Results
Displaying 11 - 20 of 240
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lindsey v. Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners | Not Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2018 WL 1976577 (Tex. App., 2018) | In 2015, Kristen Lindsey, who is a licensed veterinarian, killed a cat on her property by shooting it through the head with a bow and arrow. Lindsey had seen the cat fighting with her cat and defecating in her horse feeders and believed the cat to be a feral cat. However, there was evidence that the cat actually belonged to the neighbor and was a pet. Lindsey posted a photo of herself holding up the dead cat by the arrow. The photo was shared repeatedly and the story ended up reported on several news outlets. The Board received more than 700 formal complaints and more than 2,700 emails about the incident. In 2016 the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (the Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Lindsey seeking to revoke her license and alleging violations of the Veterinary Licensing Act and Administrative Rules. While the proceeding was pending, Lindsey filed a petition for declaratory judgment and equitable relief in the trial court. The grand jury declined to indict her for animal cruelty. Due to this, Lindsey asserted that the Board lacked the authority to discipline her because she had not been convicted of animal cruelty and her act did not involve the practice of veterinary medicine. The administrative law judges in the administrative-licensing proceeding issued a proposal for decision and findings of fact and conclusions of law which the Board adopted and issued a final order suspending Lindsey's license for five years (with four years probated). Lindsey then filed a petition for judicial review in trial court after the Board denied her motion for a rehearing. The trial court affirmed the Board's final order. This case involves two appeals that arise from the disciplinary proceeding filed against Lindsey by the Board. Lindsey appeals the first case (03-16-00549-CV) from the trial court denying her motion for summary judgment and granting the Board's motion for summary judgment and dismissing her suit challenging the Board's authority to bring its disciplinary action. In the second case (17-005130-CV), Lindsey appeals from the trial court affirming the Board's final decision in the disciplinary proceeding. Even though Lindsey was not convicted of animal cruelty, the Court of Appeals held that the Board possessed the authority to determine that the offense of animal cruelty was sufficiently connected to the practice of veterinary medicine. Lindsey also did not have effective consent from the neighbor to kill the cat. The Board had sufficient evidence that Lindsey tied her profession to the shooting of the cat through the caption that she put on the photo that was posted on social media. The Court of Appeals ultimately overruled Lindsey's challenges to the Board's authority to seek disciplinary action against her veterinary license in both appeals as well as her challenges regarding the findings of fact and conclusions by the administrative law judges. The Court affirmed the judgment in both causes of action. | Case | ||
| NV - Veterinary - Chapter 638. Veterinarians. General Provisions. | N. R. S. 638.001 - 638.200 | NV ST 638.001 - 638.200 | 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 | |
| MO - Veterinary - Chapter 340. Veterinarians. | V. A. M. S. 340.010 - 405 | MO ST 340.010 - 350 | 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 | |
| Daughen v. Fox | 539 A.2d 858 (Pa. Super. 1988) |
Plaintiffs brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship after defendant animal hospital performed unnecessary surgery based on a mix-up of x-rays. The court denied the first claim, finding the defendant's conduct did not meet the "extreme and outrageous" conduct test. With regard to plaintiff's claim for loss of a unique chattel and for loss of the dog's companionship and comfort, the court observed that, under Pennsylvania law, a dog is personal property, and, under no circumstances under the law of Pennsylvania, may there be recovery for loss of companionship due to the death of an animal. |
Case | ||
| FL - Impound - Abandonment of animals by owner; procedure for handling | West's F. S. A. § 705.19 | FL ST § 705.19 | This Florida statute provides that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian or bona fide boarding kennel that is abandoned by its owner or for a period of more than 10 days after written notice is given to the owner may be turned over to the custody of the nearest humane society or dog pound in the area for disposal as such custodian may deem proper. This provisions immunizes such facilities from liability resulting from this action. | Statute | |
| KY - Liens - § 257.105. Sale of unclaimed animals held by veterinarian | KRS § 257.105 | Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 257.105 | This statute deals with the sale of unclaimed animals after an animal is left with a licensed veterinarian after providing care to the animal. Under the statute, the veterinarian is able to sell the animal for reasonable value if the animal is left unclaimed for ten days or more. Once the veterinarian determines that he or she will be selling the animal, he or she must provide notice to the owner prior to the sale. | Statute | |
| AK - Veterinary reporting - 12 AAC 68.100. Confidential relationship. | 12 AK ADC 68.100 | Alaska Admin. Code tit. 12, § 68.100 | This Alaska regulation appears to allow permissive reporting of suspected animal abuse by veterinarians. | Administrative | |
| UT - Abandonment - § 58-28-601. Animal abandonment | U.C.A. 1953 § 58-28-601 | UT ST § 58-28-601 | This Utah statute provides that any animal abandoned at a veterinarian's office for a period of ten days may be sold or placed in the custody of the nearest humane society or county dog pound after giving notice to the owner. If no humane society or dog pound is located in the county, the animal may be disposed of in a humane manner. | 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 | |
| Hoaward Stein, Susan Stein, Steven Glasser, Gail Glasser, Joel Hodes, Netiva Caftori, Eric Cooper, Norman Cooper v. Dr. Todd Pri | This Illinois action brings forth the claims of four sets of plaintiffs for various claims against defendant-veterinarian. While the specific facts concerning the alleged wrongdoings are not provided, it appears that defendant was a veterinarian who operated a medical center and animal boarding facility. Plaintiffs all raise four counts against defendant (breach of contract, negligence, malpractice, and bailment) for the deaths of their dogs. From each set of facts, the various plaintiffs allege that their dogs were in good health prior to boarding their dogs at defendant’s facility, and each dog subsequently died in its cage. In the negligence and malpractice counts, the plaintiffs note that defendants failed to provide an adequate environment to ensure the dogs’ safety, failed to provide adequate ventilation, failed to sterilize the boarding area after sick animals had been housed there, and then failed to properly preserve the companion animals to ensure accurate necropsies, among other things. All plaintiffs sought both actual damages for the loss of their companions as well as damages related to their “reasonable sentimental value.” | Pleading |