WWW.ALIGUS.COM

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

HOME MEDIA REPORTS THE NCVMB ABOUT VET BOARDS MONCE LIBEL LAWSUIT RESOURCES

EXPANDED VERSION OF HOW THE NCVMB HANDLED OUR COMPLAINT

1.  Our Complaint 4.  Monce Reprimand 7   Monce Rejection 10.  Negotiations 2
2.  Board Complaint  5.  Questioned Issues 8.  Negotiations 1 11.  Consent Order
3.  Jones Reprimand 6.  00048 Decision 9.  Notice of Hearing  


Negotiations 2: NCVMB re: Kevin Monce, DVM
January 29 — April 7, 2003

Although some of the following documents were labeled "confidential" when communicated among Michael Crowell, George Hearn and the NCVMB, we are not violating any "confidentiality" by publishing these documents.

They were obtained during discovery in Dr. Kevin Monce's libel lawsuit and additionally are public record pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law.

 

A:  January 29, 2003



   View the scanned document

JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, & GEE , PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

January 29, 2003

Via Hand Delivery

Michael Crowell, Esq.
Tharrington Smith, LLP
209 Fayetteville St. Mall
Raleigh, NC  27609-1151

Re:  North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board / Kevin Monce, D.V.M.

Dear Michael:

I write on behalf of the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board's Committee on Investigations No. 1.  This letter is to discuss a settlement proposal,  and is not an admission, and is not to be used for any other purpose.

The Committee met January 21, discussed all pending matters in the case, and authorized me to make the following proposal, which if accepted, would take the form of a Consent Order.  The Consent Order proposal must be presented to and approved by the full Veterinary Medical Board, and the approval and entry of this Order would resolve the two complaints consolidated for hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings, OAH 02 VMB 1712:

1. The Consent Order would set forth facts of violation substantially as summarized in the Notice of Hearing regarding complaint no. 00048-2-1.  Conclusions of Law would be made for the administrative rule and statutory violations as set forth therein.

2. The Consent Order would not include findings or conclusions of violations under complaint no. 00006-1-1.  The Consent Order is in the nature of a plea bargain arrangement where Dr. Monce would consent to the findings in complaint no. 00048-2-1 and accept discipline imposed thereon, and the Board would, in effect, take a voluntary dismissal, by way of analogy, of the other complaint.

3. Contemporaneously with the acceptance and entry of this Consent Order by the full Veterinary Medical Board, the Board would take a dismissal of OAH file no. 02 VMB 1712.

4. The disciplinary sanctions in the Consent Order would be generally as follows.  The Order would cite an active suspension of 30 days, which suspension would be stayed for a probation term of two years upon the usual terms and conditions, including that Dr. Monce would not violate the Veterinary Practice Act or Board rules.  The Consent Order would recite that there would be no loss of license, and the probationary period would begin immediately under the terms and conditions set forth.  A special condition would be that Dr. Monce would have to maintain compliance with the name approval, minimum sanitary inspection and other provisions of the Act and rules that were found to have been violated.  Another condition would be that he would pay to the Board a $5,000.00 civil monetary penalty.  This sum is consistent with previous cases, and of course is transmitted to the State and not retained by the Board.  The sum would be required to be paid to the Board within 30 days of the entry of the Order.  Dr. Monce would not be required to reimburse the Board its costs that are usually  recovered pursuant to 21 NCAC 66.0601(1) as part of the Consent Order.

The Committee asks that Dr. Monce respond to this proposal within the next few days.  The Committee is optimistic that the matter can be resolved, but if Dr. Monce chooses to allow the matter to go forward, the Committee believes it has exhausted its good faith efforts toward resolution.  At hearing I will seek to recover, as authorized, all of the Board costs in this matter relating to Dr. Monce, the amount which is not insubstantial.  The resolution of the case of course would avoid his exposure to such an assessment.

Please call at your earliest convenience after you have conferred with Dr. Monce.  Thank you.

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:jh
cc:  Committee on Investigations No. 1
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048\Crowell, Michael letter 1-29-03.wpd


B:  March 3, 2003


    View the scanned document

Tharrington Smith, L.L.P
Attorneys at Law
209 Fayetteville Street Mall
P.O. Box 1151
Raleigh, N.C.  27602-1151

3 March 2003

VIA FACSIMILE   743-2201
CONFIDENTIAL
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY

Mr. George G. Hearn
Johnson, Hearn, Vinegar & Gee, PLLC
Post Office Box 1776
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Re:   Dr. Kevin Monce

Dear George:

This is in response to your recent letter proposing a resolution of the pending case involving Dr. Kevin Monce. As stated in my telephone message, Dr. Monce cannot accept the terms you proposed, but we have some modifications to suggest and believe that we are making real progress.

One of Dr. Monce's principal reservations about any settlement has been the imposition of a license suspension even if the suspension is stayed. As any professional would be, he has been very concerned about the effect on his reputation. He also has been concerned about the effect the suspension might have if he should ever choose to move to another state. With the assistance of Tom Mickey we have been able to get a better picture of the effect of suspension in other states. Consequently, Dr. Monce now is ready to consider a stayed suspension as part of the resolution of this matter. I hope you appreciate that it has been very difficult for Dr. Monce to reach this point. It is hard to see how the administrative mistakes justify a license suspension, but he is willing to consider that result if necessary to bring this matter to a conclusion and avoid the cost and wear and tear of a hearing.

Your proposal is that the charges in complaint 00006-1-1 concerning the quality of care in the treatment of the Deas' dogs would be dismissed, and that the findings and disciplinary action would be based on complaint 00048-2-1. The wording of the settlement document is important. As you and the board are aware, the Deas sisters have made a crusade out of their complaints. In addition to the endless communications to you, the board, and the Office of Administrative Hearings, they call newspaper reporters and have a web site devoted to railing against Dr. Monce. The settlement documents needs to be carefully written to avoid giving them any further material to use. Settlement in this matter is not worthwhile to Dr. Monce if it simply prompts a further round of harassment from the Deas.

We believe the wording issue can be handled by sticking to simple factual statements of the matters in complaint 00048-2-1 and eliminating references to the Deas' animals. In describing the services provided by Dr. Monce in the Veterinary Medicine Referral Hospital in Durham, for example, it should be sufficient to say that he provided veterinary services in that facility from 1995 to 1998 without referring specifically to treatment of the Deas' dog. Similarly, we do not think it appropriate for the final document to say, as does your pleading in the Office of Administrative Hearings, that Dr. Monce was "misleading" the Deas or the board. While Dr. Monce may be willing to acknowledge administrative violations to conclude this matter, he cannot accept the proposition that he acted fraudulently. Again, sticking to simple, straightforward recitation of facts should satisfy any concerns about the working of the agreement.

We would also like for you to consider two modifications to the proposed settlement. The first would be to reduce the probationary period from two years to six months. Our reasoning is simple, and we think such a change would benefit the board as well as Dr. Monce. First, the violations to which Dr. Monce would be admitting would all be administrative in nature and have already been corrected. Thus, a probationary period is not necessary to see that he complies with the board statutes and rules. More importantly, though, we anticipate the longer the probationary period the longer the Deas will continue complaining to the board. Based on their performance to date, we can expect the Deas to be writing to the board constantly, rehashing the same story and attempting to persuade the board to take further action. The two-year probationary period will only serve to stoke that fire. We would think that the board, like Dr. Monce, would be anxious to truly bring this matter to a close. The probationary period, however, will leave an opening for the Deas to keep it alive. We think that it is in the interest of both the board and Dr. Monce to have no probationary period, but if that is not possible six months would seem more than adequate.

Finally, we would like you to consider reducing the amount of the civil monetary penalty from $5,000 to $2,500. Based on the violations to which he would finally admit, a lesser fine seems appropriate. Moreover, this has been a lengthy and expensive process for Dr. Monce, going on for over three years now, and he simply does not have the money available to pay the $5,000 fine soon. The Deas' campaign has hurt him in his business and will continue to do so. A reduction in the amount of the fine would make it possible for him to pay sooner and bring the matter to a close. If the fine is not reduced, we will need to discuss a payment schedule.

I have discussed these matters with Dr. Monce, but he has not had an opportunity to review this letter before it is sent to you.

Please respond as soon as you are able. And, in considering what I have said, please keep in mind that Dr. Monce has moved a great deal to get to this point. If the board is willing to accept our modifications on matters that do not go to the essence of what the board is trying to accomplish, we may be able to bring this matter to a conclusion quickly.

Sincerely,
THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
Michael Crowell

MC/em
cc: Dr. Kevin Monce


C:  March 11, 2003


   View the scanned document

JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

March 11, 2003

Michael Crowell, Esq.
Tharrington Smith, LLP
209 Fayetteville St. Mall
Raleigh, NC  27609-1151

Re:  North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board / Kevin Monce, D.V.M.

Dear Michael:

This is an update with respect to our settlement discussions.

A proposed Consent Order will be forwarded to you following its completion by me and the Committee's review.

By separate envelope I am sending on behalf of the Committee a letter in relation to file no. 01023-2-1.  The resolution of this is not linked to the potential resolution of the pending case.  It may be practical to resolve them about the same time.

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:jh
cc:  Committee on Investigations No. 1
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048\Crowell, Michael letter 3-11-03.wpd


D:  March 12, 2003

JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

Confidential Attorney-Client Privileged Information
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail


MEMORANDUM

To:             Committee on Investigations No. 1 (Dr. Gordon, Dr. Justus, Dr. Marshall)
From:         George G. Hearn
Subject:      Confidential Settlement Negotiations / Dr. Monce case
Date:          March 12, 2003

Dear Dr. Gordon, Dr. Justus and Dr. Marshall:

This is a status report, but also is written to alert you the the enclosure which Tom Mickey printed from the Deas' website.

1. First, you should have now received a copy of my letter to Michael Crowell requesting a response to the Committee regarding Dr. Monce's statement to the Committee in September, 2001 that he had applied for a new DEA permit.

2. The Consent Order is taking longer than I thought to complete, but I hope to finish it today.

3. The enclosure printed from the website recites (second page) that the Deas informed the Board and Michael Crowell that they longer wished to be involved in the hearing. Nancy Deas communicated this decision to Dr. Gordon mid-afternoon Friday [note: March 7, 2003].

4. Early Friday afternoon I received a telephone call from Nancy Deas who wanted to know whether the Deases' concerns about the hearing being in Raleigh had been communicated to Judge Fred Morrison. I replied that they had, and in fact, although no decision had been made by the Judge on our Motion to Change Venue, he had a least decided to have part of the hearing in Raleigh for the convenience of the Raleigh area witnesses. I agreed with Nancy there was no basis for the hearing in Wilmington. Without reciting all of what she said and her fairly strident objections, she made the additional relevant point that their mother's health had taken a turn for the worse and they had no caregiver other than themselves (Edna works; Nancy does not) and an out of town hearing would compromise their ability to care for their mother. I suggested a solution that Nancy testify and Edna be released from being a witness so that Edna could care for their mother.

Nancy seemed receptive to that. Five minutes following that call, Edna Deas called. Her voice mail message that that if the hearing were held out of town, she and Nancy would not participate. Shortly thereafter Nancy left me a voice mail message that mentioned nothing about their not participating but argued further the issue of the case being heard in Raleigh. Thereafter Dr. Gordon called me following a call from Nancy in which she stated that they had decided to withdraw from testifying. Dr. Gordon then informed me of their wish.

I was somewhat surprised to see the website posting that they had decided to withdraw. What caught my attention particularly about the statement was that they had contacted Michael Crowell and informed him of their decision. Does this affect the settlement negotiations? Perhaps, but I am going ahead with what we are doing, and present him a proposed Consent Order that you will have approved. Dr. Monce might think that this gives him a stronger negotiating position. However, the Board is prepared to litigate the facility inspection and related issues in the second complaint in any event, settlement or not. Nevertheless, I do not like the Deases communicating with Mr. Crowell and undercutting our position, but they of course do not know we are in settlement negotiations. We will have to deal with it as we can. If negotiations break down, we will have to reassess the case, and change the focus, and perhaps bring the case back before the Board, and having the hearing only on the facility/inspection/business corporation violations. One role the Deas would have played in this is they could testify that Dr. Monce was in fact treating patients at these various facility in Durham, Cary and the mobile veterinary facility over the years.

If they are needed to testify at a limited hearing, the Deases are always subject to being subpoenaed, but under these circumstances, I would not like to have them testify as reluctant witnesses.

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:jh
Enclosure
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Committee Memos\Comm No 1 memo 3-12-03.wpd


E:  March 14, 2003

JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

Confidential Attorney-Client Privileged Information
Via Facsimile and US Mail

MEMORANDUM

To:             Committee on Investigations No. 1
From:         George G. Hearn 
Subject:      Confidential Settlement Negotiations / Dr. Monce case
Date:          March 14, 2003

Dear Dr. Gordon, Dr. Justus and Dr. Marshall:

Enclosed for your review and approval are:

1. Proposed Consent Order; and
2. Proposed Letter to Michael Crowell.

Please note the following:

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.

5. The civil monetary penalty is based on the factors set forth in the Order. We have not discussed this specifically, but I believe these are appropriate. The only one I have a question about is his profiting by the violations.

6. Please note in my letter where I ask Michael Crowell to have Dr. Monce furnish the Committee a clear and complete statement of how he practices. I suggest this to eliminate questions in the future that could cause us to revisit the situation.

7. I have asked for Dr. Monce's response through Mr. Crowell by next Monday, March 24.

Please respond after you have reviewed. I will then have the cover letter to Michael Crowell and the proposed Consent Order hand delivered to his office. I have reviewed these documents with Tom Mickey.

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:jh
Enclosure
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Committee Memos\Comm No 1 memo 3-14-03.wpd


F:  March 14, 2003

JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

March 14, 2003

HAND DELIVERY

Michael Crowell, Esq.
Tharrington Smith, LLP
P.O. ox 1151
Raleigh, NC  27609-1151

Re:     North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board
          Discovery / Kevin A. Monce, D.V.M.
          File No. 01023-2-1

Dear Michael:

I am optimistic that the case can be settled, but feel compelled to submit this discovery.  You and I in our joint motion asked for discovery to be extended until April 28 and it was not until this morning that I realized that Judge Morrison only extended it until March 28.  I do not know whether this is an error because it already was March, or whether he intended to do that.  In any event, I must submit these in the event that the case goes forward.

I look forward to talking to you on Monday.

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:bb
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048\Crowell, Michael letter2 3-14-03.wpd


G:  March 17, 2003

JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

March 17, 2003

Michael Crowell, Esq.
Tharrington Smith, LLP
P.O. Box 1151
Raleigh, NC  27609-1151

Re:     North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board
          Kevin Monce, D.V.M.
          File No. 01023-2-1

Dear Michael:

I enclose on behalf of Committee on Investigations No. 1 a proposed Consent Order.  This proposal is made in the context of our confidential settlement discussions an is, of course not an admission to be used for any other purpose.

The Committee appreciated and reviewed your letter of March 3.  The committee has recognized your request to set forth direct factual statements and conclusions of law.  The Committee considered but rejected six months probation but has reduced it from two years to one year.  The Committee considered but declines to reduce the amount of the civil monetary penalty.  The monetary penalty of $5,000.00 is to be paid within 30 days of the entry of the Order.  The Committee will consider a payment schedule for no more than one-half of the civil monetary penalty, if other elements of the Order are resolved.  Any payment schedule will not exceed the period of probation.

The Committee makes an additional request that Dr. Monce, before the parties agree on this proposed Order, provide it a clear and complete statement of how he conducts his veterinary consultant services and regular veterinary medical services, particularly with respect to his work with VetSound, Inc. or any other business corporation.  The Committee is not suggesting he is out of compliance, but so that there will be no lingering questions or questions revisited in the future, it needs to understand how he delivers these services to his clients and to the clients of veterinarians with whom he consults.

The Committee would appreciate Dr. Monce's response to this proposal by the close of business Monday, March 24, 2003. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:jh
Enclosure
cc:  Committee on Investigations No. 1
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048\Crowell, Michael letter 3-17-03.wpd


H:  March 31, 2003


THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
209 Fayetteville Street Mall
PO Box 1151
Raleigh, NC 27602-1151

31 March 2003

VIA FACSIMILE   743-2201
CONFIDENTIAL
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY

TO:           Mr. George G. Hearn
FROM:       Michael Crowell
RE:            Kevin Monce

This is in response to the draft consent order you sent to me as a proposed settlement of the complaints against Kevin Monce. Although I believe we are on track toward getting this matter resolved, there are several aspects of the draft order that need addressed. Ay you will see, the questions have more to do with the accuracy of the factual statements than with the basic terms of the settlement.

Paragraph 7 of the findings of fact, on page 2, speaks to the failure to have the Veterinary Medicine Referral Hospital inspected. The following would be a more accurate summary of what occurred.

7. Between August 1994 and 1998, Dr. Monce delivered veterinary services at 3319 Chapel Hill Blvd., Durham, N.C., under the name Veterinary Medicine Referral Hospital on his 1995 license renewal form. On the form he wrote that the facility had been inspected in March 1994 "as an emergency clinic", but that it had never been inspected "as a referral hospital." Dr. Monce did not take other actions to have the facility inspected and to obtain approval from that Board that the facility met the minimum standards for the delivery of veterinary medical services.

Paragraph 9 on page 2 concerned with approval of the Veterinary Medicine Referral Hospital name. Consistent with the changes suggested in paragraph 7, and more accurate would be the following:

9. Although Dr. Monce listed the name Veterinary Medicine Referral Hospital on his license renewals for 1995, 1996 and 1997, and Board records showed that name in its records, Dr. Monce failed to obtain approval of the name as required by Board rule before his delivery of veterinary medical services under that name.

Paragraph 10 of the findings of fact, also on page 2, is about the relationship between Dr. Monce and VetSound. A more complete statement of the arrangement would be as follows:

10. Beginning in 1998 and continuing to present, Dr. Monce has been a veterinary consultant to VetSound, Inc., and to individual veterinarians principally to interpret the results of ultrasounds performed by VetSound. The ultrasounds were performed on equipment transported to veterinarians' offices by a VetSound trailer. Starting in the summer of 1999, the trailer was converted to a mobile practice facility, and Dr. Monce delivered veterinary medical services through the use of that mobile practice facility trailer.

Paragraph 12 of the findings of fact, on page 3, concerns the January 1999 meeting with the board and it is incorrect. Dr. Monce did not come to the meeting at the board's request. The meeting was about VetSound, and he came at the invitation of Renee Dailey. More importantly, we do not understand the basis for the statement that Dr. Monce misled the board. The paragraph seems to say that he misled the board as to the delivery of veterinary medical services through a mobile practice facility. Actually, In January 1999 the trailer still was used only to transport equipment, and it was not converted to a mobile facility until later that year. At the January 1999 meeting Dr. Monce was forthcoming about his consulting services, and much of the discussion with the board was about the planned used of the internet. From Tom Mickey's letter to Monce and Dailey dated April 15, 1999, it would not appear that anyone felt misled. Mickey thanked Monce and Dailey for attending the January meeting and for their "timely and informative discussion." As the letter indicates, the meeting had answered the board members' questions as to whether Monce or Dailey was producing the diagnostic reports which were to be delivered by internet.

The only circumstance of which we are aware that might lead the board to think it was misled about Monce's relationship with VetSound is his inclusion of the name "VetSound, Inc." in his license renewals in 1999 and 2000. Although the street address given was his own, we can see that the inclusion of the VetSound name might have created the impression that he was an owner or employee of VetSound, and thus practicing through VetSound, although that was not the case. When Tom Mickey addressed his April 1999 letter of Monce at VetSound, though he did not raise any question about the tie between Monce and VetSound. Consequently, we believe that paragraph 12 should be deleted. Nevertheless, if the board feels that some kind of finding on that issue is necessary, we would suggest the following substitution:

12. In his 1999 and 2000 license renewals, Dr. Monce included the name "VetSound, Inc." as part of his address, although he was not an owner or employee of VetSound and served only as a consultant to VetSound. The remainder of the address given in the license renewals was Dr. Monce's home address.

Consistent with the revisions in the findings of fact, we suggest that paragraph 2 of the conclusions of law, on page 3, be rewritten as follows:

2. Although Dr. Monce identified Veterinary Medicine Referral Hospital as an uninspected facility "as a referral hospital" on his 1995 license renewal, he violated Board Rule 21 NCAC 66.0207(b)(15) by failing to take any additional actions to obtain inspection and approval of that facility at 3319 Chapel Hill Blvd., Durham, N.C., in order that the Board could confirm that the facility met the minimum facility and practice standards required of all locations where veterinary medicine in practiced in this State. This violation continued from August 1994 through 1998.

Likewise, paragraph 4 of the conclusions, on page 4 of your draft, would be rewritten to read:

4. Although Dr. Monce listed the name Veterinary Medicine Referral Hospital on his license renewals for 1995, 1996 and 1997, he violated Board Rule 21 NCAC 66.202 by using that name for the above facilities in Durham and Cary, respectively, between August 1994 and 1998 without first obtaining Board approval for the use of the name.

Paragraphs 6,7, and 8 of the conclusions, also on page 4, all concern the relationship between Monce and VetSound. We would substitute the following single paragraph for all three paragraphs in the draft:

6. Dr. Monce violated Board Rule 21 NCAC 66.0202 by using the name VetSound, Inc., as part of his address in his license renewals for 1999 and 2000 without adequately distinguishing that he was not an owner or employee of VetSound, Inc., and only provided consulting services to Vetsound. The use of the VetSound name in his address made it appear that he was delivering veterinary medical services through a business corporation in violation of G.S. §§ 90-187.11 and 90-187.12.

The last comment on the wording of the document is that we do not think it is necessary in paragraph 11 of the conclusions — which would be renumbered — to identify the specific factors leading to the amount of the civil penalty, nor do we consider it accurate to include the language suggesting that the violations were willful. To avoid those questions, but leave the conclusion intact, we suggest the following be substituted for current paragraph 11:

11. In deciding to access a civil monetary penalty of $5,000.00, the Board has considered the factors delineated in G.S. § 90-187.8(b) and has determined that they warrant a fine in that amount.

As currently drafted, the proposed consent order does not say anything about the dismissal of other complaint, the complaint 00006-1-1 filed by the Deas sisters. Please let me know how you expect to handle that.

Finally, I note that the draft order provides for payment of the $5,000 penalty within 30 days. As we have mentioned before, Dr. Monce does not have those funds available at the moment and we may need to discuss a different schedule for payment.

Thank you for your work on the draft. I believe that the changes suggested in this memo provide a more accurate summary of what has occurred, and they do not change the basic structure of the order. Please let me know you reaction to the proposed revisions so I may discuss with Dr. Monce how to proceed.


I:  March 31, 2003


JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

March 31, 2003

Confidential:  Attorney-Client
Privileged Communication

Via Facsimile and U. S. Mail

Confidential / For Settlement
Purposes Only

Michael Crowell, Esq.
Tharrington Smith, LLP
P.O. Box 1151
Raleigh, NC  27609-1151

Re:    North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board
         Kevin Monce, D.V.M.
         File No. 01023-2-1

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your letter. I have forwarded it to Committee 1. I hope to talk with them tomorrow. I think the Committee will want a clear statement of his current relationship with VetSound. They also will want to know what is meant by the phrase you use that Dr. Monce was and is a consultant to VetSound. I understand, as he described it to the Board in the meeting in January 1999, his being a consultant to licensed veterinarians, but the other relationship is the core of what this case is about.

I do not know what their position will be on the civil monetary penalty. It was their sense that if all other things were agreed to, they would agree to one-half down and the balance in equal payments over he period of probation, which would mean $2,500.00 plus payments of about $210.00 per month. Confirm that he can do that if we reach agreement.

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

I hope to talk with you tomorrow. Will you be in tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday?

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:jh
cc:  Committee on Investigations No. 1
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048\Crowell, Michael letter 3-31-03.wpd


J:  April 2, 2003


JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

April 2, 2003

Confidential; For Settlement Purposes Only

Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery

Michael Crowell, Esq.
Tharrington, Smith, LLP
209 Fayetteville St. Mall
Raleigh, NC 27602-1151

Re: North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board / Kevin Monce, D.V.M.

Dear Michael:

In response to your letter I received Monday afternoon, Committee 1 has considered all of your points and made the changes set forth on the enclosed revised Consent Order.

I enclose a redline version plus three bond originals. The Committee requests that Dr. Monce sign and originals so that the Committee, at its meeting tomorrow afternoon beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Veterinary Medical Board office, can know this matter is concluded. The Order will be presented on Friday at the full Board meeting.

Please understand that the Committee is not being presumptuous, but the Board will not meet again until June. This matter needs to be resolved tomorrow, if it will be resolved. The Committee has bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns of Dr. Monce, both in the original Consent Order and in this final version.

The Committee had hoped to receive a response to our request for a clear statement of his relationship with VetSound, Inc. currently. Actually that was done in an attempt to accommodate your request that these matters not be revisited in the future. Not having received it, it is too late to review that now, but I anticipate that Dr. Monce will want to clear any questions up in the very near future.

Although not necessary for the settlement of this matter, the Committee awaits a response to my letter relating to the DEA license application.

I will be here later this afternoon and will be at the Veterinary Medical Board office (715-7720) beginning at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow. Please call.

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:jh
Enclosure

F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048\Crowell, Michael letter 4-2-03.wpd
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048 Consent Order 4-2-03 v.2 redline


 

K:  April 4, 2003


JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

Facsimile
TO:               Michael A. Crowell, Esq.
FAX No.         829-1583
From:           George G. Hearn
Date :           April 4, 2003
Re:               Kevin A. Monce, D.V.M.
No of Pages 10  (including cover)

F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048 Consent Order 4-4-03  redline1  4-4-03.wpd


L:  April 7, 2003


JOHNSON, HEARN, VINEGAR, GEE & MERCER, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANOVER SQUARE, SUITE 2200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

April 7, 2003

Michael Crowell, Esq.
Tharrington Smith, LLP
209 Fayetteville St. Mall
Raleigh, NC 27609-1151
Re:  North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board/ Kevin Monce, DVM

Dear Michael,
Enclosed is an original Consent Order resolving complaint nos. 00006-1-1 and 00048-2-1 signed today by Thomas M. Mickey, Executive Director of the Veterinary Medical Board, as authorized by the Board in its meeting April 4, 2003.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
George G. Hearn

GGH:jh
Enclosure
cc:  Committee on Investigations No. 1
F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89611\Monce 00048\Crowell, Michael letter2 4-7-03.wpd


Top of Page


Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!


 

TERMS OF USE

|
|
|
|
|