Unlicensed East Nashville veterinarian bonded out on felony charge

By Elena Vasquez

Prashant Pandya, an unlicensed East Nashville veterinarian, bonded out of jail after his arrest; he faces a felony charge alleging that he impersonated a veterinarian, and police expect additional charges.

Pandya's attorney said the defense is cooperating with the investigation, and the case remains headed to court.

The reported action is criminal. The report names no veterinary licensing board or administrative licensing action, so it does not establish a licensing-board disposition of Pandya's status.

What happened at Caudle Veterinary Clinic?

In 2020, Chris, who asked to be identified only by his first name for privacy, took a foster cat named Sandy to Caudle Veterinary Clinic. He said Pandya wrapped Sandy's leg, and what began as a simple limp ended in amputation.

“Her arm, which used to be nice and fluffy and orange, was just black, just gone. And it was horrifying,” Chris said. He also said Pandya's father was involved with Caudle then and was shocked by the condition of Sandy's leg.

For more than six years, Chris said, he had felt anger, frustration, and fear for the animals. Each episode revived his plea that people not return to Caudle and his sense that events at the clinic were beyond his control.

Other pet owners said their animals suffered after visits, and some described losing animals in connection with the unlicensed care. They welcomed the prospect of accountability but remained concerned about what further charges and court proceedings might bring.

The report offers one detailed companion-animal account, not a systematic review of clinic cases; Sandy's 2020 visit and amputation anchor the reported harm.

What does the license requirement mean in this case?

Dr. Michael Hatcher, who has practiced veterinary medicine in Middle Tennessee for decades, said he had never seen a case like this. He said a license is required to practice on animals, but no license is required merely to be involved with a veterinary practice.

That distinction, he said, could allow an unlicensed person to work with animals, own a clinic, and hire others to perform veterinary work. “He should never be close to an animal, you know, but there's nothing keeping him from owning that practice and hiring other people to do the work,” Hatcher said.

Chris framed the oversight problem directly: what does a license mean when someone can practice for years without one and no one finds the person? The criminal case reaches Pandya's alleged impersonation, but it does not by itself answer the ownership-and-employment questions.

The immediate practice-level concern is role clarity. On Hatcher's account, a clinic name or the presence of licensed veterinarians would not establish that every person involved in animal care held the required license.

The gap reaches beyond hands-on treatment to who owns and staffs a clinic.

Which animals and practice settings are affected?

• Companion animals: The detailed injury account involves Sandy, a foster cat, while other owners described harm to their animals. The report does not provide a systematic case count.
• Food animals: No cattle, swine, poultry, or other food-animal treatment appears in the reported cases.
• Public health: The report identifies no zoonotic-disease, food-safety, or broader public-health finding. The alleged conduct concerns unauthorized veterinary care and animal welfare.

At the exam table, owners' immediate question is not merely whether a clinic remains open, but whether the person handling an animal is legally authorized to practice. That concern follows Chris's account of six-plus years of fear and the unlicensed care going undetected for years.

For veterinary businesses, the case highlights a structural risk: ownership, employment, and hands-on clinical work can overlap, while enforcement focuses first on the individual charged.

The reported consequences fall on companion animals and their owners; no food-animal or public-health effects were identified.

What happens next?

Police expect more charges. The case remains headed to court, where pet owners say they have long awaited accountability.

Chris said he was glad to see some accountability, but he wants the city to hear the animals' suffering rather than treat the matter only as a broken rule. He and other owners also want the court system to go further than the current charge.

Chris had wished the clinic would close and said he believed Pandya would no longer be able to hurt animals. The report does not state that Caudle has closed, that a court has barred Pandya from animal care, or that ownership of the practice has changed.

The next phase turns on whether police add charges and how the court addresses Pandya's alleged impersonation, while the broader licensing and ownership gap remains unresolved.