Public commenters urge Texas veterinary board to reopen complaints, allege dishonesty and systemic failures

Three members of the public used the board’s public‑comment period to urge the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to reopen or more fully investigate veterinary complaints.

At the start of public testimony, Suzanne Blakely (called by staff during roll call) described the dismissal of her complaint against Ren Johnson of Dogwood Animal Hospital in Longview. Blakely said hospital records incorrectly state she declined insulin for her six‑year‑old Rottweiler Sophie and told the board, “He was dishonest during the informal conference saying that I had denied insulin treatment for my 6 year old Rottweiler, Sophie. I did not decline insulin.” She said she provided records showing she sought insulin treatment and asked the board to reconsider the dismissal.

Anita Ross, speaking later, urged the board to use the powers granted by the Texas Veterinary Licensing Act and the Texas Occupations Code to subpoena records and compel testimony. Ross said her complaint (filed 04/20/2020, referenced as ACP 22 47) and its subsequent informal conference exposed what she called documented substandard treatment and procedural failures; she alleged that the board’s legal office had told her the board “found no violation” despite investigator findings and urged independent oversight or reopening of investigations.

A third commenter, who identified herself only as Leila, described two incidents involving her cat 'Button.' She alleged a veterinarian provided a steroid injection despite prior instructions not to do so and said later notes in the medical record were added or altered. Leila said the veterinarian admitted adding a later note and that those record inconsistencies are part of whether the clinician followed a duty of care.

Board staff repeated the public‑comment instructions and noted that testimony on pending contested disciplinary cases is not permitted during open comment. The board did not take immediate action on the three individual complaints during the meeting; several of the cases referenced later appeared on items considered in closed session and in subsequent motions on medical‑review and agreed‑order items. The meeting record shows motions and votes on specific case files later in the agenda but does not show the board reopening any of the three named complaints during open session.