|
THE APPEAL NOTICE : CASE #06-111 IS
CONTESTED
COMPLAINT AGAINST : ANN K. THOMAS, DVM REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF BOARD’S DECISION REQUEST FOR INFORMAL PROCEEDING AND FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT PROCEEDING. Greg and Cindy Munson
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx May 19, 2006 Mr. Ron Allen - Executive Director Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners 333 Guadalupe, Ste. 3-810 Austin, Texas 78701-3942 Mr. Allen, We are formally requesting to appeal the decision of the TSBVME in regards to the dismissal of Complaint # 06-111 – Ann K. Thomas, DVM. According to Board Rule 575.27(c)(7), the investigator shall interview the complainant. According to Board Rule 801.205(4), the Board must ensure that the person who filed the complaint has the opportunity to explain the allegations made in the complaint. We have yet to be interviewed. We have yet to be given the opportunity to explain the allegations made in the complaint. This complaint is FAR from groundless. In fact, the violations of both the Practice Act and Rules of Professional Conduct are so numerous, to just dismiss this complaint suggests one, or a combination, of the following: Relevant material submitted with our complaint was withheld, or not provided, to the reviewing board members. ~ and / or ~ Dr. Thomas’ response to the complaint was a despicably fictional account of events designed to cover up her absolute negligence and total guilt. Dr. Thomas has already proven that she is untrustworthy and extremely unethical. Proof positive of this is on page 1 of the medical records we submitted. She has altered the records and that is an indisputable fact. Can’t see it? LET US HELP YOU. See attached. INDISPUTABLE FACT. No ifs, ands, or buts. FACT. Period. We also request to see the ORIGINAL records to determine if there have been other alterations to the records not evident in our faxed copy. We have demanded ALL of Stempy’s records from Dr. Thomas, INCLUDING all radiograghs. We have NEVER received, nor have we seen, any radiographs ever taken by Dr. Thomas. Now, we demand that the board compel Dr. Thomas to immediately provide us copies of ALL radiographs in Stempy’s records, plus other relevant records that Dr. Thomas is withholding. By not providing us the radiographs, Dr. Thomas is in DIRECT VIOLATION of board rule 573.52(c). How can this just be ignored? Must we file a complaint for EVERY violation?!? ~ and / or ~ A gross dereliction of duty on the part of the reviewing board members, constituting a conspiracy designed to cover up for, and protect, a GUILTY veterinarian. Let us remind the board that in your “Compact with Texas” posted on the TSBVME website, it states, “The Board's first priority is to protect the public.” It is NOT to protect a GUILTY veterinarian. A guilty vet, who then lies to cover up her negligence, poses a GRAVE and IMMINENT danger to the public the board is charged with protecting. We strongly feel this complaint MUST be heard in person in informal proceedings and we demand to be heard and allowed to rebut any falsehoods offered as fact by Dr. Thomas. The public’s safety could very well hang in the balance. The same public the board is charged with protecting. Please visit Stempy’s website at www.stempy.net . We look forward to your immediate response. Sincerely, Greg and Cindy Munson. For Stempy. We firmly
believe that these are
In our opinion, proof positive that the records have been altered can be easily seen above. Note the date of the two entries. (11/3/03 and 11/14/03) The last half of the entry from 11/3/03 extends out to the side of the entry from 11/14/03, yet is represented as being written on 11/3/03. NOT POSSIBLE! The entry from 11/14/03 would NOT have been there on 11/3/03, therefore, there would have been no need to write out to the side of the 11/14/03 entry. The conversation written to the side NEVER occurred! We feel this was added AFTER Stempy passed. We firmly believe that these are ALTERED RECORDS from page 2
Notice
the missing parts in uncomfortable.
Notice the flat bottom of the letter o in uncomfortable.
IN
OUR OPINION, THESE
RECORDS ARE ALTERED!
We believe white out was used. Look at the different thickness of the lines. We firmly believe that these are ALTERED RECORDS from page 2  Notice
that
the bottom of the letters in abdomen are cut off. Notice the
lines are not the same width.
We believe white out was used and lines were redrawn. IN OUR OPINION, THESE RECORDS ARE ALTERED! We firmly believe that these are ALTERED RECORDS from page 3  Notice the missing line at the bottom right. We believe white out was used. IN OUR OPINION, THESE RECORDS ARE ALTERED! We firmly believe that these are ALTERED RECORDS from page 3
Notice the one line above is whiter than the rest. We firmly believe that these are from page 3
Notice
on line
2 how the bottom of the letters are cut off.
IN OUR OPINION,
THESE
RECORDS ARE ALTERED!
We firmly believe that these are ALTERED
RECORDS
from page 3
Notice
how the
letters u, g, and d are flat on the bottom & other
Notice the mysterious line near the bottom. IN OUR OPINION, CONSIDER Consider… “Definitive diagnosis of urethral calculi is based on clinical signs, inability to pass a catheter, and evidence of calculi on survey or contrast radiographs.” ---
Howard B. Seim III, DVM, Dipl. ACVS, Fort Collins, CO --- from
“Management of Cystic and Urethral Calculi in Male
Dogs” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas FAILED to take radiographs
on several occasions. This is INEXCUSABLE!! SEE VIOLATIONS PAGE*** “...urethral
calculi are removed via urethrotomy” ---
Howard B. Seim III, DVM, Dipl. ACVS, Fort Collins, CO --- from
“Management of Cystic and Urethral Calculi in Male
Dogs” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas removed urethral calculi. She DID NOT perform a Perineal
Urethrostomy as she states in Stempy’s records. She actually
performed an extremely poor attempt of a
Urethrotomy…BUTCHERING
OUR BELOVED DOG, STEMPY, in the process! Stempy had an incision at
least 9 cm in length! AGAIN….SHE DID NOT PERFORM A PERINEAL
URETHROSTOMY!!
“The
urethral calculus to be removed is located by evaluation of
radiographs, palpation of the os penis and its relationship to the
calculus, and/or passing a catheter in the urethra until it contacts
the stone, removing the catheter and using it as a measure to locate
the calculus. A 2-3 cm skin incision is made directly over the
calculus."
---
Howard B. Seim III, DVM, Dipl. ACVS, Fort Collins, CO –--
from
“Management of Cystic and Urethral Calculi in Male
Dogs” OUR
COMMENT:
***Saturday, 9/24/05, Dr. Thomas continued JAMMING & JAMMING
the
catheter in trying to FORCE the catheter past the stone. She NEVER
measured to locate the calculus. She NEVER took a radiograph to locate
the calculus, yet she continued JAMMING & JAMMING the catheter.
Stempy was sent home WEARING a catheter. Again, Stempy’s
incision
was at least 9 cm in length! She told us after the surgery on 9/27/05,
that evidently she had lodged the catheter to the stone on 9/24/05. She
stated to us that she was unable to remove the catheter. Stempy was
placed back in a cage, where he, himself removed the catheter. In
Stempy’s records, Dr. Thomas completely changes her story and
claims she removed the catheter during surgery. That is NOT what she
told us.*** “A
Urethrostomy provides a permanent opening caudal to the os penis that
is large enough to accommodate passage of most urethral
calculi.”
---
Howard B. Seim III, DVM, Dipl. ACVS, Fort Collins, CO --- from
“Management of Cystic and Urethral Calculi in Male
Dogs” OUR COMMENT:
***AGAIN, Dr. Thomas DID NOT PERFORM A
PERINEAL URETHROSTOMY!! There was no new opening made!*** “Long
term prognosis is dependent on evaluation of calculus composition,
dietary management, management of urinary tract infection, and
attention to urine pH.”
---
Howard B. Seim III, DVM, Dipl. ACVS, Fort Collins, CO --- from
“Management of Cystic and Urethral Calculi in Male
Dogs” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas FAILED to provide correct
dietary management. Dr. Thomas FAILED to perform or recommend quarterly
urinalyses.*** “Patients
that have an elective urethrostomy have a favorable prognosis if
attention is paid to proper surgical technique...”
---
Howard B. Seim III, DVM, Dipl. ACVS, Fort Collins, CO --- from
“Management of Cystic and Urethral Calculi in Male
Dogs” OUR COMMENT:
***The key word above is ELECTIVE. We
NEVER authorized anything more than a Cystotomy. Period.*** “Anesthesia
should be induced and maintained with caution. The animal should be
well hydrated and cardiac and output and blood pressure maintained to
ensure adequate renal perfusion. Urine output should be measured
intraoperatively where possible to monitor renal function. Agents such
as methoxyflurane, phenothiazine tranquilizers, droperidol,
barbiturates, and tiletamine/zolazepam should be avoided. Agents
providing cardiovascular stability, including narcotics such as
oxymorphone or etomidate, and inhalants such as
isoflurane are recommended.” ---
David Holt, BVSc, Diplomate ACVS, University of Pennsylvania School of
Veterinary Medicine --- from “Surgical Management of
Urogenital
Emergencies” OUR COMMENT:
***Acepromazine is a phenothiazine tranquilizer. As stated above, it
should be avoided in urogenital emergencies. Dr. Thomas used
acepromazine in 11/03, 3/05, and 9/05 DESPITE the FACT that we informed
her on 11/1/03 of Stempy having had previous seizures and DESPITE the
FACT that it should be avoided in urogenital emergencies and DESPITE
the FACT that it should be avoided in brachycephalic breeds.*** “...difficult urethral catheterization should also increase the index of suspicion for urethral injury. Obtaining urine from a urethral catheter does not exclude the possibility of urethral trauma. The catheter could pass directly through the urethral rupture into the peritoneal cavity where urine is collecting. Urine leaking into the peritoneal cavity will initiate a chemical peritonitis.” ---
David Holt, BVSc, Diplomate ACVS, University of Pennsylvania School of
Veterinary Medicine --- from “Surgical Management of
Urogenital
Emergencies” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas FORCED the catheter to pass on 9/24/05. She FAILED to do
a radiograph on 9/24/05. We DEMAND to see the radiograph Dr. Thomas
claims she did on 9/27/05. We suspect she may have caused a urethral
rupture that went unnoticed until 9/27/05. We believe that she did not
notify us or refer us to a specialist because of this and that she must
have been trying to repair her MAJOR MISTAKE made on 9/24/05. It is the
ONLY thing that could possibly explain a 9 cm incision. As stated
above, urine leaking into the peritoneal cavity will initiate a
CHEMICAL PERITONITIS!!!*** “The
urethra (the narrow tube connecting the urinary bladder to the outside
world) is a difficult place to perform surgery so it is preferrable to
move the stone back into the bladder for removal rather than attempting
removal from the urethra.”
---
Mar
Vista Animal Medical Center, 3850 Grand
View Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90066
--- from “OXALATE BLADDER STONES IN THE DOG” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas only made one attempt to flush the stone back to the
bladder on 9/24/05. She FAILED to do a radiograph to determine if she
was successful. She then FORCED the catheter, possibly causing a
urethral rupture.*** “...therapeutic
plan has been devised to minimize the chance of recurrence ..... a
urinalysis should be performed every 2 months or so for the rest of the
dog’s life (University of Minnesota’s current
recommendation). Radiographs are taken every 3-6 months so that any new
stones will still be small enough to be retrieved from the bladder by
flushing...With radiography monitoring, it is hoped that new stones can
be detected while they are still small... If one skips this monitoring,
one may find stones present have developed to a large size and surgery
is again needed to remove them...”
--- Mar
Vista Animal Medical Center, 3850 Grand
View Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90066
--- from “OXALATE BLADDER STONES IN THE DOG” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas never implemented ANY type of therapeutic plan. Dr.
Thomas FAILED to recommend or perform ANY monitoring such as urinalyses
or radiographs!! SEE TIMELINE AND VIOLATIONS.*** “...it
is important to have radiographs taken to check for the presence of
more stones..... Radiographs are taken monthly to monitor
progress.”
---
Mar
Vista Animal Medical Center, 3850 Grand
View Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90066
--- from “STRUVITE BLADDER
STONES IN THE DOG” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas FAILED to take
radiographs…on MULTIPLE occasions. SEE TIMELINE AND
VIOLATIONS.*** “Acepromazine maleate is a phenothiazine derivative.....a tranquilizer for dogs, cats and horses. It provides no analgesia....Acepromazine should not be used in animals with a history of epilepsy, those prone to seizures, or those receiving a myelogram because it may lower the seizure threshold. Brachycephalic breeds....are particularly prone to cardiovascular side effects (drop in blood pressure and slow heart rate). Acepromazine should be avoided...in these breeds.” ---
Dr.
Barbara Forney, VMD, Chester County,
Pennsylvania --- from “Acepromazine Maleate For Veterinary
Use” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas prescribed this tranquilizer for Stempy on 9/29/05. We
were led to believe it was a pain killer. We told Dr. Thomas that
Stempy was in EXTREME pain. She prescribed this DESPITE the fact that
it provides NO analgesia. Dr. Thomas was informed on 11/1/03 that
Stempy had experienced two seizures in his past. Dr. Thomas used and
prescribed Acepromazine DESPITE the FACT that it is known to lower the
seizure threshold. Dr. Thomas used Acepromazine DESPITE the FACT that
it should be avoided in brachycephalic breeds.*** “Postoperative
management of dogs with Calcium OxalateUrolithiasis begins by obtaining
radiographs immediately after surgery. This helps to differentiate
surgical failure to remove all of the calculi from recurrence of
calculi, if calculi are discovered at a later date...”
---
Dana Dolinsek, DVM, “Calcium oxalate urolithiasis in the
canine:
Surgical management and preventative strategies” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas NEVER took a post-operative
radiograph.*** “Detection
of crystalluria is not synonymous with the presence of uroliths.
Crystalluria often is present in absence of uroliths. Conversely,
uroliths can be present without concomitant crystalluria.”
---
Carl A. Osborne, DVM, PhD Dipl. ACVIM, DVM Newsmagazine --- from
“Improving management of urolithiasis: diagnostic
caveats” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas performed urinalyses in 3/05 and 9/05 that showed no
crystals in Stempy’s urine. As stated above, uroliths CAN be
present without concomitant crystalluria. Dr. Thomas FAILED to take a
radiograph.*** “The
primary objectives of radiographic evaluation of patients suspected of
having uroliths is to determine their site(s), number, density and
shape(s). Although properly performed ultrasonography is comparable to
survey radiography in detection of uroliths, ultrasonography does not
provide information about the relative radiodensity or shape of
uroliths. Because the radiodensity, shape and size of uroliths often
provides valuable clues as to their mineral composition, we prefer to
use survey radiography as the initial imaging procedure when evaluating
most patients for uroliths. Once urolithiasis has been confirmed,
radiographic and/or ultrasonographic evaluation are important to detect
predisposing or complicating abnormalities. Radiographic evaluation of
changes in urolith size is also an important index of therapeutic
response.”
---
Carl A. Osborne, DVM, PhD Dipl. ACVIM, DVM Newsmagazine --- from
“Improving management of urolithiasis: diagnostic
caveats” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas FAILED to take
radiographs…on MULTIPLE occasions. SEE TIMELINE AND
VIOLATIONS.*** “Most
veterinarians will perform a cystotomy, however, many prefer to refer
animals in need of a urethrotomy, urethrostomy, or nephrotomy to a
surgical specialist.”
---
American
College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS)
--- from “UROLITHIASIS (URINARY STONES)” OUR COMMENT:
***Dr. Thomas did NOT have authorization to perform any of the
procedures stated above. She had a DUTY to refer us to a specialist.
She FAILED in that duty as she did NOT refer, nor did she seek our
authorization. This was an UNAUTHORIZED procedure!!*** …protect
the public…it’s your duty!! Greg and Cindy Munson (Note
to website visitors: In our opinion, it is obvious that the Board here
in Texas could care less about protecting the public, much less our
animals. Ignoring all evidence, the Board dismissed our complaint
twice! In our opinion, it's now very clear who the Board here is
interested in protecting.....the vet and NOT the pet! Shame
on you, TSBVME!!)
VIOLATIONS Q&A 1. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 2. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 3. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 4. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 5. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 6. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 7. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 8. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 9. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 10. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 11. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 12. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 13. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 14. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 15. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 16. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 17. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 18. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 19. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 20. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 21. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 22. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 23. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 24. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 25. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 26. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 27. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 28. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 29. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 30. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 31. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 32. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 33. Violation? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ WEBSITE VISITOR NOTE: We
sent this to all 6
veterinarian members of the State Board. NONE of them were returned to
us. We
have now taken the liberty of answering the questions ourselves. We
answer a
RESOUNDING yes to every single violation listed.
APPEAL
EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE
The following is
our email correspondence with the Texas State Board of Veterinary
Medical Examiners that has taken place since the original dismissal of
our complaint and the subsequent appeal. The correspondence is mainly
with Peter Hartline - Director of Enforcement for the TSBVME. There are
also a few emails from Ron Allen - Executive Director for the TSBVME
and to Lee Matthews - General Legal Counsel for the TSBVME. During this
correspondence, there were also a few phone conversations with Peter
Hartline. The correspondence below appears in chronological order. We
feel that this correspondence gives insight into this whole process and
how the "deck is FIRMLY stacked against" the complainant....which in
this case is us. We are not going to stop fighting for
justice for our beloved Stempy.
-----Original Message----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:01 AM To: TBVME Subject: FOIA request for vet's response Re: Case No: 06-111 Ann K. Thomas, DVM This is a formal request for the vet's response to our complaint. As this complaint is NOT groundless, the confidentiality law does NOT apply. There is NO EXCUSE for the dismissal of our complaint. This vet lied in the medical records, we are sure she lied in her response to the board. She poses an imminent danger to the public, of which the board is charged with protecting. There are numerous violations of the Practice Act, as detailed in our complaint. The FIRST duty of the board is to protect the public. It is NOT to protect a GUILTY veterinarian. We DEMAND justice! We will NOT go quietly. Greg & Cindy Munson ----- Original Message ----- From: TBVME To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:50 PM Subject: RE: FOIA request for vet's response Mr. and Mrs. Munson, We have an appeal process. If you would like to appeal your case, and/or speak with Mr. Hartline, the Director of Enforcement, please contact our office at xxx-xxx-xxxx. -----Original Message----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:43 AM To: Peter Hartline Subject: Fw: RE: FOIA request for vet's response Mr. Hartline, We received the email below from your agency yesterday. We were referred to you. According to the email below, there is an appeal process. We would like to know how to go about filing the appeal, what is the timeframe / deadline, materials required, special forms, etc. We are certain we want to file an appeal. See our original email above. Greg &
Cindy Munson
----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 9:17 AM Subject: RE: RE: FOIA request for vet's response Greg & Cindy Munson The appeal request is simple, just state that you would like an appeal. Please send a short note or letter stating that you would like to appeal the decision to Mr. Allen, the Executive Director - the address is on the bottom of the letter I sent you. If there is anything that is of particular interest to you, please state so. Once, Mr. Allen receives your letter, he will direct me to send your letter, and all of the documentation previously gather to another veterinarian on the Board. This veterinarian is usually the Board's President. This Board officer will then render the final decision. This process usually takes about three weeks. Best Regards 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. -----Original Message----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:20 PM To: Pete Hartline Subject: Follow Up Mr. Hartline, This is just a follow up to our telephone conversation today, 5-25-06. We have a few questions: My wife and I were wondering, when will the board compel Dr. Thomas to provide us with the radiographs? Is it possible that she could "fake" the radiographs, if she has destroyed the originals? We highly question Dr. Thomas' honesty and integrity. This complaint is going to be reviewed again, correct? We implore you to please take the time necessary to thoroughly review all of the information we have provided. We would like the opportunity to discuss the complaint in detail with the investigator, or yourself, or the board, preferably a veterinarian board member. When can we do this? Please let us know. Thank you very much. Greg Munson ----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:38 PM Subject: RE: Follow Up Mr.. & Mrs. Munson: I spoke with Dr. Thomas yesterday, 5-25-06, after speaking with you. She has agreed to have copies made of the radiographs and mail them to you. I believe it is highly unlikely that she would alter or "fake" the radiographs. The complaint review is already in-process. Best regards 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. From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:20 PM To: Pete Hartline Subject: Re: RE: Follow Up Mr. Hartline, Another question: Has Dr. Thomas already submitted copies of the radiographs to the board, or should we submit copies once we receive them? Greg & Cindy Munson ----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:01 AM Subject: RE: RE: Follow Up Greg & Cindy Munson No thanks, we have everything we need. 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. -----Original Message----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:55 AM To: Pete Hartline Subject: Re: RE: Follow Up Mr. Hartline, Hope you had a nice Memorial Day. A couple of questions for you: Were ALL of our attachments submitted to the original reviewing board members for them to decide the case? The fact that we did not receive the radiographs is not a new revelation. It was mentioned in the originally submitted materials. It truly makes us wonder how TWO reviewing board members could have overlooked that fact. Could you please tell us exactly what information the original reviewing board members received? Please note: This is why we sent the ENTIRE complaint and appeal DIRECTLY to veterinarian board members for the appeal. Thank you again for all of your kind assistance. It is appreciated. ----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:57 PM Subject: RE: RE: Follow Up Greg & Cindy Munson All the attachments in your complaint were submitted to the two reviewing board members, in addition to the documents obtained during the investigation. The Report of Investigation (ROI), and all allied documents were submitted for review. These documents were of sufficient evidence for these two veterinarians to render a decision. If they needed more information, or the information was not complete they would have asked. And they did not. 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. -----Original Message----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:56 PM To: Pete Hartline Subject: Re: RE: Follow Up Mr. Hartline, You state,"These documents were of sufficient evidence for these two veterinarians to render a decision. If they needed more information, or the information was not complete they would have asked. And they did not." I think you would have to agree, then, that our complaint was NOT properly reviewed by the two board members. How else could you possibly explain them overlooking the fact that we had never received radiographs? Obviously, countless facts were overlooked. Have you read ALL of our complaint and appeal, including ALL attachments? Honestly, have you? There is NO WAY this complaint could just be dismissed if ALL information we have provided is thoroughly reviewed. IMPOSSIBLE. VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: Who is the veterinarian board member conducting the current review? We would like the opportunity to speak with this veterinarian board member, before a decision is made, so that we may explain the allegations made in the complaint. We have this right, according to Board Rule 801.205(4). When is a good time for us to be able to discuss this complaint IN PERSON or BY PHONE with the veterinarian reviewing board member/s? Also, according to board rule 575.27(c)(7), the investigator shall interview the complainant. Could you please tell us the exact date and time this will take place? We look forward to this interview. Please be sure all concerns are addressed in your reply. Thank you for your cooperation. It is greatly appreciated. Regards, Greg Munson ----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:52 AM Subject: RE: RE: Follow Up Mr.. Munson: 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Pete Hartline Cc: Ron Allen Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:47 AM Subject: Re: RE: Follow Up Mr. Hartline, I see that you have requested that I cease communications with you. Why? Did you not tell me to contact you anytime with questions or concerns? Maybe I misunderstood you. We have been cordial in our communications with you....never harassing. I think we deserve to have our questions answered. This matter is of extreme importance to us. I must correct some erroneous information you have. NO CALL has EVER been made to us, other than by yourself. My wife, Cindy, has NEVER spoken to ANYONE at the board. I called Investigator Barker myself to check the status of the complaint. He has NEVER called us and NO INTERVIEW has EVER taken place. Again, NO INTERVIEW has EVER taken place. Investigator Barker has NEVER called us. You are the Director of Enforcement, are you not? I would think any concerns about the process that we have would be addressed by you. If not you, then please tell us who we should direct these concerns to. You have to understand our position. While we appreciate the fact that the board has granted us a "courtesy appeal," we still have grave concerns about this whole process, being that our original complaint was dismissed. Surely you can understand our concerns. We would like for someone to clarify board rule 801.205(4). It states that the complainant shall have the opportunity to explain the allegations made in the complaint. We have NOT been given this opportunity. Are we missing something here? Please accept our apologies if we are "bothering" you. Kindly tell us who to direct our questions to, and we will immediately do so, as we DO have more questions we would like to have answered. Thank you very much. Regards Greg Munson ----- Original
Message -----
From: Ron Allen To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:30 PM Subject: Your complaint against this staff. Mr.
Munson,
I
received a copy of your most recent e-mail to Peter Hartline concerning
your complaint against Dr. Thomas. I would like to reply.
I understand from your contacts with us that you are extremely concerned about your complaint and its consideration by this Board and its staff. You have sent us a large, detailed packet of material setting out your points, one by one. We have responded to at least five e-mails and one telephone call from you, and you have indicated that you still have concerns that you want to be addressed. You need to understand that there is a point where some things must end. You have requested a substantial amount of information and taken a substantial amount of time on an issue that has been thoroughly reviewed and resolved as best we can. You need to understand that, just because something bad happened to your pet, that does not necessarily mean that someone is at blame. This office has had three veterinarians review this case. These are three competent, professional, and honorable people. They have been board members for at least three to five years and have been very conscientious members. They have never been shy about bringing a veterinarian into this office for a fact-finding hearing where there was any question about the standard of care a veterinarian had given. Nor have they any motive to dismiss a case to no violation where any question exists. I am convinced that this board - and its staff - have given your complaint full attention and thorough review. Every complaint is important to us, and each one, including yours, is carefully considered. I am sorry if you have "concerns about the process," but the process has been in place for many years and has proven itself creditable and defensible. It is common for a complaint to be dismissed without an informal conference. It is not unusual for a complainant – like yourself - to express disappointment with that dismissal. That is why we have instituted an informal appeal process to allow a review by yet another Board member veterinarian. The problem I have is that our staff, especially Mr. Hartline's group, has many cases to deal with. You have been given a substantial amount of time by this staff. They simply cannot devote an endless amount of time responding to individual requests to repeatedly explain and/or justify our complaint process, answer requests for what was or was not considered, or discuss the details of the process in each case. The complaint process is fully explained in our Rule 575.27. The standard of care is set out in our Rule 573.22 which is: "Did the veterinarian exercise the same degree of humane care, skill, and diligence in treating the patient as is ordinarily used in the same or similar circumstances by average members of the veterinary medical profession in good standing in the locality or community in which they practice, or in similar communities." This standard does not require that the reviewing veterinarian agree with each and every decision that the respondent veterinarian made. In many cases, another veterinarian may have done something a different way. The question is whether the actions of the veterinarian, taken as a whole and in the context of each particular situation, meet the minimum standard of practice that can be expected of an "average" veterinarian. Also, in response to your question about sec. 801.205(4) of the Veterinary Licensing Act, that section requires that the Board adopt rules that "ensure that the person who filed the complaint has the opportunity to explain the allegations made in the complaint...". We have responded to that direction by adopting Rule 575.27. Although you take issue with the notation that Mr. Barker talked with Mrs. Munson in April, 2006, our records clearly indicate that the conservation did occur and that Mrs. Munson indicated to Mr. Barker that Dr. Thomas was trying to "shift the fault from herself to you and her." The rule does not require that explanations of the allegations be oral. That does not require that, in addition to the written complaint, a comprehensive oral report is required. Oral communication is made if staff find the written complaint deficient. In this case, you have submitted extremely detailed written explanations of your allegations with your initial complaint and in the additional large packet in response to the appeal. It seems to us that you have had an opportunity to explain fully your allegations and have taken advantage of your opportunity to do so. In light of these considerations, if you are compelled to continue to communicate your concerns to this office, you may do so, but please do so in writing. Your communications will be noted and placed in the file, but in most cases we will be unable to provide a response to you. Please address further communications directly to me. Your cooperation and understanding of this matter will be appreciated. Ron Allen Executive Director Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. C: all board members; Mr. Lee Mathews, General Legal Counsel; Mr. Hartline and his staff. -----Original Message----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:20 PM To: Ron Allen Subject: Re:Your complaint against this staff. Mr. Allen, We would appreciate a phone call from you to discuss the issues mentioned in your email. Home xxx-xxx-xxxx Cell xxx-xxx-xxxx Thank you very much. Greg
& Cindy Munson
----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Allen To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:58 AM Subject: RE: Your complaint against this staff. I believe my email said all I need to say. There is a time to end some issues. Ron Allen
---- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Ron Allen Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:44 PM Subject: Re: RE: Your complaint against this staff. Mr. Allen, Sir, you may have said all you wanted to say. Well, allow us to retort. That is the FAIR and HONORABLE and ETHICAL thing to do. We would greatly appreciate the courtesy of a phone call. We are reasonable people. Communication solves many problems. I do not wish to discuss the issues we have via email. I would prefer to discuss these issues via telephone or in person. Your email correspondence from yesterday has escalated the importance of the issues we have. I will tell you, however, that the questions I have asked Mr. Hartline in email correspondence would have took up only a 3 to 4 minute phone conversation. This is far from a "substantial" amount of time. The answers should have been first-hand knowledge requiring little or no research. That is far from a "substantial" amount of information. If you wish to delay answering our questions or communicating with us until the appeal process is complete, we will comply. However, we feel that doing so unfairly silences us at a critical juncture in this process. We were quiet for the entire length of the original review, save for my 1 minute call to check the status. Again, let us reiterate, Cindy has NEVER spoken to ANYONE from the board. Our silence and faith in the original review resulted in facts being overlooked and the complaint being improperly dismissed. The courtesy appeal you have granted us may be the last opportunity we have, before the board, to ask relevant questions and present relevant information critical to the outcome, unless this case goes to informal conference...as it should have in the first place. You have to understand our position. We wholeheartedly agree that there comes a time for things to end. For us, that time comes when a fair and equitable solution to this complaint has been achieved. That has yet to occur. Please be aware that, if necessary, we will pursue this matter using whatever remedies the law may provide for......including contacting our State Senator and the Governor. We will not waver in our pursuit of justice. His name was Stempy. Greg Munson -----Original
Message-----
From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:16 AM To: Ron Allen Subject: radiographs Mr. Allen, We do have this issue that we MUST tell you about: It has been a week and a half since Mr. Hartline told Dr. Thomas to provide us copies of the radiographs. We STILL have not received them. It would only take 1 day for us to receive them by regular mail. We are aware that she has 15 business days from the date of request. The date we originally requested them from her was October 13, 2005.....15 business days are long gone. It really concerns us, and should concern the board, that she has STILL not provided us these radiographs. Greg
Munson
----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Allen To: Greg & Cindy Munson Cc: 5 Pete Hartline Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:29 AM Subject: RE: radiographs Mr.. Munson. Mr..
Hartline is out of the office today. When he comes in Monday, I will
have him check the status of the mailing of the radiograph.
----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Ron Allen Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:52 AM Subject: Re: radiographs Thank
you very much.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:09 AM To: Pete Hartline Subject: Fw: Radiograph Mr Hartline, The local vet we had look at the homemade cd-rom of the radiographs that Dr. Thomas sent us stated that the images were too fuzzy to make any determination. Below please find the email from Dr. Carl Osborne of the Minnesota Urolith Center at the University of Minnesota...one of the foremost authorities in the world on canine urolithiasis, who also states the radiograph in the form submitted is not sufficient: We would like to see ALL of the original radiographs....that we paid for.....so that we can have them analyzed by a third party. We are unsure if it is even our dog in the radiographs. We have actual radiographs from his old vet from 1999 to compare them to. We want to see the originals....or EXACT replicas of the originals so they can be evaluated and compared. We feel this is EXTREMELY important. Thank you very much! Greg & Cindy Munson see Dr. Osborne's email below. ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Osborne To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:37 PM Subject: Radiograph Greg. The radiograph that you attached to this message lacks the detail that would be necessary to formulate conclusions about urinary stones. Warm regards, C.A.O. -- Carl
A. Osborne DVM, PhD
Professor Veterinary Clinical Sciences Department College of Veterinary Medicine University of Minnesota
-----
Original Message -----
From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: Radiograph Mr.. Munson: The radiographs were analyzed by the "Reviewing Veterinarian" on June 15, 2006. You will received our final determination on your appeal in the near future. Best Regards 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. -----Original Message----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:16 AM To: Pete Hartline Cc: Ron Allen Subject: Re: Radiograph Mr. Hartline, Have not heard back from you since I left a message yesterday. In the days before CD-roms - HOW WERE COPIES OF X-rays HANDLED? The homemade CD-Rom provided by Dr. Thomas is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Did the board also receive a cd-rom or were the ACTUAL x-rays sent? Dr. Thomas must have thought long and hard how to make those x-rays as difficult to read as possible. She knew exactly what she was doing. We are unable to discern name and date on the homemade cd-rom version, and it lacks the detail that would be necessary to formulate conclusions about urinary stones. We want to take the originals to another vet of our own choosing and have them examined and compared to original x-rays we have from 1999 from Stempy's old vet. The originals could then be returned to Dr. Thomas. We paid for the ORIGINAL x-rays and have never even SEEN the original x-rays. What Dr. Thomas is doing is tantamount to "obstruction of justice." Please return my call as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Greg
Munson
----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:11 AM Subject: RE: Radiograph Mr.. Munson: We agree that the copies are not of "great" quality. Therefore, we have directed Dr. Thomas to send us the originals. Best Regards 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. -----Original Message----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:11 AM To: Pete Hartline Subject: x-ray duplication Mr. Hartline, I have done some checking and have found several x-ray duplication services using film to film duplication, which is what we are seeking and will pay for. I had no trouble locating these firms. There are several in the Dallas area. I do not believe Dr. Thomas even tried to find an x-ray duplication service...there are plenty out there. Thank you! Greg Munson -----
Original Message -----
From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:17 PM Subject: RE: x-ray duplication Mr.. Munson: I received the radiographs from Dr. Thomas this morning, and they are now in the mail to the reviewing veterinarian. 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Pete Hartline Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:30 PM Subject: Re: x-ray duplication Mr. Hartline, Good to hear that the board has received the radiographs. Even though you have already mailed them to Dr. Lastovica, we still want to purchase "film to film" duplicates as we will still want to get a third party vet of our own choosing to examine said radiographs. In fact, this needs to be done right away. If our third party vet determines that the radiographs submitted by Dr. Thomas are not Stempy, we would then need to submit the radiographs we have of Stempy from 1999 taken by his previous vet as proof of same. Until we have the chance to have them reviewed ourselves, we cannot be certain that the radiographs that you have sent to Dr. Lastovica are even of our dog. This is crucial to the integrity of the entire review. Thank you for your help! It is greatly appreciated. Greg
Munson.
----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:15 AM Subject: RE: x-ray duplication Mr.. Munson Now we must wait for Dr. Lastovica's review. 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Pete Hartline Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:43 PM Subject: x-rays Mr. Hartline, You should receive the x-rays from us in the next day or two. They were taken by Dr. April York at Town East Galloway Animal Clinic, Mesquite, Texas, on July 6, 1999. Please let us know once you receive them. By the way, it took all of 45 minutes total (roundtrip from Mesquite to Downtown Dallas..wait for duplicates to be made...drive back home to Mesquite)....for us to obtain the 3 x-ray duplicates submitted to you, at a cost of $7 each. Wouldn't you then agree that there is no acceptable excuse for Dr. Thomas having sent to us the poor quality, unusable for intended purpose,homemade cd-rom "pictures" of x-rays? We do believe this was intentional on her part...continuing her pattern of dishonesty and deception. We want to make sure that this is duly noted and considered. Is there any possibility of Dr. Lastovica getting film duplicates made of the x-rays submitted by Dr. Thomas immediately and then sending those to you right away to be forwarded to us? We would be more than happy to pay for the duplicates. It is only fair for us to be able to have them analyzed and compared BEFORE a decision is rendered by Dr. Lastovica. Considering the prior dismissal, surely you can understand our apprehension if we have to wait any longer to receive usable x-ray film duplicates. We know you are extremely busy and have many demands made of your valuable time. We do sincerely appreciate your effort and the time you have already taken to call both Dr. Lastovica and ourselves. Your continued helpful assistance and communication is also truly appreciated. We pray that you and the rest of the board will come to the realization that Stempy's case is worthy of your extra efforts. Please leave no stone unturned. Thank you very, very much. Greg
& Cindy Munson
----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Cc: Lee Matthews Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: RE: x-rays Mr.. Munson: I received you radiographs yesterday. I immediately sent them to Dr. Lastovica. We will have copies "film to film," of Dr. Thomas' radiographs made, once Dr. Lastovica is finished with them. I will be gone from Jun 30th to Jul 10th. I will return on July 11, 2006. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our attorney, Lee Mathews. His e-mail is Best Regards 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Lee Matthews Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:39 PM Subject: one other question Mr. Matthews, Sorry to bother you. As you know, Mr Hartline is out of the office until July 11th. He told us to send any additional questions or comments to you during his absence. We do have an additional question and comment that we would like to have forwarded to Mr. Lastovica. Our question: Could Dr. Lastovica please tell us if a urethrostomy could possibly be done WITHOUT a new permanent opening being made in the urethra? In Stempy's records, Dr. Thomas states she performed a perineal urethrostomy. Stempy was left intact and NO NEW opening was made. Our comment: The x-ray from 9/27/05 was pre-surgery and should show the catheter lodged to the stone. Thank you very much. Greg & Cindy Munson ----- Original Message -----
From: Lee.Mathews
To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:43 AM Subject: RE: one other question Your message has been forwarded to Dr. Lastovica. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Pete Hartline Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:04 PM Subject: welcome back Mr Hartline, Welcome back. Hope you had an enjoyable vacation. A couple of things: - Was wondering if we are at a point yet where we can get the x-ray film duplicates of the radiographs submitted by Thomas. - We have condensed and combined the alleged violations so maybe it will be easier for you all to get the big picture. We hope so. This is below. Thank you for your help. Greg & Cindy Munson
----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:27 AM Subject: RE: welcome back Mr. Munson: I sent this to Dr. Lastovica Best Regards 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. -----
Original Message -----
From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Pete Hartline Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:47 PM Subject: question Mr. Hartline, Is Mr. Allen still the Executive Director, or has he already left? I had a few issues I was planning on addressing with him in the near future, but noticed the job opening effective 7/12/06 posted on the Board website. Thank you. Greg Munson ----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:09 AM Subject: RE: question Mr.. Munson: He is still the Executive Director until around October 2006. Best Regards 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Pete Hartline Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 12:39 PM Subject: information Mr. Hartline, I know you were telling me on the phone that only the Board Members can decide the minimum standard of care. I was wondering if you could just forward the information below from Dr. Carl Osborne to Dr. Lastovica so that possibly he could take these issues into consideration when deciding the minimum standard of care in this case. I was explaining to Dr. Osborne that if Dr. Thomas met the minimum standard of care in this case, then the minimum standard of care would mean certain things. Here are a couple of my statements and his replies: (my statements are in blue, his reply is in black) ------------------------------------------------- ....it would mean that most vets don't take post operative radiographs to verify removal of all stones. REPLY: In my opinion, evaluation of post surgical radiographs following of stones is a procedure included in providing "a reasonable standard of care." However, there could be situations in which the risks of post-surgical radiography could outweigh the benefits. ....it would mean that most vets send home an animal with a catheter....on 2 different occasions....to wait 2 or 3 days for surgery....without ever having taken a radiograph. REPLY: This question, as you have written it, prompts a reply that encompasses negligence. However, without hearing the veterinarian's explanation, I can not provide an unbiased answer ------------------------------------------------ If you could just have Dr. Lastovica consider Dr. Osborne's replies, we would certainly appreciate it. Below is a little more information about Dr. Osborne. Thank you very much. Greg Munson ------------------------------------------------ University Of Minnesota Alumni Association Carl A. Osborne Professor Veterinary Clinical Sciences Department College of Veterinary Medicine University of Minnesota, Twin Cities “I recognize that teachers and students differ not so much as persons, but rather by the roles they play. Teachers play the role of coaches, and should be on the sidelines. Students are the focus of the action.” Carl Osborne teaches his veterinary students with a sort of Golden Rule in mind: “I teach as I want to be taught. If you are guided by that, it covers everything.” His current and former students marvel at his dedication and compassion, repeating words like “selfless,” “caring,” and “devoted” in describing him. “Having known Dr. Osborne, I am not only a better veterinarian, but a better person,” writes one. He places his students at the center of learning, seeing himself as a coach on the sidelines, guiding and encouraging until they have gained the knowledge and the wisdom required to treat their patients successfully. Osborne’s research breakthroughs in the causes and treatment of urinary tract diseases have changed the practice of companion animal care worldwide and have earned him, among many honors, the World Small Animal Veterinary Association International Prize for Scientific Achievement. With more than 585 continuing education presentations, he is one of the world’s most sought after professional educators, and his reputation is one of the reasons the University’s veterinary program is so highly regarded. Students
have appeared as coauthors on 95 percent of his numerous journal
articles, and many have gone on to distinguished academic careers
themselves. One of his former graduate students, now dean of his
college, writes, “Dr. Osborne is, without a doubt, one of the
finest veterinary educators in the world.”
----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Pete Hartline Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: Fw: information Mr. Hartline, Checking to see if you received the email below that I sent last Friday. I continue to find further information that reinforces our claim of negligence and substandard care. This is from the College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia. This is what is taught those studying to be your average, regular, everyday, minimum standard of care veterinarian. From http://www.vet.uga.edu/sams/courses/urology/lectures/Lecture05_Urolithiasis.pdf … C. Uroliths tend to recur ("once a stone former, always a stone former"). Usually (but not always) recurrences are with the same type of urolith. Each affected animal must be placed on preventative therapy for the specific type of stone that animal formed for life and should be monitored for recurrence. The goal is to find recurrent stones while they are small enough to be removed by non-surgical methods. This one of the most important points. Stempy would still be alive today if he had not needed that unauthorized, fateful, death-causing, last surgery. Stempy should have been monitored for recurrence since November 2003, the goal being to find recurrent stones as stated above....while they are small enough to be removed by non-surgical methods. STEMPY WAS NOT MONITORED, EVER, BY DR. THOMAS. SHE NEVER RECOMMENDED ANY MONITORING. If Dr. Thomas had followed standard protocol and taken a radiograph when Stempy was brought in on 9/10/05....two weeks before his urethra obstructed....the stone could have been found and removed by cystotomy.....not near as seriously invasive as the unauthorized procedure she performed on 9/27/05. If Dr. Thomas had performed retrograde urohydropropulsion correctly and more than once on 9/24/05 (see attached document), the stone would have been washed back to the bladder....ensuring that only a cystotomy would have been needed on 9/27/05. Radiographs should have been done immediately before and after retrograde urohydropropulsion. The bottom line is that Stempy is dead because of the negligent actions of Dr. Thomas, both before and after the unauthorized procedure. Stempy had a perfectly manageable condition treatable by any competent veterinarian providing a reasonable standard of care....he would and should still be alive. If you could also forward this to Dr. Lastovica, it would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you very much for your patience with us as we continue to find relevant information. It is deeply appreciated. Best regards, Greg
Munson
Here is a link to the attached document: ----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Hartline To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:38 AM Subject: Appeal - "Stempy" Mr. Munson
I
sent the 17 pages to Dr. Lastovica this morning.
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. NOTE TO WEBSITE VISITOR: We highly doubt any of this additional information was actually forwarded to Dr. Lastovica. The Dismissal Letter was dated 8/3/06. We did finally receive the radiographs from the Board. However, a decision was rendered before we had the opportunity to have a third party vet examine them for us. -----
Original Message
-----
From: Greg &
Cindy Munson
To: Ron Allen ; Pete Hartline ; Lee.Mathews Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:51 AM Subject: Response to Dismissal Mr. Allen, Mr Hartline, Mr. Mathews, Below you will find our rebuttal to the dismissal of Stempy's complaint. Let it be known that we DEMAND that an investigation be made into Investigator Barker's false claim and subsequent made up story of calling my wife, Cindy Munson. As stated before, that never occurred. Subpoena the long distance records. That will prove that the call never occurred. In a position that requires high moral character, we STRONGLY feel that Investigator Barker should be immediately terminated from employment, as this blatant disrespect and total disregard of ethical behavior is inexcusable. We wish to be informed as to what action the Board will take against Investigator Barker. There were several key issues unaddressed in the dismissal letter. As such, we are contemplating filing new complaints for the issues left unaddressed. We are also contemplating seeking media exposure for this gross injustice. We request that this email be printed and made a permanent part of Stempy's complaint file. Greg
Munson
Website visitor: see our rebuttal, mentioned in the above email, on the “Dismissal Letter” page of this website. -----
Original Message
-----
From: Ron Allen
To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:22 AM Subject: RE: Response to Dismissal Mr.. Munson, Your comments are inaccurate and inappropriate. Mr.. Barker is one of the most competent, upright people I have ever worked with. To continue this ridiculous harangue is foolish, inaccurate, and childish. Just because you do not get your way, don't blame us. Any further communication on this issue will be ignored. Ron Allen Executive
Director.
NOTE TO WEBSITE VISITOR: Moments after receiving the email above, Greg Munson placed a call to Ron Allen to voice his displeasure with the tone of Mr. Allen's email. Mr. Allen was quick to defend Investigator Barker. Mr. Munson informed Mr. Allen that all the Munsons can go on is their own personal experience and that experience includes Investigator Barker falsely claiming to have called and spoken with Cindy Munson. Mr. Munson informed Mr. Allen that the allegations made against Investigator Barker are very serious and should not be ignored. Mr. Munson expressed his desire to receive a return phone call from Mr. Allen once this has been looked into. It is our opinion that an Investigator for the State must be of high moral character. We could possibly understand Investigator Barker making a mistake and forgetting whether or not he called and spoke with Cindy. What we do not understand or accept is the fact that Investigator Barker then goes on to fabricate a conversation. That changes his conduct from "mistaken" to "intentional." This blatant disregard for ethical behavior is a very serious issue. Mr. Munson informed Mr. Allen that this issue would have been pursued regardless of the outcome, good or bad, of the complaint that was filed. We await Mr. Allen's return phone call, but it would not surprise us if this issue is ignored or not considered. -----Original
Message-----
From:
Greg & Cindy Munson
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:45 PM To: Ron Allen Subject: phone call Mr. Allen, Here is some more information for you. According to an earlier email from Mr. Hartline, the day the call supposedly took place was Friday, April 7th. Can you tell me what time the call supposedly took place? Cindy was at work the day of April 7th. Kind of hard to talk to her if she was not even home. Perhaps Investigator Barker is confused. As stated previously, I called Investigator Barker in April to check the status of the complaint. The call lasted less than a minute. The extent of the conversation was as follows: I asked the status of the complaint. He stated that he just so happened to have our complaint in his hand and that it was being sent to the reviewers. I asked how long would it take the reviewers to decide. He stated it would take a couple of weeks. I told him thank you and then we hung up. Nothing else was discussed. No interview. No facts about the case....nothing. This is the ONLY conversation that either of us ever had with Investigator Barker. Note that I called him, he did not call us. Cindy has NEVER spoken to anyone from the Board. I cannot speak of Investigator Barker's past experiences with your agency. I can only speak of our own personal experience and the fabricated phone call. As his superior and the Director of the Board, this is something we would hope you would take seriously and investigate thoroughly. It is not something that should be written off. His conduct threatens the integrity of, not only our investigation, but any other investigations he may be involved with. It is not something to be taken lightly and for you to go off half-cocked and fire off rude emails assuming we are just disgruntled with the decision. As I told you yesterday, this is something we were going to pursue regardless of the outcome, good or bad, of our complaint. I do expect you to take this seriously and I expect to hear back from you on this ASAP.Thank you. Greg Munson
----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Allen To: Greg & Cindy Munson Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:26 PM Subject: RE: phone call Mr.. Munson, I doubt there is anything I can say that will satisfy you and your problems regarding this issue. I am satisfied with Mr.. Barker's handling of the issue. I believe this is all I have to say to you. End. Sincerely, Ron Allen. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg & Cindy Munson To: Ron Allen Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 7:06 PM Subject: your conduct Mr. Allen, 8/26/06 - In our opinion, your failure to properly investigate the "phantom phone call" is gross misconduct on your part and we believe your actions are in direct conflict with the stated objective of the board. We are aware that you are planning to leave the Board permanently in October 2006. Our opinion is that you need to resign immediately for what we believe is your corrupt and unethical handling of this most serious issue. We are now left to believe that you must condone this unethical behavior that could very well permeate the entire board. Shame on you, sir. Greg & Cindy Munson |
 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. Stempy
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
Rodeo
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
and this
link on canine retrograde urohydropropulsion: a standard of care
)
caused by a bladder stone blocking his urethra. This is a medical
emergency.
Of course, all we knew at the time is that Stempy
couldn’t
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
really.” (Dr.
Thomas denies this conversation ever occurred – we remember
it
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. (Read for yourself - many examples /recommendations from veterinary professionals prove Dr. Thomas did not follow normal protocol: click here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here) 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... click here. If you want MUCH MUCH MORE of the story, with disciplinary information that is actually USEFUL to Texas citizens... click here! www.texasveterinaryrecords.com MUFFY STEMPY     MUFFY 2 CANDLES BURN STEMPY In Memory of Muffy Munson 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  Mesquite, Texas In our opinion, we think the DVM means: (D)oesn't know (V)eterinary (M)edicine 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 BLINDLYThere
is no 2nd chance for Stempy!
We miss you, little boy! We will NOT let you die in vain! NEVER BLINDLY 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:
 
|
| 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. |
      |
|