was established November 7, 2002
to advocate against veterinary malpractice, incompetence & negligence and
to educate the public about how state veterinary boards handle citizens' complaints



Alex and Gus were Manchester terriers. They gave us immeasurable joy for 14 years.

We filed a complaint with the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board about the standard of care and death of Alex
against Dr. Dana R. Jones, DVM and Dr. Kevin A. Monce, DVM, DACVIM.

Serious issues emerged about the practices of Dana Jones and Kevin Monce,
 — and about how veterinary boards handle citizens' complaints.




We questioned the care Alex received and filed a complaint with the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board.   February 14, 2000
Complaint No. 00006-1-1
"This letter acknowledges receipt of your written complaint against:

Dana R. Jones, DVM
Durant Road Animal Hospital and Kennel, PLLC
10220 Durant Road, Raleigh, NC 27614

Kevin A. Monce, DVM
VetSound, Inc.
1105 Sturdirant [sic] Road, Cary, NC 27511"
More ... View Entire Document
The NCVMB initiated its own complaint about how Kevin Monce, DVM, conducted his practice.   December 22, 2000
Kevin A. Monce, DVM       Re: Complaint No. 00048-2-1
"The Veterinary Medical Board has received information which, if true, indicates that you have violated the Veterinary Practice Act, the Administrative Rules of the Board, or both, as set forth below."
More ... View Entire Document
The NCVMB issued a reprimand to Dana Jones, DVM, for his part in Alex's care. The reprimand had been decided by Committee No. 1 and approved by vote of the full Board on March 23, 2001. Dr. Jones accepted his disciplinary action.   October 17, 2001
Dana R. Jones, D.V.M.     Re:  File No. 00006-1-1
Letter of Reprimand
"The Committee has determined that the cumulative result of its findings discussed below, necessitate a finding of probable cause of violation of N. C. Gen. Stat. § 90-187.8(c)(6) that your diagnosis, care and treatment was not competent and did not meet the minimum standard of veterinary medical care.  Rather than send this matter to a formal hearing, the Committee has issued you a letter of reprimand pursuant to Board Rule .0601(h).  North Carolina General Statutes § 90-187(c)(6) provides the following:
*  *  *  *
6)  Incompetence, gross negligence, or other malpractice in the practice of veterinary medicine.
*  *  *  * "
More ... View Entire Document
The NCVMB also issued a Letter of Reprimand and $3000 fine to Kevin Monce about his part in Alex's care and the conditions under which he rendered it.   October 17, 2001
Kevin A. Monce, D.V.M.     Re:  File No. 00006-1-1
Letter of Reprimand
"The Committee has found probable cause that you violated N.C. Gen. Statute § 90-187(c)(6).  Your diagnosis, care and treatment of Alex, as described below, was not competent, and did not meet the minimum standard of veterinary medical care.  In lieu of sending this matter to a formal hearing, the Committee has issued this letter of reprimand pursuant to Board Rule .0601(h).  North Carolina General Statutes § 90-187.8(c)(6)  provides the following:
*  *  *  *
6)  Incompetence, gross negligence, or other malpractice in the practice of veterinary medicine.
*  *  *  * "
More ... View Entire Document
Some issues
we opine
the NCVMB failed
to fully address


 " I administered a polygraph examination to Nancy G. Deas on June 20, 2000, in Raleigh, North Carolina.  The purpose of this examination was to determine Ms. Deas' truthfulness regarding information she provided about the veterinary care of her dog, Alex, had received. "
Steve Davenport
Distinguished Fellow in the Academy of Certified Polygraphists
More ... View Entire Document

 "I write regarding the recent inspection of your mobile unit.  The Committee on Investigations Number 1 noted it is not the same unit that was used by you in late 1999 and early 2000.  The Committee has directed me to inquire about that unit"
More ... View Entire Document

 "The following includes and supplements my reports to you in the above referenced, dated September 25, 2000 and October 6, 2000.
ITEMS SUBMITTED (summarized):
Q-1 through Q-10: Ten microscopic slides
Q-11:  "FED EX" envelope
K-1:   Four signature standards and exemplar writings of Dr. Kevin Monce, DVM, DACVIM
K-2: Signature standard of Dr. C.S. Olver
K-3 :  Three exemplar writing and signature standards of Renee D(ailey). Daniel"
Haywood R. Starling, BCFE
Board Certified Questioned Document Examiner
American Board of Forensic Examiners
More ... View Entire Document

 "Dr. Gordon determined that this information, apparently the results of a complete blood chemistry on this particular day, was not necessary to consider and would not have altered the Committee's decision.  He therefore determined that it was not then necessary to request it."
More ... View Entire Document

 "It is now apparent that the original Tape No. 3 currently in the possession of the Deases and the copy of the Tape No. 3 provided to the Deases on December 13, 2000, by the Board itself are not the same."
More ... View Entire Document

The NCVMB decided its own complaint against Dr. Monce. In lieu of a hearing, the NCVMB proposed a consent order including a 12 month suspension and $5,000 fine.   October 18, 2001
Kevin A. Monce, D.V.M.     Re: File No. 000048-2-1
"The Committee has found probable cause that you have violated the following statutory sections of the Veterinary Practice Act and Board Administrative Rules:
General Statute § 90.187.8(c)(6) ... Board Rule .0207(b)(15) ... Board Rule .0208 ... Board Rule .0202 ... General Statute § 90-187.11 ... Board Rule .0205(1) and (4)."

"Other allegations were made in the complaint. The Committee has not yet made specific findings on those, and likely will not if the matter is resolved as discussed below through a Consent Order."
More ... View Entire Document
Dr. Monce rejected the Letter of Reprimand regarding Alex's care and requested a contested case hearing.   November 6, 2001
"I have been asked by Kevin A. Monce, DVM, to notify you on his behalf that he received the letter of reprimand from George G. Hearn dated October 17, 2001. He rejects that reprimand and requests a hearing."
More ... View Entire Document
Negotiations between the NCVMB and Kevin Monce failed.   March 25, 2002 — July 26, 2002
"Thank you for your continuing work to resolve the complaint against Dr. Monce. Although we appreciate the effort you and the committee have made, he cannot agree to a consent agreement that results in any form of suspension of his license."
More ... View Entire Documents
The NCVMB issued the Notice of Hearing consolidating our complaint and its own complaint.   October. 15, 2002
"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board, Petitioner, (hereafter "the Board"), complaining of Kevin A. Monce, D.V.M., Respondent (hereafter "Dr. Monce"), issues this Notice of Hearing for a contested case hearing to be conducted at a date and place hereafter designated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, Raleigh, NC on the matters and things alleged in this Notice of Hearing"

"COMPLAINT NO. 00006-1-1" [Note: Contains allegations # 1 - 27]
"COMPLAINT NO. 00048-2-1" [Note: Contains allegations # 28 - 41]
More ... View Entire Document

The NCVMB and Kevin Monce negotiated again. The result acceded to many of Dr. Monce's demands for terms and language.



January 29, 2003 — April 4, 2003
"1. The Order had been confined to facility inspection, facility name, practice through a business corporation, and misrepresentation to the Board.
2. The Order does not mention Nancy Deas and Edna Deas or their dogs, Alex and Gus.
3. The suspension is for 30 days, which is stayed for a period of one year. This probationary period was reduced from two years.
4. The civil monetary penalty remains at $5,000.00. Please note in my letter to Mr. Crowell that I stated that if all other matters are agreed to, then you would consider a payment schedule for one-half of the amount that would not extend beyond one year."

"Although I believe we are on track toward getting this matter resolved, there are several aspects of the draft order that need to be addressed." ... "Paragraph 7 of the findings of fact, on page 2" ... Paragraph 9 on page 2" ... "Paragraph 10 of the findings of fact, also on page 2" ... Paragraph 12 of the findings of fact on page 3" ... "Paragraph 2 of the conclusions of law, on page 3" ... "Paragraph 4 of the conclusions, on page 4" ... Paragraphs 6,7, and 8 of the conclusions, also on page 4" ... "Paragraph 11" ... "As currently drafted, the proposed consent order does not say anything about the dismissal of the other complaint, the complaint 00006-1-1 filed by the Deas sisters. Please let me know how you expect to handle that."

"Do you want a paragraph in the Order portion regarding complaint no. 00006-1-1? I thought you did not want the Deases mentioned."

"The Committee has bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns of Dr. Monce, both in the original Consent Order and in this final version"
More ... View Entire Documents

This, at least the fourth negotiated version of the Consent Order, was entered into between the NCVMB and Dr. Monce.   April 7, 2003
"THIS CONSENT ORDER is before the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board ("Board") for consideration and entry upon recommendation of the Board's Committee on Investigation No. 1, and with the consent of Kevin A. Monce, D.V.M. ("Dr. Monce"), a licensee of this Board ... to resolve the allegations and issues in the Notice of Hearing issued by the Board dated October 15, 2002 in  this matter concerning complaint no. 00006-1-1 and complaint 00048-2-1."
More ... View Entire Document
Epilogue   September 15, 2006
From the deposition of George G. Hearn, witness in capacity as attorney for the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board, arising from the libel lawsuit filed on March 24, 2005 by Kevin Monce; Redirect examination by Hugh Stevens, attorney for the Deas, pages 53-54. Objection by Michael Crowell, Dr. Monce's attorney.

Stevens Q "I guess the only question I have is if one went to the veterinary board's records today to review the records pertinent to Dr. Kevin Monce, among the documents that one would find there would be a letter of reprimand dated October 17, 2001; correct?"
Hearn A "Correct."
Stevens Q "And one would not find there any document withdrawing or repudiating or modifying or otherwise, you know, revising any of the findings and conclusions set out in that document?"
Crowell   "Object to the form of the question because that's what the consent order does."
Stevens   "Objection -- you can state your objection."
Hearn A "No such document."


Top of Page

EMAIL: deas@aligus.com

blue ribbon
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!