Texas board seeks to revoke Dr. Kristen Lindsey's license

The Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (TBVME) has filed its formal complaint with the State Office of Administrative Hearings in regards to Kristen Lindsey, DVM, now notoriously associated with killing a cat with a bow and arrow and bragging about it on social media. The board is seeking revocation of her license.

In June, much to public dismay, an Austin County grand jury declined to indict Lindsey on animal cruelty charges due to what it cited as a lack of evidence to convict. However, the facts and evidence presented at an informal conference before the Texas board's enforcement committee in August was apparently enough to find Lindsey in violation of the Veterinary Licensing Act and the board's rules.

For the TBVME, there seems to be no ambiguity regarding her guilt. The complaint plainly states, "Respondent [Lindsey] shot an orange, male cat through the head using a bow and arrow." Further, the complaint criticizes Lindsey for boasting of the kill on her Facebook page and refers to the cat as "Tiger," which it says was owned by Bill and Claire Johnson who lived across the street from Lindsey's home. Facts the Austin County district attorney said the grand jury could not confirm.

The board states in its complaint that an indictment or conviction of a legal violation is not needed for the enforcement of the Veterinary Licensing Act. Referring to Texas penal code, the TBVME concluded, "Respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly killed or caused serious bodily injury to Tiger in a cruel manner without the Johnsons' effective consent. Therefore, Respondent committed animal cruelty."

Although the state's occupations code relates to criminal convictions, the board asks the licensing authority to use it as guidance. The board believes the actions it finds Lindsey guilty of directly relate to her occupation. "Veterinarians occupy positions of public trust, and a veterinary license assures the public that a licensee is fit to hold that position," the complaint states. "… A veterinary license offers a unique opportunity to commit animal cruelty."

The complaint goes on to state that not only is animal cruelty "at odds" with the practice of veterinary medicine, but that in documenting her actions and presenting them to the public as the actions of an exemplary veterinarian on social media, Lindsey herself connected her own professional practice with her actions.

The TBVME concluded its complaint by declaring that there is no sanction short of revocation that would sufficiently protect the public from Lindsey's poor professional character. An administrative hearing regarding the complaint is yet unscheduled, but anticipated to take place in February.