TEXAS BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS

oth advised to stay off of our land. We had filed a civil case regarding the chemical trespass to our property (referred to
on the original application as being party to civil legal proceedings, which never made it to Court). During this time of
turmoil, the Berman complaint was heard and dismissed, period. However, this was close to the time of the Berez
complaint and at that hearing I was reminded of the still current probation. As such, I connected the wrong dots going
forward, and I was under the false impression that I was on probation because of the Berman complaint. Therefore, in my
application I gave an explanation of the Berman complaint, thinking that this was the major issue of my career. What
never made sense to me was that I knew that I didn't do anything wrong. There were no violations, period. Still, this is
what I was reporting because I thought that they thought that I had done something wrong, and I falsely remembered
being disciplined for it.
It was only when I called the AZ Vet Board a couple of weeks ago, to try to figure out why I didn't seem to be on the
same page as everyone else, that I learned once and for all that this Berman issue was a non-issue. It should not have
been on the original application and I did not put it on the Addendum for the same reason. Perhaps I have misinterpreted
the instructions and I should be referring to this also? Technically speaking, one could say that I was a party in an
administrative hearing, but since it was dismissed and thrown out, do you want it included anyway?
The AZ Vet Board was of the impression that I should only be referring to actual disciplinary action in the applications
and this is what they report when asked. During the recent call with them I learned that the two disciplinary actions that
they report are the Berez case, already referred to in the Addendum and what I also reported on the Addendum as "Failure
to renew a license in a timely manner: (2003)". This is also attached. Again, this is where I was connecting the wrong
dots. I had no idea that this was an issue until a couple of weeks ago. I thought that this was an administrative error.
Actually, it was an administrative error, and I treated it as such, but according to the AZ Vet Board, this was Case No. 03-
14. This is properly explained in the Addendum.
What added an undue amount of confusion to what was already a reporting of the "wrong dots" was that we had recently
discovered that the State of Illinois had published to the web a reference to the 2005 Berez case as my being disciplined in
another state, but they dated their report as 2007. As the Berman complaint was the one that stood out in my memory,
and since this was the last time that I had been before the Board, I was confused and thought that they were referring to
that case, quite literally the case that never was. To make matters worse, I blindly copied their date of2007, thinking that
ifthey said so, it must be true. So, with the wrong date and the wrong complaint, I tried to "explain" what I thought was
behind the disciplinary action that I had received in Arizona, in 2005.
This is one of those "Who's on first, who's on second" scenarios. My original letter of explanation on the application
begins with the words: "Five years ago, on 2116/2007, I was reprimanded by the Arizona Veterinary Medical examining
Board and put on 6 months probation." I was mindlessly and stupidly repeating a date I got from the State of Illinois, but
this never happened. I don't know how to take these words back. I don't know where this date came from. However, I
have ascertained that the State of Illinois reported in 2007 the disciplinary action of2005, giving the impression of
additional actions, plus I thought they were referring to the Berman complaint, but they were refering to this same 2005
disciplinary action, it being the Berez case. This was what I was trying to explain on the phone, but I may not have
referred to it by name. In my original application, I was mistakenly referring to the Berman non-case, thinking that this
was the only case. On the phone with you, you mentioned two issues with Arizona disciplinary actions and in trying to
think of what might have been the second issue, I thought this might be the Berez case, which I didn't think of as an issue
at the time. Actually it was the issue with Arizona. On the phone with you, I was referring to two cases: Berez and
Berman, falsely thinking that these were the two issues. But you were referring to "something else" and I couldn't
imagine what that something else might be. In retrospect, it should have been the 2003 issue of not renewing my license
on time, but it could have been my saying, in error, that I had been disciplined in 2007.
I know the above is confusing, and it certainly makes me look like a fool, which in this regard I am, but I am a good
doctor, and competent where it matters most. What I hope I have properly shined a light on in the above is that, officially,
I have had two events in my career which resulted in disciplinary actions: The failure to renew my license in a timely
matter and the record keeping violations, both explained in the Addendum and both official documents being attached. I
do hope that I will hear back that you have what you need now to decide. If there is anything that still isn't clear in my
explanations, I would probably be at a loss for words. Please let me know either way.
Best regards,
2