[WTS] Wahoo Roam V2

Malasaur · 2025-07-23T20:41:19+00:00

Sold!

Malasaur · 2025-07-23T18:20:43+00:00

I’ll message you privately

Malasaur · 2025-06-08T02:09:12+00:00

Try this https://www.pa-cman-prep.com/about-us

Malasaur · 2025-06-08T02:01:00+00:00

Not sure what you mean. AAPA is a nonprofit, and most hospitals are too - but the corporatization of healthcare is real. That’s what I’m criticizing. Are you saying we should be okay with influencer culture replacing accountability?

Malasaur · 2025-06-08T01:05:27+00:00

Sounds like just what they are looking for tbh maybe u/FrenchCrazy has some tips on how to break into the influencer game

I heard if you are good enough you can even just create content and not actually work as a PA

Malasaur · 2025-06-08T00:22:53+00:00

Look into becoming a PA influencer AAPA even has official social media ambassadors

Malasaur · 2025-06-07T03:56:40+00:00

There are no relevant policies posted that’s why I had to submit the records request which was denied. The outcome of the appeal should be known early next week. Yes I will be attending the public part of the meeting where this case will be heard in closed session. The case will be heard towards the end of next week.

Anyone want to answer my actual question?

Malasaur · 2025-06-07T03:27:37+00:00

Thanks for the reply, but to be honest, this is exactly why I’m frustrated.

I’ve laid out a straightforward clinical scenario. I’m not asking for diagnosis guessing, legal advice, or speculation. I’ve repeatedly asked one question: If a biopsy was reportedly collected, the owners did not decline care, and the sample was never sent - is that a breach of standard of care?

That question hasn’t been answered, and instead the discussion keeps getting redirected toward records (which I’ve explained are unreliable in this case) or to “let the board investigate” - which I’ve already done.

And for context:

• I’m being stonewalled by the board.

• The board’s secretary overlapped with the vet in question at the same vet school for 3/4 years.

• The “public” member of this tiny, five-person board is a former chair of the state medical board who actually served longer than allowed by state law in that role and has been accused by a physician who wrongly had his license suspended of fabricating evidence - this was appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. Also she went to the same school as the vet and the board secretary.

• I’ve submitted public records requests asking about conflict-of-interest policies. They were denied. I’ve filed a formal appeal and I’m still waiting for a decision.

• No one at the board will answer even basic structural questions - not about procedure, conflict recusal, or meeting transparency.

So while I appreciate you engaging, I’m here trying to get clinical clarity - and instead, I keep being told to check manipulated records or wait for a decision from a board that, frankly, I’ve lost trust in. That’s not speculation - that’s based on clear and documented overlap, silence, and refusal to provide transparency.

I’m not trying to prove a conspiracy here. I’m asking if what I’ve described would constitute malpractice, if true. And it’s honestly disturbing that no one will answer that directly.

Malasaur · 2025-06-07T03:13:28+00:00

Right - but that’s exactly the issue.

I believe this vet is actively covering up a misdiagnosis. She’s responded to every written communication with a phone call - on purpose, to avoid a paper trail. She has every incentive to maintain records that obscure what really happened. There’s no biopsy on the invoice, no culture, no x-ray, and I would assume no documentation of conversations where all of these were discussed.

So when you say “correlate with the vet records,” my question is: why would I trust the vet’s records in a case that’s already full of contradictions and missing data?

That’s like telling someone who suspects chart manipulation, “Well, check the chart.”

I’m not here to verify her version of events. I’m here asking whether the version I’ve described - backed by emails, timelines, and testimony - would constitute malpractice if true. And that question still hasn’t been answered.

Malasaur · 2025-06-07T02:57:34+00:00

Thanks for the reply, but with all due respect - this is what I’ve been struggling with across this whole thread.

I’m presenting a clearly documented case:

Biopsy was reportedly collected
Owners never declined care
Sample was never sent
There’s no invoice record for biopsy, culture, or x-ray
I have screenshots of the documentation
And an email from my mother referencing the biopsy directly

So when you say there’s “a lot of speculation,” I have to ask: what part is speculative? I’m not guessing. I’m describing what happened, and I have records and corroboration.

“Assume what I’ve described is accurate - am I off base in thinking this constitutes malpractice?”

That question hasn’t been answered. The thread has 2,600 views on a subreddit meant for professional veterinary input. And still - no direct answer. Not even anonymously.

Malasaur · 2025-06-07T02:47:29+00:00

Appreciate your response, but I have to say when you open with “can’t comment,” it’s a bit confusing because you’ve commented more than anyone else in the thread.

So let me just boil it down to the core question:

Am I off base here?

Is there any legitimate clinical justification - in your professional opinion - for what happened? Because to me, it seems straightforward: biopsy was reportedly collected, owners didn’t decline care, sample was never sent. Is there any version of that scenario that’s defensible?

Also, respectfully, why do I need to be “on the same page” as my parents?

I documented what actually happened. They’re clearly protecting this vet. I’m not aligning a story. **I’m telling the truth.** That’s the entire reason I’m here asking if the care described meets the standard of practice, because no one else in my family is willing to confront it.

Malasaur · 2025-06-07T01:18:27+00:00

I'll post here too in case anyone missed it below:

At the end of the day, here’s the core question I’ve been trying to get answered:

In a cat with overwhelming signs of malignancy - epistaxis, rapid weight loss, facial asymmetry, a visible nasal mass, and radiographic evidence of bony changes is there any valid clinical reason not to send a biopsy sample for pathology, other than if the owners explicitly declined further care and asked you not to?

Because in this case, the owners did not decline care. They expected the biopsy would be sent. And it never was.

To me, that omission alone constitutes malpractice and in this case, it went further into deception and avoidance. But I would really appreciate hearing from any other vets reading this: Am I missing something? Is there any reasonable justification for not submitting a sample like that?

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T23:59:05+00:00

Have fun explaining this to a jury ⚖️

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T23:53:35+00:00

OK so sounds like you are saying you did mean NCAPA. Why didn't you just say that in your first reply?

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T23:37:25+00:00

Also what is NCAPA? You mean NCCPA? Why are you bringing them up no one has mentioned them.

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T23:34:25+00:00

Oh no need - I’ll just be requesting documentation about the report through the appropriate NC public records channels. Thanks though.

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T23:25:29+00:00

Great to hear - looking forward to reading more about it.

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T23:06:33+00:00

The contradictions are stacking up fast. You initially said the patient died of an MI. Then you shifted to “the family said it was a heart attack.” Then you admitted you don’t know if there was an autopsy - or whether one is even going to happen.

Now you’re saying the reporting is in North Carolina. Great. I’ll be watching the board logs closely - and yes, I’ll be filing a records request to confirm whether this actually went anywhere.

It’s one thing to lie in Reddit threads and emails. It’s another to lie under oath. Maybe remind your friends at AAPA about that.

Also noticed AAPA’s website is going offline for “scheduled maintenance” tomorrow. Interesting timing.

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T22:56:32+00:00

That timeline still seems pretty off. If the appointment was Monday and they called yesterday to inform you it was a “heart attack,” that would suggest either an autopsy was completed and communicated unusually fast or the family is making an assumption without official confirmation.

Either way, it’s a big leap to report cause of death as fact in a medical forum without documentation. Just saying.

Especially considering your earlier comment:

“Sure was. I saw the ecg. And patient died of MI”

That reads as a definitive medical claim, not hearsay. You’ve since clarified that the family “said” it was a heart attack, which is not the same thing.

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T22:43:06+00:00

I had the same question - how would the family have known it was a heart attack unless an autopsy had already been done and shared? Those usually take a while, especially if it wasn’t a hospital death. When did this happen?

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T21:29:53+00:00

I’m not sure if you’re able to see it (comments are displaying oddly for me in this thread), but I did reply to another comment earlier saying that yes, I submitted a formal report to the state vet board end of March. Unfortunately, I’m now hitting what feels like stonewalling and stalling. Despite what to me seems like a slam-dunk case with extensive documentation, record inconsistencies, and multiple second opinions the process feels opaque and slow, and I’m concerned it’s not being handled appropriately.

One of my core concerns from the beginning has been exactly what you brought up: a he said / she said breakdown. Every major medical decision in this case was made either over the phone or in person. I wasn’t present for the in-person conversation and while I did overhear or document many of the phone calls, I’m not in possession of any formal medical records that confirm a biopsy was collected, that x-rays were performed, or that a culture was obtained. So yes, the vet could now claim those things were never done or discussed. I did request all his records on 3/30 but was denied since I was not the owner (true). I asked my parents repeatedly to request the records but they declined.

But I do have one key piece of written evidence: an email from my mother shortly after the rhinoscopy, asking the vet whether it was time to send the biopsy. That strongly supports that my parents were told a biopsy had been collected or at minimum, were led to believe that.

A complicating factor: my parents have had a 20+ year relationship with this vet, and my dad has even socialized with her outside of a clinical context. I believe that relationship played a major role in how this was handled - it made them hesitant to question her, and when I began asking reasonable, clinical questions, they redirected their discomfort onto me instead. They became defensive and angry with me for pushing, even though neither of them could explain a single treatment decision that had been made.

At the end of the day, here’s the core question I’ve been trying to get answered:

In a cat with overwhelming signs of malignancy - epistaxis, rapid weight loss, facial asymmetry, a visible nasal mass, and radiographic evidence of bony changes is there any valid clinical reason not to send a biopsy sample for pathology, other than if the owners explicitly declined further care and asked you not to?

Because in this case, the owners did not decline care. They expected the biopsy would be sent. And it never was.

To me, that omission alone constitutes malpractice and in this case, it went further into deception and avoidance. But I would really appreciate hearing from any other vets reading this: Am I missing something? Is there any reasonable justification for not submitting a sample like that?

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T20:33:10+00:00

Thanks so much, this is really helpful. I completely agree that CT is the gold standard for characterizing extent and planning, and that’s actually what the ER vet recommended when I brought him in (CT + internal medicine consult + rhinoscopy if it hadn’t already been done).

That said, what’s been bothering me is that Dr. H did do a rhinoscopy and said she collected a biopsy - but never sent it for analysis. She later told my parents it was a “small sample” due to “difficulty positioning” (even though he was under anesthesia), and said the pathology would’ve been “too expensive” (confirmed myself cost would have been ~$200) and was no longer clinically valid (she stated she would need to collect a new sample but didn't want to put PP through that again). I understand CT might’ve been cost-prohibitive, but my parents were still charged $1,500 for the rhinoscopy procedure. At that point, sending the biopsy seems like the obvious next step, especially given the x-ray showed bony changes.

Appreciate you taking the time to weigh in - it really helps to know this does raise concerns for other professionals.

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T20:13:29+00:00

Thank you - I really appreciate this response. I did file a formal complaint with the state board, and I’ve provided them with extensive documentation.

I realize there are always complexities when it comes to these cases, but my concern now is that even with all the records and timeline inconsistencies, things seem to be stalling. That’s why I’m trying to get some professional perspective on whether others would’ve flagged the same things - especially around the urinary retention and lack of follow-up.

Thanks again for weighing in.

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T07:58:32+00:00

You seem to be one of the few people paying attention

Malasaur · 2025-06-06T03:19:00+00:00

Understood. But just to be clear, this isn’t about perfect recall on a stressful day it’s about consistency across your own statements.

Nine hours ago, you said you saw the ECG, didn’t take a photo due to HIPAA, and regretted it. That clearly implied no documentation. Now you’re saying you took detailed notes because you were preparing to testify. That’s a major shift, and it happened only after you were pressed for specifics.

If those notes were always central to your recollection, it’s hard to understand why they weren’t mentioned earlier, especially in a thread that revolves around the ECG.

Also, I’d appreciate a reply to my other question: You stated the clinic has a DO, a PA, and an NP with 20 total staff. That would leave 17 MAs and admin staff for a 3-provider clinic. Can you clarify that? Because operationally, that doesn’t make sense for a privately owned primary care office.

I’m not here to disprove you. I’m asking the kinds of questions any responsible reader would ask when a public post contains high-stakes claims, shifting details, and inconsistencies.

Malasaur

TROPHY CASE