Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Action Veterinarian topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State board finds multiple failures in care, imposes reprimand and sanctions on Dr. Ronald Mayer
Summary
After a fact-finding in petition 2022-218, the Connecticut State Veterinary Board concluded the Department met its burden on multiple charges related to care and record keeping for a patient and voted to impose a reprimand, a $2,500 civil penalty, and six months probation with educational and auditing requirements.
The Connecticut State Veterinary Board concluded a fact-finding hearing for respondent Ronald Mayer, DVM (petition no. 2022-218), and voted that the Department of Public Health met its burden of proof on multiple allegations about the care of a patient and the adequacy of medical records. The board then approved a disciplinary package including a letter of reprimand, a $2,500 civil penalty payable within 30 days, and a six-month probation requiring continuing education and third-party auditing of records.
During the boards deliberations, members reviewed the statement of charges and the transcript evidence. The board found that the respondent held Connecticut veterinary license number 000797 (charge 1) and that he provided care to Patient No. 1 on or about Feb. 7, 2022 (charge 2). On the core standard-of-care allegations (charge 3 with subparts), the board voted that the department had met its burden with respect to: 3(a) records were incomplete or inadequate; 3(b) a complete physical examination was not performed or documented; 3(d) failure to make sufficient effort to stabilize the patient; and 3(f) improper or unsupported treatment was provided. On the documentation component of 3(c) (diagnostic testing), the board also found the department met its burden; members debated whether the respondents lack of on-site diagnostic capacity (for example, no radiography) affected the charge but ultimately recorded votes that supported the departments case on documentation and treatment decisions.
The board split some elements in discussion: members repeatedly remarked that credibility and lack of documentation made it difficult to reconstruct the encounter; several board members said the respondents notes did not document recommended diagnostics or referrals. The board took formal votes on each charged item in open session and directed counsel to prepare a memorandum of decision reflecting those findings for subsequent review.
Disciplinary action approved: After concluding the fact-finding and the separate vote that the statutory grounds for discipline were met (citing General Statutes of Connecticut section 20-202, including subsection 2), the board voted unanimously to impose the following sanctions on Dr. Mayer:
- A letter of reprimand placed on the public record. - A civil penalty of $2,500, payable within 30 days. - Six months of probation with conditions that include: completing approved continuing education in documentation and medical record keeping and in feline respiratory/urgent feline respiratory presentations; retaining and paying a third-party auditor to review the respondents records (20% of records or 20 records, whichever is larger) monthly during the probation period and to submit reports to the Department of Public Health; and monthly review meetings or reporting during the probation period as specified in the consent-style order.
Board members discussed options ranging from censure and reprimand to suspension and restrictions; several members noted that Dr. Mayer had a prior matter in 2012 that addressed documentation and that the board needed to be specific about measurable remediation. Board counsel and staff advised using a probationary audit and CE requirements similar to earlier consent orders; members agreed the third-party audit and a six-month probation period would provide measurable oversight without immediately restricting the physicians license.
Board counsel (Kevin) will draft a proposed memorandum of decision for internal review and circulation to the board; the memorandum will be routed through internal reviews and then back to the board for final approval and submission to the attorney generals office as required. Board members said they preferred not to delay action further and instructed counsel to circulate the draft promptly so a special meeting could be called, if necessary, to finalize the decision.
Ending: The board closed the matter after recording the votes and directing staff and counsel to implement the sanction package and prepare the formal decision documents.
