Vet One review: Animal abuse, fraud, unprofessional conduct 14

Wilde v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board October 1, 1999
A. W., D.V.M. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
V.
THE OHIO VETERINARY MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoffman, J.

Revocation of license.

OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 98CV665

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

In this consolidated appeal, appellant A. W., D.V.M., appeals two Judgment Entries of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. In each appeal, appellee is the Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board (hereinafter "OVMLB" or "Board"). In the first appeal, case 98CA00025, appellant appeals the December 10, 1997 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas which affirmed the Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board's decision to revoke appellant's license. In the second appeal, case number 98CA00138, appellant appeals the December 22, 1998 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, which granted appellee's motion to dismiss. We consolidated the appeals into case number 98CA00138.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

On April 28, 1997, the OVMLB issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to appellant. In that notice, appellant was advised of ten charges made against her in connection with her veterinary practice. The charges included:

1. Permitting an unlicenced veterinarian to perform veterinary services.

2. Gross incompetence; Filing a false report or document.

3. Failing to cage or house animals in good health and in a humane manner due to failure to maintain sanitary conditions at her vet clinic.

4. Abusing animals identified as, Samantha Delawader, Shep Wallace, Dakota Smoke, Rocky Lee, Gretchen Waddle, and Jazz Reed, and numerous other patients, by beating or hanging them by a leash.

5. Refusing to meet with clients.

6. Falsifying medical record of animal identified as, "Harley Schneider".

7. Creating two and filing one anonymous letter of complaint with the Vet Board against Ronald Fuller, DVM.

8. Falsely reporting the death of two Doberman puppies and, instead, giving the puppies to Caroline Raike. Falsely reporting the death a Great Pyrenees dog, and instead, giving the dog to Edna Laytham.

9. Consuming alcohol during business hours, and during surgery.

10. Dismissing a dog, "Snowflake Zellefrow, " from care without first properly treating a bloody discharge.

The parties presented testimony and exhibits at a three day oral hearing from October 22, 1997 through October 25, 1997. The following evidence was adduced at the hearing. Appellee first presented the testimony of Dr. Tamatha Lee Barickman, a veterinarian. Dr. Barickman testified she had been employed by appellant's veterinary clinic, Vet One, for over four years. Dr. Barickman testified she was concerned about the dirt; feces and urine in the cages; the cockroaches, clutter and general filth. T. at 25. She testified surgery tables and surgical instruments were not cleaned or sterilized between surgeries. T. at 28, 30. She further testified appellant routinely beat animals in her care with a wiffle ball bat wrapped with duct tape. She testified this behavior was much more forceful then a tap on the head to get the animals attention. T. at 30. On cross-examination, Dr. Barickman's admitted she performed surgeries at Vet One in the same unsanitary conditions. She never reported the situation to the Board, and took all of her pets to appellant's clinic for treatment. Further, Dr. Barickman admitted she owed appellant a substantial sum of money. Appellee next presented the testimony of Edna Denise Laythem, who was employed as a veterinarian assistant for two years with appellant's clinic. It was her responsibility to clean the cages, feed the animals, and assist the doctor. T. at 67. Ms. Laythem testified the clinic, including the surgical rooms, was unsterile and filthy. She testified appellant beat her patients with a wiffle ball bat. Specifically, Ms. Laythem testified appellant abused two Sheba Inus, Cee Celoa. T. at 74. Ms. Laythem testified appellant would "hang those dogs for nail trims" when they would come in. After the dogs would pass out from being hung, she would muzzle them and trim their nails. T. at 74. Ms. Laythem also testified about the abuse of a dog named "Duke Buddy Johnson", "that dog usually would get a beating when it came in." T. at 74. Finally, Ms. Laythem testified she had seen, on numerous occasions, lay employees surgery at Dr. Wilde's clinic. T. at 76-79. On cross-examination, Ms. Laythem admitted she had lied to the Licking County Sheriff's Department when they investigated the disappearance of an animal from Petland. Although Ms. Laythem testified she quit due to the persistent abuse of animals at the clinic, she never reported the activity to the Humane Society or the Veterinary Board. Finally, Ms. Laythem testified she brought her own pets to Dr. Wilde's clinic throughout her course of employment there. Appellee next presented the testimony of Kimberly Dawn Fox, who was previously employed by appellant as a veterinarian assistant. She testified the clinic was extremely dirty. In fact, appellant reused soiled instruments in surgeries without re-sterilization between surgeries. T. at 120. She further testified appellant's abuse of animals in her care was extensive and pervasive. T. at 121-129. Finally, Ms. Fox testified she watched appellant consume alcohol while treating animals, and at times, while conducting surgeries. T. at 133. On cross-examination, Ms. Fox admitted she had a difficult time remembering any specific animal appellant abused, but she then attempted to describe one dog as a Rottweiler mix or a German Shepard mix. T. at 138-140. Finally Ms. Fox testified there was animosity between her and appellant at the end of their working relationship due to a conflict over hours. T. at 145. Appellee next presented the testimony of James Thompson, the chief investigator for the Ohio Veterinary Licensing Board. Mr. Thompson testified appellant's facility was kept in an unsanitary condition, and had an offensive odor. Mr. Thompson examined the clinic and found the surgery room neither clean nor sanitary. The treatment room was disorderly, and some of the animal cages were not properly cleaned. T. at 155-156. When Mr. Thompson returned for a second day of investigation, he found the clinic had been organized and cleaned, but the pharmacy refrigerator contained outdated drugs and testing materials. T. at 157. The testimony of Richard Bednarski, a licensed veterinarian, and the Hospital Director of the Ohio State University Veterinary Hospital was next. Dr. Bednarski testified as an expert with regard to general standards of cleanliness and sanitation in veterinary clinics. Dr. Bednarski reviewed Mr. Thompson's report, and the accompanying photographs, and opined the clinic had not been cleaned in some time. It was not, in his expert opinion dirt which accumulated in one or two days. Appellee next presented the testimony of Kathleen Hinkle, a veterinary assistant, and previous employee of appellant. Ms. Hinkle testified she left the employ of appellant because of the conditions and the working environment. T. at 219. These "conditions" included infestations of mice, roaches, and a general lack of cleanliness. While Ms. Hinkle testified it was her duty to perform cleaning, she felt there were not enough employees to keep the facility sanitary. T. at 222. Ms. Hinkle witnessed other non-veterinarian employees performing surgical procedures. T. at 223. Ms. Hinkle testified about incidents of abuse where appellant would severely beat animals with a wiffle ball bat, using as much force appellant could muster. T. at 222. Ms. Hinkle explained she witnessed at least three separate incidents where animals were beaten to a point where they bled or had teeth knocked out. She stated "usually you'd find the teeth on the floor after the animal's [sic] been beaten." T. at 228. She further testified she never remembered sweeping up any teeth herself. Id. Ms. Hinkle also testified appellant would "hang animals" with all four of their feet off of the floor by a leash until the animal was unable to fight back. Id. Apparently this was a frequent occurrence. Ms. Hinkle testified appellant would perform this "procedure" "if they showed any inclination that they weren't going to comply with what we needed to do." T. at 223. On cross examination, Ms. Hinkle admitted she did not report the abuse to police, to the Humane Society, or the Veterinary Board prior to being contacted by Mr. Thompson. Ms. Hinkle further testified she allowed her dog to be treated at the facility several times while she was employed at the clinic. T. at 229. Appellee next presented the testimony Jeanette O'Quinn, a licenced veterinarian who previously worked for appellant. Dr. O'Quinn also testified to the unsanitary conditions in the facility and to the poor surgical conditions. T. at 237. On cross-examination appellant's attorney elicited Dr. O'Quinn was actually fired from appellant's business. On the second day of testimony, appellee presented the testimony of Tracy Stanek-Krutel, a licensed veterinarian and a previous employee of appellant's clinic. Dr. Stanek testified she worked for appellant for three months and left for personal and professional differences. T. at 255. She testified to unsanitary conditions in the treatment and surgery rooms, and several incidents of appellant beating different dogs over the head with a plastic bat and using a leash to choke them. Dr. Stanek testified A. * * * I witnessed her beating a dog - - several dogs over the head with a plastic bat and using a leash to basically choke them, because they were struggling to the extent that they could not be restrained any other way. I did not see any abuse that led to lacerations or broken bones * * *." T. at 257.

Q. You were discussing the hanging of an animal with a leash. Can you describe to me what [appellant] would do under those circumstances that you witnessed?

A. The loop would be placed around the neck and then the leash would be stretched to restrain them because they were trying to jump or trying to climb a person's body. And the end result would be that they would choke because they were so excited; they would cut off their own air supply.

Q. Do you remember any specific examples of when this occurred, animal names or types of animals?

A. No.

Q. What types of action should a veterinarian take if an animal ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion. To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase, you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents and concurrences that accompany the decision. Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion, there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95
Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.