Flawed Veterinarian Complaints Process

HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN A COMPLAINT THROUGH THE ALBERTA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (ABVMA), IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE PROCESS IS FLAWED, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

• NO SWORN STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN, HOWEVER THE INVESTIGATOR HAS THE POWER TO REQUIRE IT.

• NO TESTIMONY IS UNDER OATH EITHER, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE INVESTIGATOR.

• NO INFORMATION EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINTS REVIEW COMMITTEE (CRC) IS BY SWORN STATEMENTS.

• NO ORAL TESTIMONY GIVEN TO THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL (COC) IS UNDER OATH.

• INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE COC DURING ORAL TESTIMONY IS DOCUMENTED VIA "MINUTES" TAKEN BY AN ABVMA APPOINTED STAFF MEMBER AND NOT BY AN ARMS LENGTH COURT REPORTER, OR IDEALLY, BY ELECTRONIC RECORDING DEVICE. THE COMPLAINANT HAS NO INPUT TO THE ACCURACY OF SAID MINUTES. THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE COC IS BASED IN PART ON THE RECORDED MINUTES AND THEIR INACCURACIES, OMISSIONS AND MANIPULATION OF STATEMENTS.

• THIS IS VETERINARIANS INVESTIGATING VETERINARIANS. VETERINARIANS FORM THE MAJORITY MEMBERSHIP OF THE COC AND CRC COMMITTEES, AS WELL AS THE INVESTIGATOR BEING A VETERINARIAN. ONLY THE PUBLIC MEMBER OF ABVMA IS NOT A VETERINARIAN.

• THERE IS A BUILT IN SYMPATHY FOR DEFENDANTS WHO ARE FELLOW VETERINARIANS. THIS WAS ADMITTED BY A FORMER INVESTIGATOR IN THE 2016 MARCH/APRIL MEMBERS MAGAZINE.

• THERE IS NO DISCLOSURE AS NO INVESTIGATOR REPORT OR STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT RESPONSE IS GIVEN TO THE COMPLAINANT.

• I FEEL THAT THE PROCESS IS CONDUCTED AS IF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IS BEING INVESTIGATED. THEY LOOK AT THINGS FROM THE "NO DOUBT" POSITION, AS OPPOSED TO THE "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" POSITION, WHICH IS USED IN CIVIL TRIALS. YET THEY DON'T REQUIRE SWORN EVIDENCE. I WOULD NOT HAVE COMPLAINED REPEATEDLY ABOUT NO SWORN STATEMENTS IF I WAS LYING, NOR WOULD I HAVE REPEATED EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FROM THE TECHNICIAN WHO COULD CORROBORATE MY TESTIMONY.

• THE VETERINARIAN'S STATEMENTS ARE BELIEVED OVER THE COMPLAINANT'S, OR AS I WAS TOLD IN THE COC DECISION, MORE RELIABLE AS I HAD NEVER OBSERVED A TCI PREVIOUSLY. I HAD ADVISED THE COMMITTEES THAT I WAS A RETIRED PHARMACIST, TOOK SEVERAL SIMILAR COURSES AT UNIVERSITY, RESEARCHED THE SCHOLARLY WEB AND WAS NOT A JUST SOME TOURIST THAT WANDERED IN OFF THE STREET.

• THIS LEADS TO THE SENSE THAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS BLINDLY BELIEVE THAT A VETERINARIAN WOULD NEVER LIE TO COLLEAGUES JUST TO SAVE THEIR REPUTATION AND AVOID A REPRIMAND AND FINE.

• I RECORDED THE INCIDENT IN MY BREEDING DIARY WHEN I ARRIVED HOME AFTER THE TCI PROCEDURE. THE COURTS THEREFORE RECOGNIZE MY RECOLLECTIONS AS BEING MORE RELIABLE THAN THE DEFENDANTS WHO WERE INFORMED OF MY COMPLAINT SOME THREE MONTHS LATER.

• DR. PHIL BUOTE, ABVMA COMPLAINTS DIRECTOR, STATED IN THE JAN/FEB 2016 EDITION OF THE ABVMA MEMBERS MAGAZINE:

  • • • • • "The good faith efforts to resolve client concerns that are undertaken by members, even if unsuccessful, are recognized by the members of the Complaint Review Committee in cases that proceed to investigation and peer review in the formal complaints process."

          • THIS STATEMENT SHOWS OPEN PERMISSION AND CLEAR INTENT TO BIAS THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT AND DOES NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC. IT CAN BE TRIGGERED BY THE DEFENDANT FALSELY CLAIMING TO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO RESOLVE THE CLIENT'S CONCERNS.

• THE COMMITTEES USE OBSCURE EXCUSES TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT.

• COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAY HAVE NO EXPERTISE IN THE FINE DETAILS OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER INVESTIGATION AND SO RELY ON THE DEFENDANTS STATEMENTS CONCERNING WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG. THIS IS REINFORCED WHEN COMMITTEE MEMBERS ASK IF THE DEFENDANT, WHO IS NOT UNDER OATH, IF THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE. DEFENCE LAWYERS ADVISE THEIR CLIENTS TO SAY, "I ALWAYS DO IT THIS WAY", TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG.

• • WITH REGARD TO MY COMPLAINT ABOUT THE BREEDING DATE SELECTED BEING WRONG, THE COC SAID THEY BELIEVED THE METHODOLOGY USED WAS APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE AND PROVEN OVER TIME, SO THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. THEY NEVER SAID HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THIS CONCLUSION, JUST THAT IT WAS PROVEN OVER TIME.

  • THIS JUST PROVES HOW INEPT THE COC WAS, AS DR GARY ENGLAND, PROFESSOR OF COMPARATIVE VETERINARY REPRODUCTION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM, ENGLAND, STATES THAT INSEMINATION BE DONE ONE DAY AFTER A VALUE OF 8-10.0 NG/ML IS REACHED. MY DOG WASN'T INSEMINATED UNTIL TWO DAYS AFTER 10.47 NG/ML WAS REACHED.

• THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COC EMPLOYED SOME THE THE SAME STAFF AS THE DEFENDANT PRIOR TO THE HEARING BUT DID NOT STEP DOWN DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

• THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE COMPLAINANT. UNLESS A PART OF THE ANIMAL IS MISSING, OR IT IS DECEASED, THE PROCESS BECOMES A "HE SAID, SHE SAID". LACK OF SWORN STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY UNDER OATH MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE. A COMPLAINANT HAS NO ACCESS TO CLINIC DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN THEIR OWN ANIMAL'S MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE USUALLY SCANT, AMBIGUOUS, AND NON INCRIMINATING. THE COMPLAINANT CANNOT QUESTION THE DEFENDANT, ONLY THE INVESTIGATOR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, DURING AN ORAL APPEAL PRESENTATION, CAN ASK QUESTIONS. LEADING QUESTIONS CAN BE SYMPATHETIC TO THE DEFENDANT. AN OBVIOUS SOLUTION WOULD BE TO TURN YOUR SMART PHONE ON TO RECORD WHEN YOU VISIT A CLINIC, BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE GO TO A VETERINARIAN WHERE YOU NEEDED TO DO THAT? HOWEVER THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO RECORD YOUR VISITS TO YOUR VETERINARIAN TO PROTECT YOURSELF IN THE EVENT OF A PROBLEM ARISING.

• ABVMA IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY ARE SELF REGULATING. THIS MEANS THAT ABVMA PAYS COSTS AND THEN FINES CONVICTED VETERINARIANS TO RECOVER COSTS. THE INITIAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW COMMITTE STAGE IS RUN LESS EXPENSIVELY THAN THE SECOND HEARING TRIBUNAL STAGE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME INVOLVED.
  

• I FELT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE I WAS NOT A VETERINARIAN AND I OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM EDUCATIONAL WEB PAPERS AND BOOK EXTRACTS ON THE WEB. VETERINARIANS BELIEVE EVERYTHING ON THE WEB IS ERRONEOUS.

• COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT TOTALLY DEDICATED TO THE PROCESS AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT A QUORUM DID NOT ATTEND THE FIRST COMPLAINT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TO EXAMINE MY COMPLAINT, SO IT WAS POSTPONED TO A LATER DATE. MEMBERS SIT ON COMMITTEES AS A SECOND JOB. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE VOLUNTEERS. THEY ARE TRAINED BY ABVMA. I AM NOT SURE THAT THEY RECEIVE TRAINING IN THE RULE OF LAW WHICH GOVERNS DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES.

• IN THE DECISION DOCUMENT RELEASED BY THE COC, I WAS CALLED "MR. THOMAS" INSTEAD OF "MR. TAYLOR". THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION AND FURTHER DEMONSTRATES THE LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE OF THE PROCESS. SOMEBODY ON THE COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE PICKED THIS ERROR UP IF THEY WERE TRULY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. THIS WAS ONLY ONE OF 15 FACTUAL ERRORS CONTAINED IN THE DECISION DOCUMENT. I DO NOT KNOW IF THE ERRORS WERE NEGLIGENCE OF THE SESSION SECRETARY OR SELECTIVE BY THE PROCESS TO FAVOUR THE DEFENDANTS.

• FURTHERMORE, IF MY NAME IS WRONG IN THE COC DECISION REPORT, HOW MANY OTHER ERRORS OCURED IN THE MINUTES OF THE COC HEARING?

ABVMA PROTECTS THE PUBLIC BY OFFERING A COMPLAINTS PROCESS, INVESTIGATES THE COMPLAINT AND THEN RENDERS A DECISION. THE COC DETERMINES WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT IN TESTIMONY AND IF IT CONSTITUTES UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN THE PRACATICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DISMISS OR FOCUS ON PARTICULAR INFORMATION, ACCORDING TO IT'S RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE EXAMINED. THERE IS NO OUTSIDE APPEAL TO DECISIONS INVOLVING VETERINARY INFORMATION. ONLY VETERINARIANS ARE ALLOWED TO DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES THE PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE. THIS ALLOWS THE COC TO CONSTRUCT THE OUTCOME THEY DESIRE BY IGNORING BEST PRACTICES. JUST BECAUSE ABVMA SAYS IT PROTECTS THE PUBLIC THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THERE TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC'S CASE.

• IN MY CASE THEY DISMISSED THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT LIED TO THEM BY CLAIMING, IN WRITING, TO BE CERTIFIED TO PERFORM TRANSCERVICAL INSEMINATIONS. AFTER ME EXPOSING THE FALSE CLAIM, THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED TO THE COC THAT THEY ONLY HAD A CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE AT A TRAINING SESSION. THE COC DID NOT CONSIDER THE WRITTEN FALSE CLAIM BY THE DEFENDANT TO BE UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, BECAUSE SHE EXPLAINED TO THEM, AS I HAD STATED, THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE TO PERFORM TRANSCERVICAL INSEMINATIONS. STILL, THE DEFENDANT DID LIE TO THE COC AND BECAME A WITNESS THAT WAS NOT CREDIBLE. THEREFORE ALL THEIR TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED UNRELIABLE.

• ALSO IN MY CASE, I HAD COMPLAINED THAT THE VET OFFICE WAS UNDERSTAFFED ON THE SATURDAY OF THE TRANSCERVICAL INSEMINATION. I WAS TOLD TO BE IN ATTENDANCE TO HOLD MY DOG'S HEAD. THE RECEPTIONIST TOLD A CLIENT ON THE PHONE THAT ONLY SKELETON STAFF WAS ON DUTY FOR SATURDAYS. THE INVESTIGATOR EXAMINED EMPLOYMENT RECORDS. THE VETERINARIAN STATED TO THE COC THAT TWO TECHNICIANS WERE ON FOR SATURDAYS. ONLY ONE TECHNICIAN WAS INVOLVED IN MY DOG'S TRANSCERVICAL INSEMINATION. I FILED A SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINT THAT THE VETERINARIAN LIED TO THE COC CONCERNING STAFFING OF TECHNICIANS ON SATURDAYS. THE COMPLAINTS DIRECTOR RESPONDED BY SAYING THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER TECHNICIAN IN THE BACK OF THE CLINIC. THE COMPLAINTS DIRECTOR KNEW FROM THE EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, OR COULD HAVE FURTHER EXAMINED EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, TO SEE IF THE COC HAD BEEN LIED TO. THE COMPLAINTS DIRECTOR DID NOT RESPOND BY DEFINITIVELY SAYING THAT RECORDS SHOW AN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE WAS PRESENT. THIS IS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL VETERINARY TECHNICIAN PRESENT. APPARENTLY, LYING TO THE COC DOES NOT CONSTITUTE UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN THE VETERINARIAN PROFESSION. THE ABVMA IS OBVOUSLY NOT LIVING UP TO IT'S PROFESSED CORE VALUE OF "INTEGRETY".

• HAVING EXPERIENCED THE PROCESS, I FEEL THAT A REVIEW INTO THE PROCESS IS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT. THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OF REPRIMAND, SUCH AS A WARNING OF "CONDUCT UNBECOMING A PROFESSIONAL", SO THAT VETERINARIANS KNOW THEIR PERFORMANCE IS NOT UP TO THE HIGHER STANDARD THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE SELF GOVERNING. THIS WOULD ALSO INDICATE TO THE COMPLAINANT THAT THEIR COMPLAINT HAD SOME MERIT.