The responses have been received by the two Hometown Animal Care veterinarian's who are answering to the complaint filed with the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
Joni O'Hair D.V.M. chose not to address any of the allegations but instead simply rehashed the events that had already been established. The part-time relief vet from Banfield Pet Hospital in Georgetown Texas did claim that according to hospital records, the surrender and payment transaction occurred at 1:27 pm. With a surgery start time of 4:30 pm to 5 pm, there is no explanation for why a 3 hour gap existed for a surgery to begin that was an emergency. Dr. O'Hair also claims that the option to offer the surrender of ownership did not come from her. In an odd statement, she reveals that another doctor, Dr. Morelli so happened to over hear the phone conversation and on the spur of the moment, informed Dr. O'Hair about the surrender option.
"However, during my conversation, an associate D.V.M. had overheard our phone call and mentioned that Hometown Animal Care allows owners to surrender pets." Joni O'Hair D.V.M. July 7th 2014
Dr. Morelli was also revealed to be the doctor who refused the pet owner his last visitation with his pet the next day According to the hospital owner, for an unknown reason Dr. Morelli instructed the employee, who immediately took possession of the cat not to have any contact with the previous owner.
"Dr. Morelli made the decision to not allow access. She had been through a bad experience with a similar situation earlier in her career at another hospital causing her to make that decision. She also recommended to Amy that she not contact the owner. I was not aware of that discussion." Tom Sutton D.V.M 4/22/14
Dr. Sutton attempts to defend her actions, but there is only so much that can be done when your doctor's actions and decision are dictated by fear instead of logic.
"I can`t really fault her decision to not allow access as we don`t have a policy regarding that and she was doing the best she could based on her previous experiences." Tom Sutton D.V.M 4/22/14
Dr. Tom Sutton took the minimalist route and responded with a single paragraph to the multiple allegations brought against him, his staff, and his business. In a surprising turn of events, Dr. Sutton admits that there were no allegation of abuse and neglect and that he was only making general statements compared to an average cat. This is strikingly different than the response revealed back in April 2014.
A side by side comparison of each individual response is extremely revealing of the impact 02/26/2014 had. The response by Dr. Sutton is indicative of someone who has been told multiple versions of the same story and is now forced to be accountable for the actions of his staff.
Hunter was a pure breed chocolate point Siamese cat whose ownership was lost to Hometown Animal Care by the use of undisclosed after-care cost imposed after price had been set for emergency surgery. An employee immediately took possession and took him home that night instead of Hunter receiving the after-care stated to be necessary and drove cost up to the point which forced the pet owner no other options but euthanasia.
The pet owner, who has a background in investigation, spent 3 months investigating, gathering evidence, and learning Texas law. On June 2, 2014, he submitted and 60 plus page document to the TBVME requesting an investigation of these incidents. That was the start of The Hunter Games.
From the pages of that complaint, it quickly became obvious.....this was no movie.....and this was not a game.
If a pet is offered a Surrender in exchange for euthanasia, its is generous gift...However, what if it appears that Surrender was the intent? I have searched and searched for a legal definition of a Pet Surrender of Ownership. In light that no documentation obtained, “abandon” is the legal definition for the event. Abandonment coerced using undisclosed cost. The Texas Attorney General has been proposed this question before. May a veterinarian refuse to return an animal to its owner if the latter is unable to pay for the veterinary medical services rendered? Opinion No. JC-042 1 Attorney General Opinion The Answer is No. Pet owner is not absolved of any debt to the vet, but the pet can not be held. The law dictates that the veterinarian must follow the proper statutory requirements of the law. The pet is considered abandoned and the pet owner has 12 days to reclaim the pet. The Veterinarian has 3 days send a certified letter to the owner notifying the pet owner to reclaim their animal. To maintain that state of abandonment, was the reason why the pet owner was not allowed to see the pet the next day. The pet owner was refused any contact and told to leave a note for the employee in possession of the animal. However, Dr. Sutton states that Dr. Morelli specifically instructed the employee not to make any contact (Dr. Sutton email 4/22/14) Furthermore, such an animal may not be considered “abandoned” for purposes of section 801.357 of the Texas Occupations Code so long as the owner makes a good faith effort to reclaim it. (Opinion No. JC-0421) Not only did Hometown Animal Care not fulfill their legal obligation to provide 12 days, the criteria for Abandonment was not met. With both parties verifying that significant payment ($1500 CareCredit) was offered up front. Instead Dr. O’Hair and Dr. Morelli chose to offer all medical care at the expense of the Hospital. With Dr. O'Hair admitting that the pet's release was denied preventing the owner from taking the pet to the primary veterinarian, those action are contrary to the Texas Attorney General's Statement Because you have asked us to assume that the owner “makes a good faith effort to arrange with the veterinarian to make installment payments and otherwise insists that he wants the animal returned,” we conclude as a matter of law that the owner in such circumstances has not “abandoned” his animal. (Opinion No. JC-0421) Since HTAC did not comply with the statutory notice requirements of section 801.357 of the Occupations Code, their employee did not have any right to claim my pet are early as was done. (First mentioned as part of the Dr. O’Hair’s Surgical notes.) The twelve day waiting period did not occur along with the registered letter As of the 13th day, however, the statute deems the animal to be “abandoned.” In that case, the animal may be “appropriated by another person,” and accordingly, the veterinarian may dispose of the animal as he sees fit. (Opinion No. JC-0421). Because the statutes were not followed, according to Opinion No. JC-0421, The pet owner has the right to claim Hunter back regardless of the amount of the time that had passed (02/27/14 to 04/21/14). If the veterinarian has not complied with the statutory notice requirements, he may not at any time refuse to return the animal to its owner upon demand This has caused the following: Furthermore, refusal to return the animal may amount to conversion. Conversion “occurs when one who is unauthorized wrongfully assumes and exercises dominion and control over another’s property, to the exclusion of the true owner’s rights, even though possession of the property may have originally been acquired by lawful means.” (Opinion No. JC-0421) |