Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Hines v. Pardue | --- F.Supp.3d -------, 2023 WL 5254673 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2023) | 2023 WL 5254673 (S.D.Tex., 2023) | Plaintiff and veterinarian Ronald S. Hines brings this action to challenge a Texas law that mandates a veterinarian conduct a physical examination of an animal before practicing veterinary medicine on the grounds that the law violates his First Amendment right to free speech. Plaintiff, who was unable to maintain a veterinary practice in person due to medical issues, began providing veterinary advice to animal owners via a website without first examining their animals. Plaintiff was disciplined by the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners for doing this, and was fined $500 and sentenced to a year of probation. Plaintiff then sued the members of the Board on two separate occasions, with the second appeal being remanded by the Fifth Circuit with instructions to determine whether the requirement for a physical examination before issuing veterinary advice regulates speech incidentally to the regulation of non-expressive professional conduct, or is a regulation of non-expressive conduct. Here, the district court first examined multiple instances of plaintiff providing veterinary advice to animal owners via the internet. Next, the court asserts that plaintiff has standing to pursue his claims against the board. Lastly, the court examines plaintiff’s First Amendment argument. Plaintiff argues that his email exchanges with animal owners constitutes speech, and the court agrees that this is speech and that the Examination Requirement regulates this speech. However, the court finds that this regulation of plaintiff’s speech is content neutral, because the requirement for a physical examination of the animals before issuing advice applies neutrally to all forms of veterinary care and veterinary speech regardless of content. Therefore, the court held that defendants may enforce the Examination Requirement without violating plaintiff’s free speech rights. | Case | |
| 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 | ||
| MN - Lien, veterinay - Chapter 514. Liens Against Property. Agricultural Liens. | M. S. A. § 514.965 - 966 | MN ST § 514.965 - 966 | These Minnesota statutes relate to agricultural liens on livestock. Under these sections, an “agricultural lien” includes a veterinarian's lien, breeder's lien, livestock production input lien, temporary livestock production input lien, and feeder's lien. In section 514.966 entitled, "Agricultural lien on livestock," a licensed veterinarian performing emergency veterinary services in the ordinary course of business that cost more than $25 for animals at the request of the owner or a person in possession of the animals has a lien on the animals for the value of the services. Additionally, a veterinarian's lien, breeder's lien, livestock production input lien, temporary livestock production lien, or feeder's lien attaches to the livestock serviced by the agricultural lienholder, and products and proceeds thereof to the extent of the price or value of the service provided. To perfect the lien, a financing statement must be filed within the time periods established in the law. | Statute | |
| 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 | |
| CA - Emergency - § 1797.10. Emergency medical transport for police dog; pilot project; | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1797.10, § 1799.109 | Section 1799.109, first makes legislative findings on the importance of dogs and cats to Californians and that some first responder agencies have been providing stabilizing, life-saving emergency care to dogs and cats, which violates the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. This new law allows an emergency responder to provide basic first aid to dogs and cats to the extent that the provision of that care is not prohibited by the responder's employer. The responder is not subject to criminal prosecution under the prohibitions of the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. Basic first aid includes things like administering oxygen, manually clearing an upper airway, controlling a hemorrhage with direct pressure, and bandaging to stop bleeding. This section does not impose a duty or obligation upon an emergency responder or any other person to transport or provide care to an injured pet or other domesticated animal during an emergency nor does it require emergency services through a 911 call for dogs or cats. | Statute | ||
| PA - Immunity - § 8331.1. Veterinary good Samaritan civil immunity | 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8331.1 | PA ST 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8331.1 | In Pennsylvania, any licensed veterinarian who, in good faith, renders emergency care to any animal which such individual has discovered at the scene of an accident or emergency situation is not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care. This immunity does not, however, apply to acts or omissions intentionally designed to cause harm, or any grossly negligent acts or omissions that cause harm to the animal. It also does not apply where the owner of the animal is present and can be consulted as to the proposed action by the veterinarian. | Statute | |
| ND - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | ND ADC 87-05-02-01 | NDAC 87-05-02-01 | The following represents unprofessional conduct on behalf of a veterinarian and manifestly disqualifies a licensee from practicing veterinary medicine. Paragraph (9) states that failing to report inhumane treatment to animals, including staged animal fights or training events for fights, the veterinarian reasonably believed occurred constitutes unprofessional conduct. | Administrative | |
| Williams v. Neutercorp (Unpublished) | 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 833 (Tex Ct. App. Apr. 20, 1995). |
Appellant sought review of the order from the County Court dismissing appellant's lawsuit after it sustained the special exception filed by appellee company, appellee animal hospital, and appellee veterinarian in appellant's suit which alleged negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50. The special execption is that the Veterinary Licensing Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 8890, 18C, expressly provided that the DTPA did not apply in veterinary malpractice cases.The court affirmed the lower court's order dismissing appellant's suit against appellees because the lower court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant's pleadings with prejudice, after the lower court sustained the special exception regarding the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, and after appellant refused to amend her pleading. |
Case | ||
| Shera v. N.C. State University Veterinary Teaching Hosp. | 723 S.E.2d 352 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) | 2012 WL 539989 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) |
After an animal hospital caused the death of a dog due to an improperly placed feeding tube, the dog owners sued for veterinary malpractice under the Tort Claims Act. The Court of Appeals held that the replacement value of the dog was the appropriate measure of damages, and not the intrinsic value. Owners’ emotional bond with the dog was not compensable under North Carolina law. |
Case |