Doggedness Helps Dyslexic Fulfill Dream of Being a Vet

On its face, the case of Hall vs. Kelley et al. had everything one could hope for in a request for judicial intervention: A last-minute order issued by an Orange County Superior Court judge blocked a state agency from destroying papers the handicapped plaintiff contended would determine if she would be able to pursue her lifelong dream of becoming a veterinarian.

As it happened, the court order just didn’t matter.

The plaintiff, Linda L. Hall, was a 41-year-old veterinary school graduate who had struggled to earn a degree despite having dyslexia, a learning disability that makes reading difficult. Hall passed the licensing examinations of four states after graduating from Boston’s Tufts University in May, 1985, and she moved to California with her teen-age daughter to accept a position with a veterinary office.

For Hall--who had deferred her childhood dreams of becoming a veterinarian until middle age, after an unsuccessful marriage and a frustrating career as a hospital nurse--life finally seemed to be looking up.

But she hadn’t counted on one factor--the 960 possible answers on the California veterinary licensing exam. As a dyslexic, Hall had severe difficulty comprehending information presented that way.

The exams of Arizona, Massachusetts, Nebraska and New Mexico--which Hall had passed--depended on laboratory sections and short answers as well as machine-graded portions. In contrast, the California exam was entirely composed of multiple-choice questions--240 of them.

When Hall took the test in June, 1985, she failed. She failed again in February, 1986. And in June, 1986, February, 1987, and June, 1987.

“What happens is a little difficult for me to explain,” Hall said. “If multiple fine points are included in two or more answers and perhaps only one thing makes it look correct or incorrect, the answers start to look the same to me. . . . One question just rolls over into the other.”

By May, 1986, Hall had realized that her dyslexia was preventing her from passing the test. Enter the defendants, the state Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine.

Hall contends that the board, which licenses and oversees veterinarians in California, was less than sensitive to her plight as a dyslexic. “They don’t seem to realize that a disability might exist even if you aren’t able to see it,” she said.

Hall and the board’s executive officer, Gary K. Hill, disagree over whether the agency made any modifications in the exam’s format to accommodate her.

But there is no dispute that Hall failed the exam five times. As attempt No. 6 was nearing in February, 1988, the board offered a final modification: Hall would be given 24 hours to complete the test--four hours are standard--and would be permitted to write her answers out before selecting one of the four solutions on the exam.

The board insisted, however, that Hall’s longhand answers be destroyed after the test was completed for exam “security.”

Hall, who wanted an independent panel of experts to examine her written responses in case she chose the wrong answers, filed suit to stop the board from destroying her answers.

Less than a day before the exam, as Hall was nervously preparing for the test, Judge Henry T. Moore issued a temporary restraining order preventing the board from destroying her answers.

Hall and her attorney, Joan K. Honeycutt, were prepared for a long court fight after the exam. The case, Honeycutt said, would seek to establish the rights of those suffering from “invisible disabilities” such as dyslexia.

But Hall passed with a score of 85%.

“We’re very pleased with her results,” said the veterinary board’s Hill. “Eighty-five is a very good score.”

Hall, who had been working as a veterinary technician until receiving her license last Monday, was even more pleased: “I can do surgeries, I can see clients, I can present myself as a veterinarian,” she said. “I’ve wanted this since I was in high school, and it’s been a lifelong dream.”

In addition to the expenses of college and veterinary school, Hall estimates that she spent $15,000 to pass the California exam. She said she is pursuing her suit against the veterinary board to recover those funds. The money, which went to pay her attorney and the psychological experts who prepared lengthy reports documenting her disability, as well as for many trips to Sacramento and back, was well worth it, she says.

“I think pets are a real important part of human makeup. They bring out a lot of good qualities about us that we tend to forget,” she said.

More than that, she added, “I like seeing 20-year-old cats.”