By Caleb Hutton
A lot of background interviews and wading through documents went into today’s story about Dr. Peter Rule, a Ferndale veterinarian accused of unprofessional conduct.
Not everything made it into the story. Here are a few paragraphs we cut.
Rule attributes his high rate of employee turnover in 2008 — “I was hiring an employee every two weeks, on average,” he said — to one assistant who spread rumors around the office, “souring” his staff and turning them against him.
Rule pointed out that [former employee Carmen] Harriman returned three months after she was fired to have surgery for one of her bulldogs, Tatanka. He said this shows she still trusted his skills.
Harriman claims Tatanka’s surgery was an emergency that couldn’t wait even a day, and no other vets were available at the time.
“That’s him grasping at straws,” she said.
For Karen Rice, a home health nurse whose animals are Rule’s patients, the charges of outright violence don’t add up. He always seemed gentle and accommodating, she said. Even Rule admitting he took Tramadol before surgery doesn’t tarnish her opinion of the doctor.
“It doesn’t make you too loopy, in my experience,” she said. “Besides, none of us escape this life with perfection.”
—
Also among the cut paragraphs, an anecdote from Tanya Rutherford, a former Glacierview Animal Hospital receptionist who left on good terms.
A dog had come in with a wound from a pellet gun. The owner’s sons had shot the dog by accident. The owner wanted the dog put down, because he didn’t want to pay for the surgery. Rule claimed he could save the dog and offered to do the surgery for free.
“Because the owner stalled in the operating room, where he really shouldn’t have been, sure enough the dog bled to death,” Rutherford said.
—
Adam Karp, a Bellingham animal law attorney who has spearheaded the abuse charges, has had some odd interactions with Rule in the past.
Exhibit A. An email sent from Rule to Karp and others. He admits to his drug use, implies one former employee is a “whore” and, well, if you’re interested you should just read it.
Exhibit B. Rule left the following post on this Seattle Weekly article published last week. He’s responding to a comment hypothesizing why Harriman brought her dog back to the vet who fired her.
@lovecattt interesting theory, however the employee in question brought her animal for surgery and left her there 1 or 2 months AFTER she was fired, did not receive a discount, and Glacierview’s fees are often higher than surrounding clinics. She was already employed at another clinic where she may have had a discount.
To our valued clients:
Recently, there have been some horrible allegations circulating in the local media regarding Dr. Rule abusing patients and drugs and acting in an unethical manner. We want to let you know that these allegations are FALSE and have been made by disgruntled former employees who were fired years ago or left on otherwise bad terms. We are looking forward to a hearing with the Veterinary Board in the Spring of 2013 when we will have a chance to disprove these allegations once and for all. We are happy to answer any questions you may have and count on your continued support through this difficult time.
We want to make clear what we believe the motive is behind this type of insidious attack. Currently, Washington law does not allow clients to recover more than the “market value,” in cases of veterinary malpractice. We are certainly familiar with the tears and pain associated with pet loss, but wonder greatly at the attempt by a Bellingham lawyer to make vets or any veterinarian look like “bad people” in order to garner public sympathy and change that law. We feel that given the high costs of out-of-pocket care for veterinary patients that this type of attack, and attempts to recover monies for “pain and suffering” will ultimately not serve the greater good, and lead to more pets being euthanized when clients can’t afford care. This is the general position of veterinarians throughout the world, and for good reason. We are the ones that continually find ourselves in the painful position of helping clients make very difficult decisions. Please also consider that according to the American Veterinary Medical Associations research, more than 50% of the public does not seek veterinary care because they cannot afford it. Driving up the costs of veterinary care will only worsen this problem.
~Dr. Rule, Tracy Rule and Glacierview Staff.
Karp’s response:
I filed complaints three years in a row against Dr. Rule based on statements obtained from former clients and employees to protect the public – both people and animals, because the evidence, in my opinion, was overwhelming, corroborated by more than one credible source, even including emails from Dr. Rule himself. The Veterinary Board of Governors also found merit and independently concluded that clear and convincing evidence existed to warrant leveling the Statement of Charges against him.
The outcome of any disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Rule will have no impact on the law as to the type or measure of compensation to which a plaintiff is entitled in a claim against a veterinarian alleging malpractice or willful misconduct. This is because the only issues before the veterinary board of which he speaks concern allegations of his own unprofessional conduct, which could result in sanctions against his license to practice veterinary medicine. The vet board does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment forcing him to pay money to any of the complainants. His attempt to so distract readers should be disregarded.
(…)
Lastly, what Dr. Rule does not address is the hypocrisy of profiting from, and indeed, relying upon the human-animal bond and the high intrinsic value owners place on their pets in the operating room (i.e., expecting clients to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars in veterinary care), but rejecting the bond and value’s place in the courtroom (i.e., arguing they should only pay for the cost to adopt or buy another animal for tens or a few hundred dollars even in the case of admitted fault).
—
A video Rule posted of a cat being declawed at Glacierview.
Karp alleges declawing procedures like this one are “cruel and fraudulent.”
—
KOMO interviewed Dr. Rule and the Dickeys earlier this week, too.
—
Rule has posted a series of defenses on his Facebook page and on Glacierview’s official website.
I’ll post them here. The first is included in the Seattle Weekly comment above, starting with the line “To our valued clients.”
Family and friends, please keep in mind….
It is entirely inappropriate for a matter like this to be discussed in an open public forum such as facebook, with witnesses cross-examined and questioned by the news media and social media. While the Department of Health has an obligation to post the charges on their site, they do not normally get public attention so early. We feel we know who contacted the Seattle Weekly and made that happen, and it has been disappointing to say the least, but not unexpected.
Unfortunately, due the the serious and criminal nature of the allegations, it is also inappropriate to bring these types of charges forward without due process. The department of health as a licensing body does not follow the usual 6th amendment processes that are needful in a criminal matter, and the use of the department of health for this type of complaint is in itself questionable.
Therefore, whatever comes out of the media, social media, etc in the coming days, favorable towards us or not, take it with a grain of salt.
We have felt it necessary to respond publicly to some degree, for better or worse towards others that we in the past cared about and worked with, but our hand was forced in this matter.
Recently, there have been some horrible allegations circulating in the local media regarding Dr. Rule abusing patients and drugs and acting in an unethical manner. We want to let you know that these allegations are FALSE and have been made by disgruntled former employees who were fired years ago or left on otherwise bad terms. We are looking forward to a hearing with the Veterinary Board in the Spring of 2013 when we will have a chance to disprove these allegations once and for all. We are happy to answer any questions you may have and count on your continued support through this difficult time.
Since he raised the issue, I encourage readers to examine the thorough and exacting article by Christopher Green, The Future of Veterinary Malpractice Liability in the Care of Companion Animals, 10 Animal L. 163 (2004), viewable at no charge at http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/vol10_p163.pdf. Mr. Green uses the insurance industry’s own statistics to debunk Dr. Rule/GAH’s unsupported allegations. Further, market research has proved that among those who seek vet care, the cost of veterinary medicine is price-insensitive. See Todd W. Lue et al., Special Report: Impact of the owner-pet and client-veterinarian bond on the care that pets receive, JAVMA Vol. 232:4, p. 531, 532 (2008)(“Owners who exhibit behaviors indicative of a strong owner-pet bond are more likely to seek high levels of care, are less sensitive to the price of care, and are more willing to follow the recommendations of a veterinarian, compared with other owners. Although most pet owners are conscious of the cost of veterinary care, the vast extent of owners indicate it does not prevent them from undertaking recommended treatment.”); see also Katie Burns, Human-Animal Bond Boosts Spending on Veterinary Care, JAVMA, Vol. 232:1 (2008).
Dear Sir, I have a great number of questions about this case. How many years did Dr. Rule practice? What types of veterinary oversight are in place in Washington? What agency checks on the hygiene, protocols, record-keeping, equipment in Washington? When was the Vet Board notified of irregularities and complaints? What was their response? Does the Vet Board have regular, unannounced inspections of veterinary hospitals? Does the Board of Health ever go to vet hospitals to inspect? What is in place in Washington to keep this from ever happening again?