Canine Urolithiasis. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th ed., 2000, pp. 605-688.
©2002 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
4/14/07 - Read the statements above in bold. Dr. Thomas did the exact opposite. She did NOT have him on the diet for calcium oxalate urolithiasis. He was on the WRONG diet for TWO years. If she had bothered to do the required aftercare management and taken quarterly - or at least twice yearly - radiographs, she could have caught the new stones forming early enough to have removed them NON-SURGICALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE!!!
STEMPY IS NO LONGER WITH US BECAUSE OF HER FAILURE TO DO THIS!!
The Board said she met the minimum standard of care. Hmmm. Now, we are not vets, but we think it should be pretty obvious that she MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE.
WHY IS THE TEXAS VET BOARD
PROTECTING GUILTY VETS?
Do your damn job!
We also attended the February 8, 2007 Board meeting.
We attended the June 2007 Board meeting as well. Our speeches are below:
Cindy Munson Speech – June 14, 2007
In case you have forgotten, my name is Cindy Munson.
The dead cannot cry out for justice. It is a duty of the living to do so for them.
Peter Hartline stated to us in an email during the review process, quote:
“You do not have the right to talk to the reviewing Board veterinarian. Any attempts to contact him/her will terminate the review.”
Dr Janie Carpenter recently sent us a letter where she states, quote:
“Since Stempy’s complaint is considered closed, I cannot comment directly to it.”
So, let’s review. We cannot talk to a veterinarian Board member before the complaint is closed, and a veterinarian Board member cannot comment about the complaint after it is closed. We filed a complaint with the VET BOARD, but yet we are never allowed to discuss this complaint with a board member who is a VET. How can this possibly be fair? Where are the board rules that support their statements?
Dr. Carpenter was the only board vet to extend the courtesy of a response, albeit of absolutely no help. We have questions, but we cannot get answers. Your failure to answer is shameful when your sworn duty is to protect the public. The public has a right to know of this Board’s consistent failure to uphold it’s sworn duty to protect them, and we WILL disperse this information.
At the time of our complaint, the rules stated the investigator SHALL interview the complainant. It never happened. Your investigator lied. We provided indisputable proof. Still, we are ignored. Shouldn’t the investigator be severely reprimanded if not terminated?
From the Veterinary Licensing Act Section 801.205 (4), it states, “ensure that the person who filed the complaint has the opportunity to explain the allegations made in the complaint.”
The “complaint” is what we originally submitted and contained our allegations. At NO POINT have we been contacted by the investigator to discuss the complaint or given the opportunity to explain the allegations made in the complaint to the investigator or any of the reviewing Board veterinarians.
It is clear to us that the Board and its employees have violated their own rules. We were never allowed to properly participate in the process. Let me repeat that. We were never allowed to properly participate in the process. Isn’t this grounds for reopening Stempy’s complaint?
We have grown weary of you ignoring us. Enough is enough.
We have serious questions that must be answered by a veterinarian Board member. No offense to Mr. Hartline, Mr. Mathews, or Mr. Helmcamp, but you three are NOT veterinarians and are therefore NOT QUALIFIED to answer our questions.
At least one of the six veterinarian Board members needs to step up to the plate, so to speak, and discuss Stempy’s complaint with us. It is the RIGHT thing to do. It is the ETHICAL thing to do. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.
You are charged with protecting the public. We ARE the public. If you will not do your appointed duty to protect the public, perhaps you should resign your position.
Greg Munson Speech – June 14, 2007
I believe all of you know who I am, but just in case – my name is Greg Munson.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
On September 10, 2005, we took Stempy in to Dr. Thomas’ clinic because he had not been able to urinate since the prior day because he was blocked. Stempy unblocked and was finally able to urinate just before we took him in. Dr. Thomas was told all of this. I told her that we were concerned about stones again. She did a urinalysis and said he had a lot of sperm in his urine. Despite Stempy’s prior history of stones, despite the fact that he had been blocked and UNABLE to urinate since the prior day until just prior to coming in, despite the fact that he had previously suffered urethral obstruction TWICE since becoming her patient, she FAILED to take a radiograph and check for stones.
Just TWO WEEKS later on September 24, 2005 he was blocked AGAIN starting the chain of events that led to his death on September 30, 2005. Had she followed NORMAL protocol and taken radiographs on September 10, 2005, Stempy would be alive today. She would have seen the stone then, on September 10, 2005, when the stone was most likely back in his bladder. The urethral obstruction that occurred exactly two weeks later could have and should have been prevented!
Stempy could have and would have survived a cystotomy. Her FAILURE to diagnose stones considering his prior history on September 10, 2005 puts Stempy’s death squarely in her hands. Explain to us how this is not below the minimum standard of care.
In November 2003, Dr. Thomas performed a cystotomy on Stempy. Post-surgery, she FAILED to recommend or suggest follow up care such as quarterly urinalyses and radiographs taken every 6 months with the goal being to catch new stones while they are small enough to be removed NON-SURGICALLY by voiding urohydropropulsion. Her FAILURE to suggest and perform routine monitoring, which is NORMAL protocol, for recurrence of stones, puts Stempy’s death squarely in her hands. Explain to us how this is not below the minimum standard of care.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but isn’t it enough? We are adamant in our demand to be able to discuss Stempy’s complaint in person and have our questions answered with a veterinarian Board member.
Today after the Board meeting would be a perfect time to sit down with one or all of you. We expect to leave here today having met with at least one of you or with an appointment secured to meet with you in the very near future, even if it means that we have to drive several hundred miles to do so.
Let me be real clear: We wish to discuss Stempy’s complaint that is ABOUT a veterinarian WITH a veterinarian who is a MEMBER of the Board.
A veterinarian is supposed to be an honorable and trustworthy profession. The actions of the respondent veterinarian and the subsequent actions of this Board are anything BUT honorable and trustworthy. You cannot go back and make a new start, but you can start now to make a new ending.
Cindy Munson Speech - 10/11/07
We need to set the record straight. Mr. Helmcamp sent each of the Board members an email or letter in mid July with my husband’s name as the subject. We requested a copy of this correspondence. We don’t believe we received the same correspondence each of you received, but we will address it anyway.
First of all….Dr. Lastovica, shame on you. My husband didn’t discuss Stempy’s case with you. He asked you to call us at your earliest convenience to discuss it. You told him you would call and even shook his hand. There was a day when a man’s word and handshake was as good as gold. What’s your problem, Dr. Lastovica? Sounds like your tattling excursion with Dewey left out relevant facts and got other facts completely wrong.
We did not place flyers on cars. We have business cards that each of you have seen and received. We placed a business card on a pickup at Lastovica Angus Farm to let Dr. Lastovica know we were in town.
Our original motivation to see Dr. Lastovica was for vaccinations for our 8 week old Shih Tzu puppies. As mentioned in Helmcamp’s letter, we were in Fredericksburg for a family reunion. My in-laws were also being honored for their 50th wedding anniversary. One of the Shih Tzu pups was to be a gift for their anniversary. Dr. Lastovica advertises to be open until noon on Saturday. His clinic had closed early. He was out of town. Not that it would have done any good if his assistant had not closed early because she would not have been able to give vaccinations with out him present, that is….unless she practices without a license. My in-laws didn’t get to take one of the pups home.
We also wanted Dr. Lastovica to take a look at a huge hernia of another pup we had. Our Lhasa Apso surprised us with a solo ½ Lhasa – ½ Shih Tzu male 3 weeks after our Shih Tzu pups were born. Ask your colleague, Dr. Carpenter, how big that hernia was. She performed the surgery to correct it. But, yet, Dr. Lastovica thinks we only visited him to discuss Stempy’s case. We chose Dr. Lastovica for the same reason we chose Dr. Carpenter….we did not trust anyone else.
Take a look at the handout we have given you. That is a map to Lastovica Angus Farm on the Lastovica Angus Farm website…..visitors welcome. We visited Dr. Lastovica on our way out of town Sunday morning at Lastovica Angus Farm. We were not aware this was his personal residence. Why would the President of the Vet Board put a map to his house on the internet?
Mr. Helmcamp, your correspondence warning the other board members to have no contact with us was inappropriate. It’s not surprising, as this board has responded unethically in many dealings with us. In fact, falsifying a government document is against the law.
Around 10 years ago, the Arizona Veterinary Board was threatened with disbandment due to their poor record of disciplining vets and failing to protect the public. Is that what needs to happen in Texas to wake this Board up? It appears so.
Greg Munson Speech - 10/11/07
You did a final analysis of Stempy’s case on July 9th, 2007. In that analysis, you state that you will not entertain anymore dialogue from us on this matter. Sir, we have NEVER been allowed to have ANY direct dialogue with you regarding Stempy’s case, so it’s pretty obvious to us that you are never going to grow a conscious, and certainly not while writing your analysis.
You state that you read each case 3 times. We find that a little hard to believe. Listen for a moment and we’ll make that real clear for you.
You state that you place yourself in the shoes of the owner. Frankly, that statement is downright insulting. You could NEVER objectively place yourself in the shoes of any owner, and most certainly not our shoes.
You state that you bounce questions about the case off of SEVERAL outside sources. Please tell us, Dr. Johnsen, why is it that you have no time to bounce questions off of the persons who would have the MOST knowledge of the case? Those persons would be the complainant. That would be us, Dr. Johnsen. When the stories don’t match between the complainant and licensee, you need to talk to both parties. You took time to speak with the licensee, veterinary specialists, and other private practitioners, but yet you have no time to EVER talk with the complainant? How can you claim to put yourself in the owner’s shoes when you NEVER EVEN TALK TO THEM?!? This is just downright shameful. Your method is not just, nor is it fair.
Did you talk to other veterinarians in the Mesquite area to determine the community standard of care? We did. We even submitted a letter from another Mesquite veterinarian that supported our claim. Did you miss that when you were reading Stempy’s case those 3 times?
You state that Dr. Thomas followed an acceptable surgical protocol. Since when is it acceptable protocol to perform a procedure we had never authorized – a procedure that Dr. Thomas had NEVER performed in her 20 years of being a vet? She was in over her head. She should have referred Stempy to a specialist. It was not within the “penumbra of her treatment plan.” She had no “treatment plan.” We were very explicit and clear about what she had our permission for to perform.
You state that she evaluated Stempy via history. You read the case 3 times? Hmmm. Did you fail to comprehend what occurred on Stempy’s visit two weeks prior? Despite his HISTORY of stones, she failed to radiograph to check for stones or correctly diagnose stones.
You state that Dr. Thomas performed pre-op blood tests. Dr. Johnsen, are you sure you even read Stempy’s case ONE time? No blood tests were EVER performed. No blood tests are ever mentioned in the medical records.
You state that nothing in the records document our concern about the unauthorized procedure. Do you really think that Dr. Thomas would document OUR concern about an UNAUTHORIZED procedure SHE performed in the medical records that she was falsifying? Now we are POSITIVE that YOU did not read what we submitted. Ever cross your mind that Dr. Thomas is not being truthful? Obviously, not for a second, as you bought her story hook, line, and sinker. Well, guess what? She lied to you.
You state that Dr. Thomas was giving us financial leeway. Sir, money had never even been discussed prior to surgery because she was only authorized to do a cystotomy. Money had no bearing on whether or not we would have gone to a specialist. When we went to pick him up POST-SURGERY, his bill was twice the cost of the cystotomy performed in November 2003. We asked to pay in 2 payments by check because the bill
was twice what it was supposed to be. She could have said no. We had other methods of payment available.
Your insinuation that we EVER put any type of financial restraint on Stempy’s care is insulting! That is over the top, and frankly, you owe us an apology.
Ditto, our new Shih Tzu, cost us exactly $750. The only way we would have accepted this amount from Dr. Thomas was for her to accept full responsibility. She did neither. For you to suggest that we were money motivated shows how out of touch you really are.
You obviously did not read everything we submitted. You have misjudged us and midjudged Stempy’s case terribly. This is why the complainant MUST be allowed to view and rebut the licensee’s response. This is why the complainant MUST be allowed to communicate with the reviewing veterinarian during the process.
Just and fair? Not even close. Good riddance.
GREG MUNSON SPEECH - 2/14/08
I believe everyone on the Board knows that I am Greg Munson.
Cindy and I are positive that Stempy received negligent and substandard care from Dr. Ann Thomas prior to September 2005, but for this speech, I will narrow the focus to just September 2005.
In September 2005, Stempy again had a urethral obstruction that unblocked itself just prior to going to see Dr. Thomas. Despite his prior history, Dr. Thomas failed to take radiographs and failed to diagnose bladder stones, even though she was told he was obstructed and had been for a day until just prior to coming in. She said he just had elevated sperm in his urine and sent him home.
ONLY TWO WEEKS LATER, Stempy again experienced a urethral obstruction from most likely the SAME STONE. She AGAIN failed to take radiographs to confirm diagnosis, location, and amount. She FAILED to properly wash the stone back to the bladder and tried jamming the catheter in to push the stone back to the bladder. She sent Stempy home wearing a catheter and scheduled a cystotomy for the coming week. Take a look at the handout, “summary of the major steps of retrograde urohydropropulsion for dogs with a urethral obstruction.” Dr. Thomas grades out to 14.74%. Folks, that’s not only failing, that is very close to TOTAL INCOMPETENCE. You expect us to believe her performance on September 24, 2005 was not below the minimum standard of care? We may not be vets, but we are not stupid either. It’s rather obvious that this Board protects GUILTY vets.
Dr. Thomas ONLY had permission to perform a cystotomy – nothing else. Dr. Johnsen of this Board refers to some mystery treatment plan that Dr. Thomas thought we understood. I don’t know how much clearer I can be. The ONLY thing we had authorized was a cystotomy. Take a look at Stempy’s records we have given you as a handout. Right there in his records it CLEARLY states that the PLAN was to do a CYSTOTOMY – there was NO OTHER plan. She did NOT perform a cystotomy. She performed an unauthorized procedure, which she said was a perineal urethrostomy. This is not the procedure she performed. Her own vet tech stated Dr. Thomas had NEVER performed that type of surgery before. She cut our little boy from his anus to his scrotum and NO NEW permanent or temporary opening was made - as would be expected with a urethrotomy or a urethrostomy.
Dr. Thomas had failed to wash the stone back to the bladder and had instead lodged the catheter to the stone. She would have known this if she would have AT LEAST taken a radiograph three days earlier when he was brought in. Instead, Stempy was either still obstructed for those three days or she had damaged his urethra and/or bladder when she attempted the forceful catheterization. Read, study, and LEARN your handout on urethral obstruction. Yes, Dr. Johnsen, this handout is the work of Board certified Veterinary College professors. You know, YOUR TEACHERS. Get over yourself. If you are not following this protocol, then it’s high time you start. Had Dr. Thomas followed the proper protocol, as described in this handout,
Stempy would still be alive today. Why would he still be alive? ….BECAUSE HE NEVER WOULD HAVE HAD THE UNAUTHORIZED SURGERY THAT LED TO HIS DEATH. Instead of referring us to a specialist, Dr. Thomas tried to fix her own screwup. Upon picking up Stempy, did we question her? You bet we did.
Stempy was in extreme pain post surgery. We took him back to her EVERY DAY post surgery. She never properly examined him. She just kept changing his pain meds. Then she gave us a tranquilizer with no pain killing abilities and led us to believe it was yet another painkiller. This tranquilizer lowers the seizure threshold and is not recommended for brachycephalic breeds.
Two days post surgery; Dr. Thomas’ clinic denied Stempy care when his condition was deteriorating.
Three days post surgery….Stempy passed away. It is our contention that Stempy passed away because of that unauthorized “surgery” that Dr. Thomas had NEVER performed before that would have NEVER have been needed had Dr. Thomas taken radiographs as needed and followed STANDARD protocol. There is NO DOUBT in our minds that Dr. Thomas is 100% responsible for Stempy’s preventable death. Her attitude and failure to properly care for him those 3 days after his unauthorized surgery - to the point that the clinic DENIED Stempy care the night before he died - is deeply disturbing. Did she WANT Stempy to die?
Also note, Dr. Thomas never recommended or performed any blood tests prior to ANY of the surgical procedures she performed. Check the Records.
This board has dismissed this complaint twice and dismissed us, but guess what Board members? You can’t dismiss the truth. The truth is Dr. Thomas WAS negligent and this Board let her get away with it. That puts Stempy’s blood on YOUR hands, as well as hers.
If you cannot see the negligence, you are either blind or biased. Period.
Regarding our experience with your complaint process, is there not a single Board member here that cares about the fact that your own investigator, Dennis Barker, lied about calling and interviewing my wife, Cindy? Folks, we have indisputable proof that he lied. INDISPUTABLE PROOF. Doesn’t that concern or matter to ANY of you?
If ANY one of you Board members thinks that Stempy’s complaint, and the majority of all complaints, receive a fair shake in your system; let me suggest to you that you are a part of the problem.
Is it fair that you have investigators who never interview complainants during the process, and then blatantly lie about it? No, it’s not. Is it fair that the complainant has no opportunity to see or respond to the licensee’s response to the complaint – a response that could very well be filled with lies and inaccuracies? No, it’s not. Is it fair that the complainant is never allowed to speak with either reviewing veterinarian during the process, yet the licensee can put their spin on events to their heart’s content? No, it’s not. As long the current complaint process remains unchanged, each of you are active participants in risking the lives of an untold number of Texas animals by this Board’s failure to conduct a fair and ethical investigation of ALL consumer complaints. This Board is nothing short of a miserable failure in serving it’s first priority – to protect the public.
ALL of you should be ashamed, particularly the veterinarian Board members. Upon entering this profession, you took an oath. Remember? I think each of you needs to take a fresh look at that oath and then take a good look at yourselves in the mirror. I think you’ll see a vet that is not following the oath that you were sworn to.
You should be the ethical leaders of your profession. It’s high time you started acting like it.
GREG MUNSON SPEECH - 6/19/08
Good morning, Board Members. Well, we are back. Even after the awfully rude and unnecessary treatment we received here in February
Why are we back? Because this Board's complaint process is broken. It is an extremely unfair process that favors your licensees. There is a built in bias in the process. By not holding all of your licensees accountable for their actions, this board leaves countless animals at risk and in harm's way every day.
This Board has a dismissal rate of 92% of consumer complaints alleging malpractice. NINETY TWO PERCENT. Are you happy with and proud of that number? You should be truly ashamed of that number. NINETY TWO PERCENT.
If you are a vet in trouble with the Board, make up the best story you can. LIE. Make up as many lies as you need to make your story plausible – all the while knowing that. the ONLY person on the planet with the knowledge to dispute your fantasy land version is the poor, distraught, no credibility having complainant who will never even see your twisted fabrication. Why, if this is how THE VET said it happened, then it MUST be true. No need to even bother checking with the complainant – even if the complainant's version is the polar opposite of the vet's.
You see, in our complaint with this Board, there was an UNAUTHORIZED surgery performed among many other violations – all ignored. The respondent vet in our case LIED to this board. How do we know?
Very simple. One of the reviewing vets of our complaint submitted a letter to us after the dismissal when we continued to question this Board. It was obvious from his comments that he had received AND BELIEVED some fantasy land fabrication from your licensee. The thought NEVER crossed his mind that the respondent vet was being anything less than truthful. Meanwhile, no investigator, no reviewing vet, NOBODY from this Board contacted us or ever gave us the opportunity to dispute or even defend our reputation and assertions. The image the reviewing vet had visualized in his mind of us and our complaint was COMPLETELY FALSE. The end result? DISMISSAL of our complaint.
If you truly care about the animals, then you would work with us to correct the flaws in the process that we know intimately. As it is, we are allowed NINE whole minutes a YEAR – in TINY three minute segments – to express our concerns. We have to go for shock value in our short speeches to try to get your attention. There is never a response to our concerns, and I suppose that is a result of the formal rules that must be followed in these types of proceedings. But that should not prohibit you from communicating with us outside of these proceedings.
Each Board member APPLIED to be on this Board and took an oath. As such, you have an obligation to the citizens of this state to properly police this profession thereby protecting our animals from harm. We are here to tell you that is not happening. The NINETY TWO percent dismissal rate tells you that is not happening.
A little bit of communication with us would be nice. I promise you that we don't bite and our vaccinations are current.
Thank you for listening.
CINDY MUNSON SPEECH - 6/19/08
As my husband, Greg, just mentioned to you, the system is broken.
Are we unhappy with the disposition of our complaint? Of course we are. We had to accept the reality a long time ago that this Board would never do the right thing in regards to our complaint.
If you think the reason we continue to attend and speak at these meetings is to get this board to reconsider our complaint, then you have completely misjudged us and greatly underestimated us.
Sadly, we have had to accept the fact that Stempy will never receive justice from this biased board.
The reason we continue to attend and speak – the reason we created our Texas Vet Board Watch website - is because this Board protects bad vets, not our pets. We have made this statement many times and we stand by it. This Board's dismissal rate speaks for itself.
This Board seems to think it deserves our respect - to the point that your proposed rules seem to demand this respect from us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've always thought that respect was EARNED, not DEMANDED. This board has done NOTHING to EARN our respect.
You may not like what we have to say, but it is our right as citizens to criticize this state agency in any way we see fit if it is backed up by enough indications that led us to those conclusions in the first place..When people start putting themselves in positions of public trust and dealing with issues of public health and safety, they better have a thick enough skin to take what goes with that. The workings of this board should and MUST be held up to public scrutiny if it is to be of any use to anybody other than the vets.
Those of us who are speaking up now did not ask to be put in the positions we are in. We lost our companion animals at the hands of your licensees. We had no choice. Your system, which is supposed to be OUR system, is not working for us as it should. It is broken. You have the choice to fix it or not. You have the choice to work with us or not. But when state agencies are not doing their job, it is not only our RIGHT but our OBLIGATION to communicate that message to this agency and to the very public you are supposed to be protecting.
Our goal is simple. We wish to make the complaint process transparent and FAIR for all parties involved. We are asking each of you to work WITH US instead of AGAINST US to make the changes needed to fix this BROKEN system. We would like to remind the three PUBLIC members of this board that you are supposed to be representing the PUBLIC, NOT the vets.
I would like to leave you with this thought:
"Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency."
Thank you for listening.
GREG MUNSON RULES SPEECH - 6/19/08
There are many proposed rules being considered today. Any changes being considered should be to make things fair all parties affected by the rules. This also includes the public and their companion animals. It is supposed to be this Board's first priority to protect the public, but the rules as written and as proposed do not support that priority.
I would like to address a few of those rules. One of those is a proposal to eliminate the complaint log. What is the complaint log? It is a log for when a person contacts the Board and requests that a complaint form be mailed to them, the requestor's name & address is recorded. Over the past year, I have requested this public complaint log from the Board three times. In August of 2007 and December of 2007, the Attorney General ruled that this was public information that the Board must provide, despite their desire withhold this log. My third request is currently in the Attorney General's hands again. Since the Board has been forced to provide this information against it's will, this Board is seeking alternative measures to keep from providing this public information. It is very clear that this is the reason the complaint log has been eliminated from the proposed rules. This shows a severe lack of respect for the Attorney General's rulings on the part of this Board. The complaint log MUST remain in the rules.
Another proposed rule I would like to address is the report to the Board of dismissed complaints. The board proposes to remove from this report a summary of the allegations, investigation conducted, reasons for dismissal, and file number. This is vital information that should remain a part of this report. I would like to propose an additional change to this rule. The report should be given orally so all in attendance at the meetings can hear the report of dismissed complaints. This promotes transparency and fairness to all parties. The complainant may be in attendance and deserves to hear why their complaint was dismissed. The secrecy must be removed if the Board is to be of any use to anyone other than the vets.
Another issue in the proposed rules is the wording involved in regards to the investigator, the complainant, and an interview of the complainant by the investigator. Of course, NO rule is effective if the investigator is going to completely lie about conducting an interview, as happened in our complaint. The former wording was that the investigator SHALL interview the complainant. The proposed rule states that the investigator MAY interview the complainant. This now conveniently leaves an 'out' for an investigator not thoroughly doing his or her job. The wording should be SHALL as the investigator MUST give the opportunity to the complainant to be interviewed. This goes along with promoting FAIRNESS throughout the complaint process.
There are many other issues in the proposed rules that I also disagree with. Please see my comments previously submitted to the Board. I URGE this Board to vote AGAINST the proposed rule changes as written. To pass the proposed rules as written is a slap in the face to the very public this Board is supposed to be protecting.
Thank you very much.
CINDY MUNSON SPEECH - 10/16/08
Cindy Munson – Mesquite, Texas.
As a reminder, we are here in Stempy's name. We will never be silenced. We will never forget.
At the Board Meeting in June, some of you spoke to us off the record. We were told that some of you wanted to get together with us to discuss many of the issues. We are still awaiting that get together. As the old saying goes.....out of sight, out of mind.
Some of you seemed genuinely concerned with the issues we have continued to raise. But, then, at the end of the day, ALL of you voted to pass all of the rule changes that many of us had grave concerns about. Was it just lip service? We are not here to be patronized. We are here – again – we will be here in the future – we are not going away – EVER - until changes are made to this board's corrupt complaint process.
Countless animals in this state remain at risk every day because this board fails miserably to hold many bad vets accountable for their actions. This board even fails to impose meaningful penalties on the very few vets that are disciplined, as evidenced by your use of the informal reprimand – which is not even included in the board's online disciplinary records. The numbers, which speak for themselves, bear repeating: In 2006, this board dismissed 94% of consumer complaints alleging malpractice. In 2007, it was 93%. Each of you are responsible for this because NOT ONE of you has spoken up or took a stand for what is right.
A point that we will continue to bring up until it is addressed is that this board employs an investigator who BLATANTLY lied about interviewing me during the complaint process. We have previously provided you with indisputable proof of this fact. Why do each of you continue to accept such unethical behavior? This is grounds for the immediate termination of this investigator – that is, unless you approve of his unethical behavior – and you must approve. Our complaint should be immediately reopened and assigned to a different investigator.. Nobody in this world is above reproach and if you do wrong, you should pay the price and suffer the consequences for your wrongdoing.
If the decent vets in this state are not willing to really fight for the integrity of their profession, then they are no better than the vets who are negligent. Not doing the right thing can be just as bad as doing the wrong thing. We are challenging each of you to do the right thing.
We would be happy to sit down with each of you and discuss what must be changed to make the complaint process fair for all parties involved. You each accepted your appointment to this board. You have a responsibility to the citizens and animals of this state to protect the public. It's high time each of you started living up to that responsibility.
Thank you for listening.
GREG MUNSON SPEECH – 10/16/08
Greg Munson – Mesquite, Texas
As a reminder, we are here in Stempy's name. We will never be silenced. We will never forget.
As you may know, the board publishes some disciplinary records online and has since approximately 2005 when it was mandated by the Sunset Commission. This board has never published the full docket. The board has never published copies of the actual board orders.
For the last year, this board has systematically removed many more names of disciplined Texas vets from the online disciplinary records. This board has decided to play games with what PUBLIC information they choose to put in PUBLIC view.
Since we, the public, have the right to know just who is doing what to our pets by these licensees of the state, we have taken this issue into our own hands. We also have a right to know how the Board handled previous disciplinary actions. If you have not done so, please take a look at our hard work online at www.texasveterinaryrecords.110mb.com . For the first time ever, the full disciplinary docket is online. Also included on this citizen advocate provided – for public benefit – website are quite a few of the actual board orders in pdf format.
Of course, the source for all the data is public records from the board's full docket listing, agreed orders, and online disciplinary records. As you might imagine, it takes multiple public information requests to acquire copies of the board orders. We have thus far acquired less than half of all board orders.
I would think that we all could agree that the Texas Veterinary Records website is, without question, provided solely as a much needed benefit to the public.
Section 552.267 of the Texas Government Code is titled “Waiver Or Reduction Of Charge For Providing Copy Of Public Information.” This law states, specifically: (a) A governmental body shall provide a copy of public information without charge or at a reduced charge if the governmental body determines that waiver or reduction of the charge is in the public interest because providing the copy of the information primarily benefits the general public.
Again, it is without question that the Texas Veterinary Records website primarily benefits the general public. I have asked Dewey Helmcamp and Loris Jones three times to waive the fees for providing copies to me of the board orders. I have been denied each time. It is up to the governmental body to determine if waiver or reduction of the charge is in the public interest because providing the copy of the information primarily benefits the general public. For this board to continue to refuse to waive these charges proves that this board has chosen to act in bad faith in matters of concern to the public at large.
I am calling on each board member to inform Mr. Helmcamp that these charges should be immediately waived now and for future board order requests. Continuing to charge me for copies of the board orders does not follow the spirit of the law and is a bully tactic that further reflects negatively on this Board.
Thank you for listening.
"Won't Back Down"
What happened to Stempy?
Stempy had a problem with bladder stones. This is a condition that needs to be monitored and managed. There is much more to managing this condition than just a diet change. (Read this at VeterinaryPartner.com to learn about Stempy's condition.) Stempy was already on a prescription diet from his previous vet due to a previous problem with stones. This was dealt with by his prior vet nonsurgically. We changed vets in the Fall of 2003 because we never saw the same vet twice at our old clinic. We wanted a vet who would get to know our dogs. It was then that we made the worst decision of our lives in our choice of a new vet.
Dr. Ann Thomas - Rodeo Drive Veterinary Hospital (aka Rodeo Dr. Vet Rodeo Dr Veterinary Hospital Canine & Cat Corral , Rodeo Drive Animal ) - was a solo practitioner close to home. We had started buying Stempy’s prescription diet from Dr. Thomas in September 2003. Since Dr. Thomas had never seen Stempy, she required us to provide his records from his previous veterinarian in order to dispense his prescription diet. (*-Note that in Stempy’s records from Dr. Thomas, she claims that his previous records contained no mention of his bladder stone history. If that is the case, then what in the world was she doing dispensing a prescription diet to Stempy without ever seeing him? Isn't that a failure to establish a vet/patient relationship?) Dr. Thomas sold us Stempy’s prescription diet several times before doctor and patient ever met.
met Dr. Thomas (aka
Ann K Thomas DVM Ann Thomas DVM Ann K. Thomas DVM Ann Thomas,
DVM Ann K. Thomas, DVM Ann K Thomas, DVM Dr. Ann K. Thomas, DVM
) , of
Rodeo Drive Veterinary Hospital (aka
Dr. Vet Rodeo Dr Veterinary Hospital Canine & Cat Corral
Rodeo Drive Animal ),
for the first time under adverse circumstances. In
November of 2003, Stempy had a urethral obstruction (Dr. Thomas and the
Texas Vet Board need to read and reread and STUDY this link on urethral obstruction
link on canine retrograde urohydropropulsion: a standard of care
caused by a bladder stone blocking his urethra. This is a medical
Of course, all we knew at the time is that Stempy
go pee and he was very uncomfortable. Dr. Thomas was able to wash the
obstruction back to his bladder. As she should, she took radiographs to
see the stone, and she did a urinalysis. Based on the urinalysis, she
changed his diet. She sent Stempy home wearing a catheter to wait a few
days for a cystotomy to be performed. We informed Dr. Thomas of a few
seizure-like episodes Stempy had experienced in his past because we
were worried it would cause problems with his anesthesia. Dr. Thomas
responded to this information by saying, “Oh
Thomas denies this conversation ever occurred – we remember
vividly) Stempy had his cystotomy and recovered well from surgery.
Based on lab results, Dr. Thomas again changed Stempy’s diet.
Stempy had one additional urinalysis at one post surgical follow up
appointment that contradicted the lab results and her again changing
his diet. She paid no attention and should have changed his diet again,
but did not...she left him on a diet not even formulated for bladder
stones and had him on this wrong diet for the remainder of his life.
From our extensive research after Stempy’s death (also see Consider page of this website), we learned that Dr. Thomas did not follow proper protocol starting with this very first surgery. Dr. Thomas failed to take post surgical radiographs after the cystotomy to verify removal of all stones. Dr. Thomas failed to recommend quarterly urinalyses to monitor his urine. This is a MUST for bladder stone patients as many patients form new stones in the future. Dr. Thomas failed to recommend twice yearly radiographs. This is a MUST with the goal being to catch new stones forming while they are small enough to be removed non-surgically.
There were several opportunities to recommend a urinalysis or radiograph to us to monitor Stempy’s condition. Dr. Thomas never recommended anything. (See Timeline page of this website.)
In March of 2005, Stempy again had a urethral obstruction. We were not sure that is what it was at the time. Dr. Thomas failed to take radiographs to ensure her diagnosis. She again washed the stone back to the bladder to relieve the obstruction. A cystotomy was scheduled for the following week and Stempy was sent home wearing a catheter again. When we went to pick up Stempy post surgery, somehow the stone had magically disappeared, so no cystotomy was performed. We were never shown radiographs to back up Dr. Thomas’ claim. No future monitoring was recommended or performed.
In September 2005, Stempy again had a urethral obstruction that unblocked itself just prior to going to see Dr. Thomas. Despite his prior history, Dr. Thomas failed to take radiographs and failed to diagnose bladder stones, even though she was told he was obstructed and had been for a day until just prior to coming in. She said he just had elevated sperm in his urine and sent him home. This event right here is a FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE and is BELOW the standard of care ESPECIALLY with his PRIOR HISTORY of stones WITH THIS VET!
WHY, please tell us, WHY wouldn't you take an x-ray when you have just been told that he had been blocked for a full day AND that WE suspected stones again? Stempy had already had TWO prior episodes WITH HER. This is a MAJOR FAILURE on her part. She must have had an aversion to using her x-ray machine - was it outdated? Looking back on his care, we believe she purposely avoided using her x-ray machine multiple times - when any other vet would have AT LEAST recommended an x-ray! VIOLATION? We believe so. How could the Texas Vet Board just dismiss this case?.
ONLY TWO WEEKS LATER, Stempy again experienced a urethral obstruction from most likely the SAME STONE. FROM MOST LIKELY THE SAME STONE THAT FIRST OBSTRUCTED HIM BACK IN MARCH 2005! (Calcium Oxalate stones do NOT dissolve or just disappear - MAJOR FAILURE BY DR. THOMAS - INEXCUSABLE!) She AGAIN failed to take radiographs to confirm diagnosis, location, and amount. She FAILED to properly wash the stone back to the bladder and tried jamming the catheter in to push the stone back to the bladder. She stated in his records that she was unable to collect a urine specimen. She sent Stempy home wearing a catheter and scheduled a cystotomy for the coming week.
How would she PASS a catheter and NOT be able to obtain a urine specimen? In fact, how did she relieve the distended bladder caused by the obstruction and yet NOT be able to obtain a urine specimen? As we now know, she had LODGED the catheter to the stone, so much so that she told us the she was unable to remove the catheter. So this begs the question: How did she relieve the distended bladder? There was no cystocentesis done. Did she damage his urethra with the very forceful - and unsuccessful - catheterization? The FAILURE to x-ray on this day is OUTRAGEOUS. Yet, the Texas Vet Board looks the other way.
Dr. Thomas ONLY had permission to perform a cystotomy - nothing else. She did NOT perform a cystotomy. She had lodged the catheter to the stone with the forceful catheterization she had performed. She was unable to remove the catheter. She told us that Stempy, himself, removed the catheter, although this is not what she wrote in his records.She performed an unauthorized procedure which she said was a perineal urethrostomy. This is not the procedure she performed, as admitted by the board. SO SHE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SURGERY SHE PERFORMED? WAS SHE JUST MAKING STUFF UP AS SHE WENT ALONG? Her own vet tech stated she had NEVER performed that type of surgery before. She cut our little boy from his anus to his scrotum - a NINE cm incision - and NO NEW permanent or temporary opening was made - as would be expected with a urethrotomy or a urethrostomy. Remember - we had ONLY authorized a cystotomy. THAT'S IT. NOTHING ELSE. As previously mentioned, three days before this unauthorized surgery, Dr. Thomas had failed to wash the stone back to the bladder and had instead lodged the catheter to the stone. She would have known this if she would have taken a radiograph three days earlier when he was brought in. Instead, Stempy was either still obstructed for those three days or she had damaged his urethra and/or bladder when she attempted the forceful catheterization. Read this link on urethral obstruction and this link on canine retrograde urohydropropulsion: a standard of care again. Instead of referring us to a specialist, Dr. Thomas tried to fix her own screwup. If Stempy was in an emergency situation the day of surgery, then SHE is the one who put him there with her FAILURES three days earlier. INEXCUSABLE. Are these not violations? COME ON!!
Stempy was in extreme pain post surgery. We took him back to her EVERY DAY post surgery. Stempy was not eating and was only dribbling urine. She never properly examined him. She just kept changing his pain medicine. Then she gave us a tranquilizer with no pain killing abilities (Acepromazine) and led us to believe it was yet another pain killer. This tranquilizer lowers the seizure threshold and is not recommended for brachycephalic breeds.
Two days post surgery, Dr. Thomas’ clinic DENIED care to Stempy when his condition was deteriorating. The clinic stated that Stempy would be IN PAIN for 2 or 3 more days and then he would be fine and NOT to bring him in - YET they had just taken him completely OFF of painkillers! How INHUMANE is THAT? Violation? Evidently not in Texas.
The very next morning, three days post surgery….Stempy passed away. He was found unconscious and lifeless on his pillow. We rushed him to this vet to no avail.
It is our contention that Stempy passed away because of that unauthorized “surgery” that Dr. Thomas had NEVER performed before that would have NEVER have been needed had Dr. Thomas taken radiographs as needed and properly diagnosed and treated his condition. There is NO DOUBT in our minds that Dr. Thomas is 100% responsible for Stempy’s preventable death. Her attitude and failure to properly care for him those 3 days after his unauthorized surgery - to the point that the clinic DENIED Stempy care the night before he died - is deeply disturbing. Did she WANT Stempy to die?
She butchered our little boy!
(**NOTE: Dr. Thomas never recommended or performed any blood tests prior to ANY of the surgical procedures she performed. Check the Records.)
(Visit the Expert Opinion page of this website.)
Greg & Cindy Munson
(Visit all the various pages of this website for detailed information of the aforementioned events.)
Do you need to check the DISCIPLINARY RECORDS
of a Texas veterinarian?
If you only want PART of the story, with incomplete information, including many disciplined vets who are not even included in the list...
If you want MUCH MUCH MORE of
the story, with disciplinary information
that is actually USEFUL to Texas citizens...
MUFFY 2 CANDLES BURN STEMPY
In Memory of
the best doggie in the whole world!
February 10, 1988
October 10, 2005
Muffy, our beloved female Lhasa Apso, passed away due to old age and cancer 10 days after Stempy on October 10, 2005 at the grand old age of
17¾ years old.
She is dearly loved and dearly missed!
WE LOVE YOU, MUFFY!
Stempy was an AKC champion-sired
male Shih Tzu. He was only 8 years old. He was truly a once in a lifetime dog.
In our opinion, he had about half
of his life taken away from him due
to the negligent and substandard
care he received at the hands
of his vet. Unfortunately,
Stempy's veterinarian was:
ANN K. THOMAS, DVM
Rodeo Dr. Veterinary Hospital
In our opinion,
we think the DVM means:
Be sure to click the page links at the top of the page to learn all about the veterinary negligence that Stempy endured for 2 years because we were all-trusting of this vet. If only we had researched two years prior.....
You MUST do your research NOW
BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
No matter how great you "think" your vet may be, do not leave it to chance!NEVER BLINDLY
There is no 2nd chance for Stempy!
We miss you, little boy!
We will NOT let you die in vain!
TRUST YOUR VET!
Let us repeat that....
TRUST YOUR VET!
Things to do:
To check the disciplinary records of Texas vets:
To file a complaint against a veterinarian in Texas:
Visit other Vet Victims:
happened to Stempy? Here's a timeline...
|In our opinion, ANN K. THOMAS, DVM is an incompetent vet based on our experience with her and we would NEVER, under any circumstances, recommend her to anybody with a pet!|
|In our opinion, Stempy is also a victim of the TEXAS STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS' complaint system that is supposed to PROTECT OUR PETS, but, instead, may very well be protecting GUILTY VETS! Approximately 90% of ALL consumer complaints filed in Texas against veterinarians are DISMISSED as no violation found!|
|Notice: The material presented on each page of this website consists solely of the opinions, observations, interpretations, & personal experiences of Greg & Cindy Munson, co-authors of this website, & should be considered in that context. Also included on this website are text copies of material submitted to and received from the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, along with copies of the medical records, as received by Greg & Cindy Munson via facsimile, from Ann K. Thomas, DVM.|
|Copyright © 2006 - 2014. Greg and Cindy Munson. FOR STEMPY. All Rights Reserved.|
|Legal notice: The stempy.net website, along with Greg & Cindy Munson, make no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or fitness for a particular use of the information on this website. This information is ADVISORY ONLY & the website user assumes all liability & waives any & all claims or causes of action against this website, its hosts, and/or Greg & Cindy Munson for all uses of, & any reliance on, this information. This website, along with Greg & Cindy Munson, specifically disclaims any & all liability for any claims or damages that may result from providing the website or the information it contains, including any websites maintained by third parties & linked to and/or from the stempy.net website. Links provided to other websites from the stempy.net website is not an endorsement of the third party website or its content. This paragraph shall accompany all distributions of this information & is incorporated into this information for all purposes.|