Thank you @Sdel for posting the notice from USEF. A temporary suspension is a start and certainly warranted.
10 Likes
Interesting, where do you find that info?
I ask because the Kutyba web site says that the TBVME closed Dazzle’s case. I assumed the board had refused to take action against Watts.
1 Like
IIRC, the revocation of the license was connected with the subsequent case–Scott Berry’s horse, Allie.
6 Likes
Thanks.
You might be interested in the section of Kutyba’s web site on her law suit. Here is a section on the Appellate Court
The Appellate Court | For Dazzle
TAMU asserts: (paraphrased for ease)
- Practitioners who work at state run veterinary facilities are immune from liability in all actions of negligence or malpractice (baring use of a motor vehicle).
- That veterinary patients are property, therefore “death” should not be recognized nor should they be held to medical law and standards in the event of injury or death due to negligence.
This premise is important. There is no other licensed medical practitioner or caregiver (of any licensing field issued) in the State of Texas, be it private or state associated that has been awarded this special status under the law.
Here is Decision of Court of Appeals…
The Court ruled against Kutyba. I think vets in TX should be interested in the decision…looks like things are on-going. This will be an interesting case that should apply to TX vets and goes beyond the Watts guilty verdict.
3 Likes
I didn’t follow the case, did the plaintiff try to change the venue? A big university thats local might be grounds for a venue change.
I suggest reading Kutyba’s web site.
There is a lot of info…Basically, there are 2 “cases.” A case against Watts and TAMU. And a case against the Texas Board of Vets.
Kutyba filed a complaint against the vet with the TX Vet Board. Over 2 years passed with no action, so Kutyba filed a civil suit against the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners asking the courts to step in.
After Kutyba filed a Motion For Summary Judgment the TBVME closed the complaint against Watts. According to Kutyba’s web site, “I’m no lawyer, but I think it’s fair to believe this was the TBVME way of avoiding a judges scrutiny.”
She has contact info on her web site.
1 Like
Thanks for the info!
The Dazzle case (Kutyba) ended because there was no evidence. The video capture of Dazzle during her time at TAMU was never able to be obtained, nor did anyone step forward. Legal challenges to obtain evidence were stymied when the civil case was dismissed due to “immunity”. Without the video it amounted to nothing more than speculation and accusations. Dazzle was a foal that was brought in for a front end lameness/surgery. My best understanding is that surgery didn’t resolve the lameness and when she was back at TAMU for another look she was suddenly unable to stand from what was discovered to be a broken pelvis after which she was euthanized. All of that was from 2017.
The current case was for Allie (Barry). In that case, one of the vet techs obtained the video. They did so because there was a “pattern of such things disappearing”. They first tried an internal investigation and when that was dismissed, they moved up the food chain to the veterinary board. It became a criminal investigation when that body referred the issue to local DA. Part of the evidence was that the hot shot was never admitted to outside of the video. It was never recorded in the medical records or mentioned to the pathologist doing the necropsy.
Bringing this to light was only possible because the vet tech had the video. Allie’s owner testified that he had NO idea that anything untoward had happened to his horse until the veterinary board investigator reached out to him.
11 Likes
@pluvinel Thanks for reposting this video. My posting of the same did not get much attention when I posted it 2 days ago.
1 Like
I appreciate the reminder that there is a video there… The website is such that the word video is not really readable and I had not found any video before.
Parts of the video are almost unreadable to me. Red print on a black background is hard to read…
1 Like
This is the interesting part. TAMU lawyers are alleging that vets working at TAMU are immune from liability…liability that any vet in private practice is subject to. And that since horses are “property” the death of a horse can’t be interpreted in the common usage of the word “death”.
Perhaps the legal beagles here can explain. This case was appealed and seems to have gone to the TX Supreme Court. It is not clear what the final ruling about immunity ended up.
This is Kutyba’s Petition for Review sent to TX SC
This is TAMU’s response
And Kutyba’s response to TAMU
As stated, those absurd results were pointedly identified by the trial court—namely, that interpreting “death” to not include animal patients invites the “worst veterinarians” to work at state university hospitals like Texas A&M, because those particular vets can be forever shielded from liability, unlike their private-practice counterparts (who are not).
1 Like
I doubt very much that anything will come of it. Corruption is rampant everywhere. Everything tends to go the gov’t/university’s way because of $$$. And the university seems to forget its motto (never lie, cheat, or steal) when chasing $$$.
Watts was not just a staff veterinarian but also a researcher. She brought in grant $$. Her veterinary board lawyer has deep ties to TAMU as well.
At this point, the remaining issues are political, and nothing will be allowed to rock the boat of a state flagship school.
2 Likes
I don’t disagree…but if I were a vet in TX it would be mighty irritating that
state-employed veterinarians are to be afforded a special exception and forever shielded from the malpractice regulations that apply to vets in private practice. It seems very irregular that vets employed by a state entity are not subject to the same negligence or medical malpractice regulations that state-employed medical doctors at university hospitals are subject to.
So we will see how this sorts out. I have not been able to find a final opinion by the TX Supreme Court on this matter. Please post if you find one.
It never went. All of that was denied in 2019. Kutyba’s case was dismissed at all levels. Again, they won’t rock the boat. The decision on the books stands.
And TAMU’s heavy hand was on Allie’s case as well. I’m honestly shocked they even brought charges to begin with.
As Arte Johnson said in his classic line, “very interesting.”…
2 Likes
The TBVME ruling on Watts…pp. 67-222
1 Like
I took a horse back in the day to Virginia Tech, he needed colic surgery. As soon as the trailer stopped in the driveway, he dropped. They did use a prod multiple times to try to get him up. We ended up euthanizing him in the driveway, halfway hanging out the back of my trailer.
But I do agree with its use for THAT purpose, and for a limited number of times. The use in this case was straight up abuse.
15 Likes
That is the scenerio we all dread. I’m so sorry you and your horse went through that.
20 Likes
I have not read the whole thread yet.
Does anyone know what happened to the vet tech? Did she keep her job at the vet school?
