Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD - Veterinarian Issues - Reporting Animal Cruelty | MD ADC 15.14.15.01 to MD ADC 15.14.15.9999 | COMAR 15.14.15.01 to COMAR 15.14.15.9999 | These regulations state that if a veterinarian suspects animal cruelty, the veterinarian should do the following: (1) Note the condition of the animal upon presentation in the animal's treatment record; (2) Note the basis for suspecting cruelty in the animal's treatment record; and (3) Promptly report the suspected instance of cruelty, including animal fighting, to the appropriate local law enforcement or county animal control agency. A veterinarian who reports, in good faith, a suspected incident of animal cruelty is immune from any civil liability that results from this report. | Administrative | |
| 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 | |
| NY - Veterinary - Article 135. Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health Technology. | McKinney's Education Law § 6700 - 6714 | NY EDUC § 6700 - 6714 | 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 | |
| AZ - Veterinary - Chapter 21. Veterinarians. | A. R. S. § 32-2201 - 2297 | AZ ST § 32-2201 - 2297 | 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 | |
| MI - Lien - 570.185. Lien of mechanic, artisan, or tradesman for manufacture of goods or keeping or care of animals | M.C.L.A. 570.185 | MI ST 570.185 | This Michigan law states that when a person delivers any horse, mule, neat cattle, sheep, or swine to be kept or cared for to another person, that person shall have a lien thereon for the keeping and care of such animals, and may retain possession of the same until such charges are paid. | Statute | |
| FL - Police animal - 943.69. Care for Retired Police Dogs Program | West's F.S.A. § 943.69 | FL ST § 943.69 | This Florida law enacted in 2022 first recognizes the value that police dogs provide for law enforcement agencies. It then establishes a stable funding source for veterinary care of retired police dogs | Statute | |
| McAdams v. Faulk (unpublished) | Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2002 WL 700956 (Ark.App.) |
Dog owner brought dog to veterinarian’s office where someone choked the dog, causing injuries that led to its death. The Court of Appeals held that the owner stated a veterinary malpractice claim against veterinarian because owner alleged that dog was choked while in veterinarian's care, that veterinarian failed to diagnose neck injury that proved fatal, performed unnecessary treatment out of greed, and refused to provide owner with medical explanation of dog's condition and death, all in violation of the veterinary licensing statute. The Court also held that violating the cruelty to animals statute was evidence of negligence, and that damages included economic loss, compensation for mental anguish, including future anguish. and punitive damages. |
Case | ||
| Rehn v. Fischley | No. C0-95-813, 1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 1539 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). |
The doctor was a veterinarian and a member of the board of directors for the humane society. The director of the humane society asked her for advice on how to clean cat cages, and the doctor gave advice and donated a bottle of formalin, whereupon the employee who used the formalin suffered permanent lung damage. The employee commenced an action against the doctor and humane society for damages. The court held that although the doctor would not have advised using formalin if she was not a member of the board, this fact did not establish that giving the advice was within the scope of her responsibilities as a board member. |
Case | ||
| AK - Veterinary immunity - § 09.65.097. Civil liability for emergency veterinary care | AS § 09.65.097 | AK ST § 09.65.097 | This Alaska law provides that a licensed veterinarian who renders emergency care to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to need emergency care to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. This section does not apply to service rendered at the request of an owner of the animal and does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct. | Statute | |
| Massa v. Department of Registration and Education | 507 N.E.2d 814 (Ill. 1987) | 116 Ill.2d 376 (1987) |
Dr. Massa sought judicial review of the gross malpractice finding and resulting license revocation in the circuit court after the circuit court reversed the Department's finding of gross malpractice as a conclusion against the manifest weight of the evidence. This finding arises from the death of plaintiff’s German Shepard, after Dr. Massa removed the dog’s healthy uterus and ovaries, while failing to treat the dog’s soon-to-be fatal thoracic condition. The Department's findings in this case could only be disturbed only upon Dr. Massa's showing that they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court held that the record in this case was plainly sufficient to support the Department's determination of gross malpractice in that Dr. Massa ignored the serious nature of Charlie's lung condition and proceeded to remove reproductive organs which, at least at the time of surgery, he knew or should have known to have been healthy. |
Case |