My experience with the Board's handling of my complaint regarding a hospital veterinarian was disappointing and concerning. As a pet parent seeking an objective review of my dog's care, I expected a thorough and independent evaluation of the medical records, the evidence I submitted, and the applicable fluid therapy guidelines. Instead, I was left feeling that significant concerns about the clinical decision-making in my dog's case were not meaningfully addressed, particularly in relation to the 2024 AAHA Fluid Therapy Guidelines for cardiorenal patients. Those guidelines describe ways to modify fluid therapy for patients with heart disease who are not in congestive heart failure rather than simply withholding fluid therapy altogether.
My complaint focused on the first two days of my dog's hospitalization. Hospital records documented that he was dehydrated and severely azotemic and that his kidney values continued to worsen. My dog had kidney disease and a lack of blood flow to the kidneys due to dehydration. Yet no treatment was initiated during those two days to directly address those confirmed, life-threatening conditions. My concern was never that treatment was guaranteed to save him. My concern was that an appropriate attempt to stabilize him was not made. He remained hospitalized in a worsening uremic crisis while becoming further dehydrated until his death on the third day. The veterinarian was treating him for a suspected urinary tract infection that was later negative on a culture and suspected aspiration pneumonia that, according to the hospital records, was not confirmed on radiographs.
I submitted an independent veterinary review completed by two veterinarians whom I hired to evaluate my dog's medical records. They concluded that withholding fluid therapy did not meet the expected standard of care and that low-volume fluid therapy with close monitoring should have been attempted on the first day despite his concurrent heart disease. I also referenced the 2024 AAHA Fluid Therapy Guidelines, which outline modified fluid approaches for patients with concurrent heart and kidney disease. My concern remains that these cardiorenal fluid therapy principles were not followed and that my dog remained hospitalized for two days without an attempted treatment plan for his confirmed dehydration and severe azotemia while his condition deteriorated. Other routes of hydration, including enteral methods such as a nasogastric tube or cautiously administered subcutaneous fluids, also could have been considered. Even my dog's primary care vet administered subcutaneous fluids to him in the past when needed.
What remains very difficult for me to understand is how allowing a severely dehydrated, azotemic dog to remain hospitalized for two days without an attempt to treat those confirmed life-threatening conditions was determined not to fall below the standard of care. The issue was whether modified, carefully monitored treatment should have been attempted rather than providing no fluid support for the condition that was actively threatening his life. If he could not tolerate even a cautious treatment attempt, that information would also have allowed for an earlier discussion about humane euthanasia rather than prolonged deterioration. Allowing a dog to remain in that condition for two days is inhumane treatment and animal abuse by medical deprivation.
Despite the information I submitted, the Board ultimately concluded that the veterinarian did not fall below the standard of care. Have consideration for independent expert opinions, current clinical guidelines, complete medical records, and the risks of both providing and withholding treatment. Understanding cardiorenal fluid therapy guidelines and the treatment modifications available for medically complex patients is important. Below is my dead dog. My dog laid there further dehydrating and drowning in toxins for two days with no attempted treatment for his condition yet board members said the hospital veterinarian's actions “were reasonable.” Ignorant and inhumane.
I am writing to formally express my serious concern regarding the Board’s handling of our complaint involving Dr. Kimbrell and our horse, Stellar, particularly the Board’s failure to meaningfully acknowledge or respond to material evidence submitted after the original complaint.
This is not simply a disagreement with the Board’s decision. The issue is that new evidence directly calls into question the accuracy and credibility of statements Dr. Kimbrell made in connection with this matter, yet we have received no meaningful response addressing that evidence.
Dr. Kimbrell provided an account concerning the circumstances under which medication was dispensed for Stellar. Evidence subsequently provided to the Board directly contradicts material portions of that account.
Among the evidence are records concerning the February 21 medication transaction and evidence concerning the whereabouts of the individuals whom Dr. Kimbrell claimed approached her that day. This evidence is significant because it bears directly upon whether Dr. Kimbrell’s explanation to the Board was truthful and accurate.
There are also serious unanswered questions surrounding methocarbamol (Robaxin), which was subsequently detected in Stellar’s system. We did not authorize this medication to be administered to Stellar and were not informed that he would receive it. These circumstances warrant a careful examination of who supplied the medication, under whose veterinary authority it was provided, what instructions accompanied it, and whether appropriate veterinary and dispensing records exist.
The Board’s own published complaint information states that it investigates allegations including misrepresentation, malpractice, gross negligence and incompetence. A veterinarian’s truthfulness when responding to her licensing authority should therefore be treated as a serious regulatory matter.
What is particularly troubling is that when additional evidence was presented to the Board, including evidence submitted by Ava, the Board did not provide a substantive response addressing that evidence. We were not given an explanation as to whether it was investigated, presented to the Committee on Investigations, compared against Dr. Kimbrell’s prior statements, or otherwise considered.
That silence creates a profound concern about the integrity of the complaint process.
A professional licensing board exists not merely to process complaints, but to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession it regulates. Indeed, the NCVMB describes itself as a state regulatory and consumer-protection agency responsible for investigating complaints and taking disciplinary action when necessary to protect the public.
If compelling evidence contradicting a veterinarian’s account can simply go unanswered, it raises serious questions about whether complainants—and ultimately animal owners throughout North Carolina—are receiving the regulatory protection the Board was established to provide.
We are not asking the Board to accept our conclusions without investigation. We are asking the Board to investigate the evidence.
Stellar cannot speak for himself. We have continued pursuing this matter because the circumstances surrounding his treatment, medication and death deserve a complete and impartial examination.
We respectfully request a written response and a substantive review of the new evidence.
Sincerely,
Michelle Louis
Ava Louis
I filed a complaint 2 years ago about a vet whose actions (or inactions) killed our dog or had her suffer needlessly resulting in a painful death. Despite the absurdity of the vet's response to my initial claim which included him changing his records which we know because we had the original records, the board disregarded the facts which I provided. I am convinced that regardless of the claim or how legitimate it is they will side with the vet every time. It's shameful. They should be protecting the public from dangerous vets.
Our experience with the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board (NCVMB) regarding their handling of our complaint was deeply upsetting and profoundly disappointing. Pet owners trust veterinary boards to protect the public, enforce professional standards, and objectively investigate serious misconduct. Our experience left us with the opposite impression.
We filed two detailed complaints against Dr. Kelly Holding, Complete Pet Care Animal Hospital at Heritage, Wake Forest after our dog suffered catastrophic injuries during surgery. During the procedure, nearly all of our dog’s soft palate was removed, leaving only about 1 to 2 mm remaining. The consequences were devastating. Our dog endured immense suffering, developed aspiration pneumonia, required two reconstructive surgeries, and continues to live with permanent difficulties eating, drinking, and breathing normally, along with long-term airway and health complications.
To support our complaints, extensive evidence was submitted. This included medical records, surgical reports, photographs, specialty hospital records, and documentation showing the extent of the harm. Two independent veterinary experts concluded that the care provided fell below the accepted standard of care and constituted gross negligence. The Board also obtained records directly from the treating specialty hospital.
Despite this extensive evidence, the complaints were ultimately dismissed. This decision was largely based on the veterinarian’s unsupported claim that the case had supposedly been referred to a board-certified surgeon. In reality, Dr. Holding personally performed the surgery herself. There was no documentation of any such referral, the claim conflicted with the medical records and timeline, and it was never communicated to us. We later learned that the veterinarian was not board-certified, despite representations that created the impression otherwise. This misrepresentation appeared to receive little meaningful attention from the Board.
We additionally documented serious evidence regarding altered and falsified medical records. Different versions of soft palate measurements appeared throughout the records, none accurately reflecting the actual injuries sustained. Some entries described events that never occurred. Certain alterations were not properly initialed, dated, or signed, contrary to North Carolina veterinary recordkeeping requirements and the North Carolina Administrative Code. These concerns likewise appeared to be ignored.
Furthermore, we discovered that the veterinarian was practicing without malpractice insurance. This severe gap in transparency, accountability, and consumer protection appeared to receive little or no scrutiny from the Board.
The Board had access to extensive evidence, including conflicting records, expert findings, photographs, and documentation of the severe harm suffered by our dog. Yet, none of these critical issues appeared to receive a thorough investigation or meaningful explanation. Instead, the matter was simply declared “resolved and closed,” leaving us completely disillusioned with the board's oversight.
