Results
Displaying 171 - 180 of 246
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN - Disaster - Part 8. Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act of 2007 | T. C. A. § 58-2-801 - 813 | TN ST § 58-2-801 - 813 | The Tennessee Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act applies to registered volunteer health practitioners who provide health services for a host entity during an emergency. Volunteer health practitioners are not liable for their acts or omissions in providing health services. Health services means treatment, care, advice, guidance, or provision of supplies related to the health or death of an animal or to animal populations. | Statute | |
| VA - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | 18 VA ADC 150-20-140 | 18 VAC 150-20-140 | The following regulation lists what is considered unprofessional conduct by a Virginia veterinarian. Violation of this regulation may result in a refusal to grant or renew a license; or may result in a suspension or revocation of a license, as described in § 54.1-3807(5) of the Code of Virginia. Subsection 14 states that "[f]ailing to report suspected animal cruelty to the appropriate authorities" is unprofessional conduct. | Administrative | |
| Quesada v. Compassion First Pet Hosps | No. A-1226-19, 2021 WL 1235136 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 1, 2021) | In this unpublished case, plaintiff’s cat “Amor” was euthanized after being diagnosed with heart failure disease and saddle thrombus. At the hospital, plaintiff was visibly affected by the death of his cat, who he was allowed to say goodbye to. Plaintiff also talked and sang to Amor’s body until the body was retrieved. Plaintiff was informed that during the procedure Amor had bitten one of the nurses and that state law required a brain tissue sample to rule out rabies. Plaintiff informed the veterinarian of his wish to display Amor's body for viewing prior to cremation in two different instances. Neither the procedure or alternative procedures were explained to the plaintiff. At the body’s viewing, the plaintiff discovered that his cat had been decapitated. Plaintiff became extremely emotional after discovering his cat’s head had been disposed of as medical waste. As a result of the decapitation, plaintiff developed several severe mental health issues. Plaintiff filed a claim alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and bailment. The case was dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff appealed the decision alleging that the lower court had mistakenly applied the standard of the bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress, instead of a direct liability claim and error in dismissing his remaining negligence and bailment claims. The court agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On the count of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court held that plaintiff’s claim did not fall under the "bystander" liability as his severe emotional distress arose after the passing of his cat and upon seeing his cat's decapitated body. Additionally, the court stated that plaintiff’s “emotional reaction combined with the fact that defendant was twice on notice that plaintiff intended to have a viewing of his cat's body prior to cremation established that defendants owed plaintiff a duty.” Defendants breached this duty by being on notice of plaintiff emotional distress and failing to properly inform plaintiff of the typical procedure of decapitating the cat for rabies testing, inform him of alternative testing procedures, and failing to request that the cat's head be returned after decapitation and prior to the showing. Suffering of plaintiff’s illnesses was still to be determined. The court found that the plaintiff “had pleaded a direct claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” A claim of bailment had also been appropriately pleaded since plaintiff had given defendants control of his cat's body and defendant returned it in a damaged condition. | Case | ||
| Clark v. Cardinal Animal Care | This is a complaint for veterinary malpractice. The cat had been checked in for a routine flea treatment. The cat ended up with a severe problem, which the veterinarian lied to the owner about. The veterinarian performed an unauthorized surgery on the cat. The cat died. | Pleading | |||
| MD - Lien - § 16-701. Veterinarian's rights | MD Code, Commercial Law, § 16-701 | MD COML § 16-701 | This Maryland law is the state's veterinary lien law. Notice for services rendered by a qualified veterinarian or commercial boarding kennel operator may be given in person, by registered or certified mail or, if the owner's address is unknown, by posting the notice for 10 days on the door of the courthouse or on a bulletin board in the immediate vicinity of the courthouse of the county where the animal is located. If the animal is not claimed and taken by the owner within 10 days of the date the notice is given or posted, the owner forfeits his title to the animal. | Statute | |
| Downing v. Gully, P.C. | 915 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. App. 1996) |
Appellant dog owners challenged the decision of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Tarrant County (Texas), which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee veterinary clinic in appellants' negligence, misrepresentation, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee veterinary clinic because appellee's veterinarians provided affidavits that were sufficiently factually specific, describing experience, qualifications, and a detailed account of the treatment, so that appellee negated the element of the breach of the standard of care, and because Deceptive Trade Practice Act claims did not apply to state licensed veterinarians. |
Case | ||
| ID - Veterinary - CHAPTER 21. VETERINARIANS. | I.C. § 54-2101 - 2121 | ID ST § 54-2101 - 2121 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| Knowles Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Wills | 360 So.2d 37 (Fla.App.,1978) |
Dog owners brought negligence action against veterinarian and animal hospital after their dog suffered injuries while under the veterinarian's and the hospital's care. The Appeals Court held that the trial court did not err by allowing the jury to consider plaintiff-owners' mental pain and suffering, and that the jury could reasonably have viewed defendants' neglectful conduct resulting in the dog's injury to have amounted to great indifference to plaintiffs' property. |
Case | ||
| OH - Veterinary - Chapter 4741. Veterinarians. | R.C. § 4741.01 - 4741.99 | OH ST § 4741.01 - 4741.99 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| CO - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code | C.R.S.A. § 12-315-101 - 310 | CO ST § 12-315-101 - 310 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. | Statute |