Kerri VanMeveren’s horse Dennis, who suffers from an inflammatory disease in his hoof (photo provided by Kerri VanMeveren)
A Cass County woman who says her horse Dennis was abandoned by his veterinarian in the middle of treatment wants the state Veterinary Medical Board to explain how it handled her complaint.
Dennis walks with a permanent limp, the result of a serious but treatable condition called laminitis. But an interruption in care means Dennis is unrideable and will likely need to be euthanized because of his poor quality of life.
The veterinarian who was treating Dennis refused to give a referral for a prescription and then cut off treatment altogether, leaving owner Kerri VanMeveren to search for specialized care at a crucial time. She told The Independent was trying to save money at a time when cash was tight and she could buy the prescription for $35 less than the veterinarian’s office charged.
She reported the veterinarian to the board, providing recordings of her conversations with staff at the veterinarian’s office, screenshots of text conversations and a list of people to interview.
But the board dismissed her complaint without contacting her for more information or the veterinarian she hired to treat Dennis.
“After careful consideration, the board determined that there is not sufficient evidence of a violation of the Missouri Veterinary Medical Practice Act,” the letter from the board said. “Therefore, the board voted to close the case and take no further action at this time.”
In response, VanMeveren filed a pro-se lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court alleging the board failed in its oversight duty to investigate complaints of malpractice, leaving animal owners without recourse when a veterinarian violates professional standards.
“I just want accountability for this vet, for what he did to me, my horse, the emotional trauma that I was put through and the thousands of dollars that it cost me,” she told The Independent.
She now has an attorney, Elad Gross, who argued against the state’s motion for a judgment against VanMeveren at a July 8 hearing before Circuit Judge Christoper Limbaugh.
The case should continue, Gross said in an interview, because there are too many questions it raises about whether the board is taking complaints seriously.
“There’s a lot more questions than answers on how it is operating, and that is not a good sign for anybody who’s got a pet or a working animal, or really anything that deals with a veterinary practice here in Missouri,” Gross said.
Missouri law describes how the board should report the outcome of investigations. Disciplined veterinarians are placed on a list, available upon request. When it takes no action, it must produce “a report stating that no action is recommended shall be prepared and forwarded to the complaining party and the licensee or applicant.” The board argues there is no requirement it do more than send the letter VanMeveren received.
“The decisions regarding how a complaint is handled, investigated and the ultimate decision as to whether or not the board will seek to discipline a licensee are decisions that are explicitly left to the exclusive discretion of the board,” assistant attorney general Hardin Haynes wrote in a motion in May.
Gross argues the letter from the board is not a sufficient report, so the board did not meet its obligations.
VanMeveren hopes the court action brings some justice to her situation. But if the case doesn’t go her way, she sees an opportunity for state lawmakers to tighten expectations for the veterinary board.
“There needs to be accountability, and there needs to be an appeal process,” she said. “I really hope that maybe there can be some changes made, not only to make a way for citizens to have a way to appeal a decision by the state veterinary board but also for more transparency of what they investigate.”
In fiscal year 2024, the veterinary board received 74 complaints and issued 16 disciplinary actions, a Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance spokesperson told The Independent.
The details of complaints and investigations are closed records. Bob Baker, executive director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, would like to see more protections for consumers in the state law that authorizes the board to investigate complaints, called the Missouri Veterinary Medical Practice Act.
“Unfortunately, there’s nothing in that act that mandates that they investigate complaints, Baker told The Independent. “And if they do investigate complaints and they find that there’s probable cause, there’s no mandate that they’re referred to administrative hearing.”
The Veterinary Medical Board declined to comment.
Malpractice lawsuits in the veterinary field aren’t generally a viable option for accountability, he said, because pet owners are often unable to sue for anything except the cost of the animal.
“Animals, under the law in Missouri are considered property, so you can’t sue for emotional value or pain or suffering. The most you can really hope to attain is the value of the animal,” Baker said. “It doesn’t make attorneys willing to go forward on these types of complaints.”
But regulating veterinary medicine is not a popular move in the Missouri Legislature.
Lawmakers have attempted to bar local municipalities from placing restrictions on veterinarians, with bills filed in both the House and Senate in 2023 banning local governments from doing anything to “interfere with the practice of veterinary medicine.” The bill passed the Senate 22-11 that year but has not been filed since.
Baker said he has mostly been in “defense move,” arguing against bad bills but would like to see a shift toward more legislation protecting animals. But, with some animal welfare bills having traction in recent years, he is not without hope.
VanMeveren tries to remain optimistic. Last fall, she scheduled Dennis’s euthanasia after his condition left him confined to his stall all day. But first, she took a few days to let Dennis “be a horse.”
“I wanted him to enjoy the sunshine and the fresh air on his back and let him roll or do whatever he wanted to do. I mean, no restrictions,” she said.
She was afraid Dennis would overexpend himself. But he kicked and whinnied, and the experience filled her with joy. And when Dennis didn’t crash the next day, she canceled the appointment.
“(This situation) turned my life upside down. I was devastated,” she said. “And to see my horse in such pain, if I could go back in time, I probably would have just paid the extra money for the prescription.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
This post was originally authored and published by Annelise Hanshaw from Missouri Independent via RSS Feed. Join today to get your news feed on Nationwide Report®.
