|
LETTERS RECEIVED ...and our rebuttal. Greg and Cindy Munsonxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Re: Case No. 06-111; Ann
Thomas, D.V.M.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Munson:
Please accept our
condolences for the loss of "Stempy."
At your request, the
Board had a third veterinarian review your complaint against Ann
Thomas, D.V.M. The reviewing veterinarian agrees with the other two in
finding that Dr. Thomas (the "respondent veterinarian") did not violate
the prevailing standard of care in diagnosing and treating "Stempy."
Although I did not discuss in detail with the reviewing veterinarians
the reasons for their conclusion, the following factors may have been
considered.
In any review of a
complaint, the reviewers try to focus on the "big picture," that is,
whether the veterinarian's actions or inactions, taken in totality,
clearly violate the approach an average veterinarian in the same or
similar community would have taken, given similar facts. Keep in mind
that a reviewing veterinarian may conclude that he would have done some
things differently, but this does not mean that the respondent
veterinarian violated the standard of care by doing things her way. The
standard of care can be multi-faceted. Remember also that the
respondent veterinarian's recollection of events may sharply disagree
with the complainant's. This makes it extremely difficult to sort out
the facts in many cases.
The reviewers emphasized
that prior to September 2005, Dr. Thomas' treatment protocols produced
good results - "Stempy" responded and improved. Any culpability on the
part of Dr. Thomas should only extend from the last visit leading up to
"Stempy's" death. The reviewers apparently found no such culpability.
With regard to diet, the
reviewers note that Hills G/D can be used in dogs where one suspects
both oxalate and struvite stone types. Thus, this diet was appropriate
where both stone types were implicated at different times. One reviewer
notes that he has observed in his practice that no diet will work 100
per cent of the time to prevent stones. The role of the Hills diet, if
any, in the formation of stones in "Stempy" cannot be determined.
Regarding knowledge of
"Stempy's" prior seizures, Dr. Thomas professes no knowledge of being
told of these events. I know you disagree with this. Apparently nothing
was noted in the dog's previous medical records - no exam, discussion
of seizures, medications, etc. - that would document seizures as a
pre-existing condition.
With regard to patient
records, we cannot determine if the photocopied records were improperly
altered. Dr. Thomas acknowledges that as a solo practitioner, she often
does not have time immediately after surgery or appointments to fully
complete the records. It is permissible to clarify, correct or add to
records after the time of services, as long as there is no intent to
falsify them or prepare bogus defenses to possible complaints. As a
matter of policy, the Board often encourages veterinarians to maintain
complete and detailed patient records. There is no evidence, per
se, of improper alteration, and we simply cannot make a
finding in this regard.
Dr. Thomas reported that
the surgery was successful. She said she performed a perineal
urethrostomy on "Stempy." Actually, she probably performed a
urethrotomy since you did not find a permanent opening into the
urethra. In any event, the surgery resulted in removing the stuck
stone. A radiograph determined that no stones remained. The dog's
condition was initially satisfactory except for reported pain and
restlessness. Acepromazine was prescribed to calm the dog. You are
correct that this medication should be avoided in animals with a
history of seizures or epilepsy; however the issue remains whether Dr.
Thomas was aware of the prior history. You say you told her; she says
you did not. Neither the dog's former patient records or Dr. Thomas'
records mention this history.
The unfortunate bottom
line is that the reviewers do not know why "Stempy" died. A necropsy
would possibly have answered this question. Possible rule-outs included
(1) thrombic emboli in the lungs, especially since the dog had some
mitral valve issues; (2) adverse reaction to any of the drugs
administered; or (3) a neurological disorder.
In summary, we cannot
conclude that Dr. Thomas' actions contributed to "Stempy's" death or
that she did not meet the standard of care of an average veterinarian
in Mesquite, Texas. All three reviewers agree on those points. This
case will be finally closed to no violation.
Sincerely,
Lee H. Mathews
General Counsel
Highlighted
sections indicates what is being responded to
in red
font by us.
Greg
and Cindy Munson
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8/3/06 Re:
Case No. 06-111; Ann Thomas,
D.V.M. Dear
Mr. and Mrs. Munson: Please
accept our condolences
for the loss of "Stempy." At
your request, the Board had a
third veterinarian review your complaint against Ann Thomas, D.V.M. The
reviewing veterinarian agrees with the other two in finding that Dr.
Thomas
(the "respondent veterinarian") did not violate the prevailing
standard of care in diagnosing and treating "Stempy." Although I did
not discuss in detail with the reviewing veterinarians the reasons for
their
conclusion, the following factors may have been considered. In
any review of a complaint,
the reviewers try to focus on the "big picture," that is, whether
the veterinarian's
actions or inactions, taken in totality, clearly violate the approach
an
average veterinarian in the same or similar community would have taken,
given
similar facts. The
reviewers emphasized that prior to September 2005, Dr. Thomas'
treatment protocols produced good results - "Stempy" responded and
improved***MUNSON
RESPONSE: Is that so? And what
records would back up what the reviewers emphasized? Certainly not the
records
that we received and submitted to the Board. Those records prove the
exact
opposite. Perhaps clarification could have been made had the
complainant been
given an opportunity to directly communicate with the reviewers. If the
respondent
veterinarian is allowed contact with the reviewers, so should the
complainant
be allowed contact.*** Any
culpability on the part of
Dr. Thomas should only extend from the last visit leading up to
"Stempy's" death. The reviewers apparently found no such culpability.
***MUNSON RESPONSE: We can
only conclude that there must not have been a complete or impartial
review.
We’ll never know exactly what was reviewed.***
With
regard to diet, the reviewers note that Hills G/D can be used in
dogs where one suspects both oxalate and struvite stone types. Thus,
this diet
was appropriate where both stone types were implicated at different
times. ***MUNSON
RESPONSE: Training
material will be sent out to the reviewers. Where one suspects both
oxalate and
struvite stone types, the diet for oxalate TAKES PRECEDENCE, therefore
the
CORRECT diet should have been Hills U/D. Again, training material will
be sent
to the reviewers.*** One
reviewer notes that he has observed in his
practice that no diet will work 100 per cent of the time to prevent
stones.***MUNSON
RESPONSE: Oh, really? Well, then, that kind of makes quarterly
urinalyses and
twice yearly radiographs EVEN THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT!!!! The reviewer
proves our
point. Where is the intelligence in this undertaking on the part of the
Board?
Is this just a BLATANT cover-up? *** The role of
the Hills diet, if any, in the formation
of
stones in "Stempy" cannot be determined. Regarding
knowledge of
"Stempy's" prior seizures, Dr.
Thomas professes no knowledge of being told of these events.***MUNSON
RESPONSE: That’s because she FAILED to record this CRUCIAL
information in his
records when we told her on 11/1/03.
I know you disagree with this. Apparently
nothing was noted in the dog's previous
medical records - no exam, discussion of seizures, medications, etc. -
that
would document seizures as a pre-existing condition.***MUNSON
RESPONSE: Just exactly what did the Board review? We CLEARLY stated
that Dr.
Thomas was the ONLY vet we had EVER told of these occurrences.***
With
regard to patient records, we
cannot determine if the
photocopied records were improperly altered***MUNSON
RESPONSE: Then why didn’t the Board request the ORIGINAL
records?. Dr.
Thomas acknowledges that as a solo practitioner, she often does not
have time
immediately after surgery or appointments to fully complete the records.***MUNSON
RESPONSE: That is VERY conducive to forgetting crucial information by
not
immediately recording what is told during appointments and
examinations, SUCH
AS FORGETTING BEING TOLD OF STEMPY’S PRIOR SEIZURE/EPISODE
HISTORY and NEVER
recording it.
It is permissible
to clarify, correct or add to records after the time of services, as
long as there is no intent to
falsify them or prepare bogus defenses to possible complaints. ***MUNSON
RESPONSE: There is CLEAR intent on the part of Dr. Thomas to falsify
them and
prepare bogus defenses. As a matter
of policy, the Board often encourages veterinarians to maintain
complete and
detailed patient records. There
is no evidence, per
se,
of improper alteration, and we simply cannot make a
finding in this regard.***MUNSON
RESPONSE: With this
being SERIOUSLY questioned by the complainant, why would the Board not
request
the ORIGINAL records? There lies your evidence! Dr.
Thomas reported that the surgery was successful. ***MUNSON RESPONSE: The
MAJOR issue that the surgery was
UNAUTHORIZED is not even addressed. She
said she
performed a perineal urethrostomy on "Stempy." Actually, she probably
performed a urethrotomy***MUNSON
RESPONSE: Dr. Thomas is not even knowledgeable enough to know which
unauthorized procedure she performed, yet the FACT that she FAILED TO
REFER
this case to a specialist is not even addressed. since you
did not find a permanent opening into the urethra. In any event, the
surgery
resulted in removing the stuck stone. A
radiograph determined that no stones remained.***MUNSON RESPONSE: No
radiograph was
EVER taken post
surgery. As noted in the records,
the only radiographs taken were
just immediately prior to surgery, NEVER POST SURGERY.
If it’s not in the records, then the Board
presumes it DID NOT occur. Isn’t that what the Board is
presuming with regards
to us telling Dr. Thomas of Stempy’s seizure history? The
Board can’t have it both
ways, can they? Unfairly and unethically they sure can.*** The dog's condition was
initially satisfactory
except for reported
pain
and
restlessness. Acepromazine was prescribed ***MUNSON
RESPONSE: Then what justified taking him completely OFF of pain killers and
prescribing a tranquilizer that provided absolutely ZERO analgesia?
to
calm the
dog.***MUNSON
RESPONSE: He was
not excited. He was in SEVERE PAIN! You
are
correct that this
medication should be
avoided in animals with a history of seizures or epilepsy; however the
issue
remains whether Dr. Thomas was aware of the prior history. You say you
told
her; she says you did not. Neither
the dog's former patient records or Dr. Thomas' records mention this
history.***MUNSON
RESPONSE:
Previously addressed. The
unfortunate bottom line is
that the reviewers do not know why "Stempy" died. A necropsy would
possibly have answered this question. Possible rule-outs included (1)
thrombic
emboli in the lungs, especially
since the dog had some mitral valve issues***MUNSON
RESPONSE: No tests were ever done. This could very well have been a
direct
result of an extended urethral obstruction. ;
(2) adverse reaction to any of the drugs administered; or
(3) a neurological disorder. In
summary, we
cannot conclude that Dr.
Thomas' actions contributed to "Stempy's" death or that she did not
meet the standard of care of an average veterinarian in Mesquite, Texas***MUNSON
RESPONSE: We can…and we do conclude that Dr.
Thomas' course of actions
caused "Stempy's" death and that she did not meet the standard of
care of an average veterinarian in Mesquite, Texas.
All three reviewers agree on those points. This case will
be finally closed to no violation. Sincerely, Lee
H. Mathews General
Counsel ***MUNSON RESPONSE: We STRONGLY feel that the complainant MUST be allowed to communicate DIRECTLY with the reviewers. How else are we to know that our complaints truly receive a thorough and impartial review? We have tons of questions that have been left unanswered. Stempy certainly did not receive a fair shake. That both saddens and infuriates us deeply. Greg & Cindy Munson.
 This
is the investigator who lied about interviewing Cindy.
 See our reply to this letter on The Appeal page of the website.   See our reply to this letter "Dismissal Letter" above.   After reading this letter, a
friend
emailed us with these comments:
"I don't understand. He's saying when their are allegations of improprieties conducted by regulatory agencies, there are established investigative and oversight authorities who can look into them. Your allegations are against the veterinary board. Yet he is referrng your allegations of impropriety back to the veterinary board itself -- the very entity accused of impropriety -- rather than telling you who the "established investigative and oversight authorities" are and referring you to them. In other words, he is refusing to take any action to refer you to state authorities with oversight of the board, and refusing to take action himself, and contacting the very offending organization to warn them that you are trying to get them investigated (which they already know). . . . ???? Did I misread something or is that pretty much the gist of it? " Yes, we agree. That's pretty much the gist of it. And, Ron Allen? He retired October 13th. Guess someone should tell the Governor......  This
is the Board's response to the Governor's office. This response was
written by Dewey Helmcamp - the new executive director - on his VERY
FIRST day on
the job. We are supposed to believe that Mr.
Helmcamp had several hours to thoroughly review Stempy's complaint on
his first day? Come on, we are not stupid. This is ridiculous. Mr.
Helmcamp states, "...the available evidence does not support
allegations of substandard care." Well, he must not have been
looking at Stempy's case. The evidence of substandard care is
overwhelming and it's right here for everyone to see. Looks
like the new executive director won't bring about any changes at the
"Protect the Vet" Board.
 Mr.
Helmcamp refuses to answer our most basic of questions. Why is that? He
does not know how we will respond to his answers. Not one to take "no"
for an answer, we responded to this letter by asking, again, for the
Board to cooperate and answer our remaining questions. Below is their
response.
 Why
is it so hard to answer our remaining questions? We do not understand
the Board's refusal to answer.....unless there is something to hide. We
will continue to seek the answers to our questions. This Board needs to
quit protecting guilty veterinarians! We will not go away. We will not
give up. Stempy deserves justice and we fully intend to find it, no
matter how long it takes.
Tears in Heaven
Would you know my name If I saw you in heaven Will it be the same If I saw you in heaven I must be strong, and carry on Cause I know I don't belong Here in heaven Would you hold my hand If I saw you in heaven Would you help me stand If I saw you in heaven I'll find my way, through night and day Cause I know I just can't stay Here in heaven Time can bring you down Time can bend your knee Time can break your heart Have you begging please Begging please (instrumental) Beyond the door There's peace I'm sure. And I know there'll be no more... Tears in heaven Would you know my name If I saw you in heaven Will it be the same If I saw you in heaven I must be strong, and carry on Cause I know I don't belong Here in heaven Cause I know I don't belong Here in heaven |
 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:
 
|
What
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. |
      |
|