NASHVILLE, TN — Caudle Veterinary Clinic in East Nashville is closed after police arrested a man accused of pretending to be a veterinarian and performing surgery on animals without a license. The arrest has turned a local criminal case into a broader question about how veterinary oversight works in Tennessee, and why the conduct allegedly continued for so long.

For months, News Channel 5 said it had been examining the clinic after pet owners came forward with concerns that animals died soon after surgery and that the person treating them was not properly licensed. Prashant Pandya was later arrested, and police say the investigation is continuing. He now faces a felony charge of impersonating a veterinarian, with additional charges possible.

Pet owners raised alarms after surgeries and deaths at the East Nashville clinic

The complaints that drew attention to the clinic were not abstract licensing concerns. Pet owners told News Channel 5 that their animals died shortly after procedures, and some said they believed the person performing the work had no veterinary license. Those claims helped push the situation from suspicion to a police investigation.

The arrest of Prashant Pandya is now being viewed by some families as a step toward accountability. Their accounts, coupled with the clinic’s closure, have intensified scrutiny of how the business was operating and how patients, in this case pets, were being treated while questions about qualifications remained unresolved.

The case has also left grieving owners asking how many warnings were missed before the matter reached law enforcement. For them, the issue is not only whether a crime was committed, but whether earlier action might have prevented harm to animals and distress to families who trusted the clinic with their care.

State inspection records showed the clinic as compliant in recent renewal applications

According to records tied to permit renewals, the Tennessee Department of Health inspected veterinary clinics every couple of years. In 2023 and 2025, Caudle applied for renewal, and both documents indicated the clinic was in compliance. Those findings are now being examined in light of the arrest and the allegations surrounding who was actually working with animals.

The renewal paperwork listed Fatchkumar K. Pandya as the only veterinarian on staff. Police later determined that he was not the only Pandya involved in the clinic’s work. That discrepancy has become central to the larger question of how a person accused of unlicensed practice may have remained connected to veterinary care despite routine state checks.

The inspection history suggests that formal reviews did happen, but they did not surface the alleged problem. That gap is now drawing attention from veterinarians and observers who say the case highlights a weakness in the system when a person operating in a clinic may not be licensed at all.

State law limits the board’s power over people without licenses

Dr. Walter Clark, who has served as a state board consultant, said Tennessee’s veterinary oversight system has a built-in limitation: the board of examiners can act only on people who already hold a license. If someone is practicing without one, Clark said, the matter falls outside the board’s direct authority and can instead become a case for the district attorney.

That division of responsibility is now at the center of the debate. Clark said the board cannot prosecute a person who is not licensed, even if the conduct appears to involve veterinary medicine. In his view, that creates a practical challenge when the person of concern is the very one the board would need to stop.

Clark questioned how difficult it should be to determine that a person is outside the board’s jurisdiction and should be investigated. His comments underscore a broader issue raised by this case: whether Tennessee’s current system gives regulators enough tools to respond quickly when a suspected impostor is working in a clinic.

Veterinarians want a clearer path for referrals to prosecutors

Dr. Michael Hatcher, a longtime veterinarian, said he would prefer to see a system that allows the board to refer suspicious cases directly to prosecutors or investigators. He said that kind of referral authority could help close the gap between what a board can review and what law enforcement can pursue.

Hatcher also pointed to the fact that inspections occurred more than once and still did not catch the alleged problem. To him, that suggests the case slipped through the cracks even though the hospital had been reviewed during the period in question. He said the situation raises concern about whether the current process is strong enough to protect pet owners.

His comments reflect a larger concern among veterinarians who worry that the credibility of the licensing process could be damaged if an unlicensed person can provide care undetected. In this case, the practical consequences were felt by families who say their pets suffered or died before the public learned what was happening.

Families say the arrest brings some relief but not back their pets

While officials and veterinarians debate oversight, families connected to the case are still grieving. Reggie’s family said in a statement that they are grateful the matter has drawn attention and that justice is finally being served after the efforts of the media and other families who spoke out about what happened to their pets.

Wunjo’s family said the development gives them a chance to grieve properly and move forward, while believing the loss of their pet may help protect hundreds of others. Their statements show how the case has grown beyond a single clinic into a painful reminder of the trust people place in animal care providers.

For those families, the arrest does not erase the loss, but it does offer some sense that the complaints were not ignored forever. The clinic’s closure and the continuing law enforcement case now stand alongside the unresolved questions about licensing, inspection, and how Tennessee can prevent something similar from happening again.

The board declined comment as the investigation continues

When asked about the oversight questions raised by the case, the board declined to comment. It said state law prevents discussion of potential business outside a regular board meeting. Caudle Veterinary Clinic was not listed as a discussion item on the board’s upcoming agenda.

That silence leaves many of the public questions unanswered for now, even as the criminal case moves forward. Police expect additional charges may still come, and the arrest has already prompted a closer look at how licensing, inspections, and referrals intersect when an unlicensed person is suspected of practicing veterinary medicine.

For Nashville pet owners, the case is a reminder that routine paperwork and periodic inspections do not always reveal what is happening inside a clinic. The investigation is now forcing state officials, veterinarians, and families to confront how a suspected impostor could operate long enough to cause such serious harm.