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



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  

Decision on Complaint 00048-2-1, Kevin Monce, DVM

P.O. BOX 12587

October 18, 2001

Via Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested

Kevin A. Monce, D.V.M.
P. O. Box 15396
Wilmington, NC  28408
Re:    File No. 00048-2-1
         Complaint of N.C. Veterinary Medical Board

Dear Dr. Monce:

I write on behalf of the Committee on Investigations No. 1 of the Veterinary Medical Board regarding the above complaint which was initiated by the Board and set forth in a letter to you of December 22, 2000 from Mr. Mickey.

The Committee has conducted its investigation pursuant to Board Rule .0601, a copy of which is enclosed.  The Committee has found probable cause that you have violated the following statutory sections of the Veterinary Practice Act and Board administrative rules:

1. General Statute § 90-187.8(c)(6), which subsection allows the Veterinary Medical Board to take disciplinary action against a licensee for incompetence, gross negligence or other malpractice in the practice of veterinary medicine.  Your violations of the Practice Act and Board Rules hereinafter listed were acts of incompetent practice.

2. Board Rule .0207(b)(15), which requires that all new veterinary facilities shall be inspected and approved by the Board prior to the practice of veterinary medicine within the facility.  The Committee finds that the trailer owned by VetSound, Inc., and perhaps co-owned Renee Dailey Daniel, was such a facility in which you practiced medicine without prior inspection and approval.

3. Board Rule .0208, which govern facilities, such as the mobile facility in which you practiced, providing limited veterinary services.  Specifically subsection (b) of the Rule requires compliance with the minimum standards of Rule .0207 by a veterinarian operating a facility covered by Rule .0208 (with certain limited exceptions).

4. Board Rule .0202, which requires that the Board approve the name of the entity through which a veterinarian practices or delivers veterinary services.  You did not obtain approval of the name under which you practiced.

5. General Statute § 90-187.11.  You practiced veterinary medicine through a business corporation, VetSound, Inc.

6. Board Rule .0205(1) and (4).  You made untrue representations, even if implied by your conduct, to the Board and to the Deases in the veterinarian-client-patient relationship regarding the legal compliance of the mobile facility as a place that had been inspected and approved fro the delivery of veterinary medical services. You had also previously represented to the Board that you were engaged in an only non-invasive procedure consultative practice.

Other allegations were made in the complaint. The Committee has not made specific findings on those, and likely will not if the matter is resolved as discussed below through a Consent Order.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that based on the findings of probable cause and pursuant to Rule .0601(g), the Committee is prepared to issue a notice of hearing sending all of the violations on which it finds probable cause to a contested case hearing before a hearing panel of the Board, or as otherwise permitted by the Veterinary Practice Act, Board Rules and G.S. Chapter 150B.  If the matter goes to a hearing, there is a possibility that the Board will ask that an administrative law judge be assigned to hear the case and make recommendations to the Board pursuant to G.S. Chapter 150B.

The Committee has asked me to propose a resolution of this complaint to you through a Consent Order that would be presented to the Board for approval.  This proposal is an option to you.  If you decline this proposal, the matter will go to a hearing without any prejudice to you.  However, at hearing, the Hearing Panel or administrative law judge is not limited to the discipline, whether more or less, decided by Committee 1.  At hearing, the Board can seek recovery of its costs in this case in addition to other discipline.

The terms of a proposed Consent Order to resolve this complaint are:

1. The terms of the settlement would be contained in a Consent Order voluntarily signed by you and a member or duly authorized representative of the Board.  It would be adopted as an order of the Board.

2. The Consent Order would contain findings of fact and conclusions of law setting forth the Committee's findings on at least the above violations.

3. The disciplinary sanctions imposed would be as follows:
(a) Your veterinary license would be suspended for twelve (12) months; however, only three (3) months of this suspension would be active, and the balance of nine (9) months suspension would be stayed for a period of two years during, which time you would be on probation.  You would be required to submit written reports to the Board during this probation and your practice facilities would be subject to unannounced inspections at your expense.

(b) While licensed you will practice only in facilities that have been inspected and approved and with approved names as provided by the Veterinary Practice Act and Board Rules.  This is required by the Practice Act and Rules, but it would be an express condition of your probation.

(c) You will cease and desist all veterinary services through VetSound, Inc. and not deliver veterinary services except individually or through a entity as permitted by the Veterinary Practice Act and Rules.  This is required by the Practice Act and Rules, but it would be an express condition of your probation.

(d) You will pay to the Board within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Consent Order a civil monetary penalty in the sum of $5,000.00  The civil monetary penalty will be assessed pursuant to G.S. § 90-187.8(b) and its applicable subsections, as well as Board Rule .0601(m).

(e) The Board would not assess costs in the Consent Order, but if the matter goes to hearing, I on behalf of the Board will seek recovery of costs from you pursuant to Board Rule .0601(l).

The Committee meets October 31 in Raleigh, an would appreciate your decision on this proposal by 5:00 p.m. on October 29.  Thank you.

Very truly yours,
George G. Hearn
Attorney for the Board

cc: Committee on Investigations No. 1

F:\Docs\GGH\Ncvmb-89011\Monce00048\Monce, Kevin Letter 10-18-01.wpd


Top of Page

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