Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Durocher v. Rochester Equine Clinic | 629 A.2d 827 (N.H. 1993) |
Plaintiff horse owner appealed from the orders of the Merrimack County Superior Court (New Hampshire), which dismissed his action for veterinarian malpractice for failure to designate an expert medical witness to prove that the owner's horse was permanently injured, and that defendant veterinarians' negligence caused such injury. On appeal, the court agreed that no medical expert testimony was necessary to determine whether a veterinarian was negligent in operating on the wrong animal. However, the court held that expert testimony was necessary to assist jurors in this case on the issues of causation and injury, and generally as to the standards of veterinary care. |
Case | |
| Colombia - Veterinary - LEY 576, 2000, Code of Ethics for the professional exercise of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry. | LEY 576, 2000 | This law reflects the Code of Ethics for the professional exercise of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry. This law contains the guidelines and standards of the veterinary professions that must be followed by veterinarians and veterinary zoo technicians to avoid veterinary malpractice liability. Ley 576, prescribes the type of behaviors that are not allowed and the circumstances were such behaviors could take place. In addition, this law also creates the tribunal of professional ethics for these professions, and the legal procedure that must be followed by this tribunal in the undertaking of investigations and hearing of users’ complaints. Furthermore, this law regulates the ethical behavior, and responsibilities of the veterinary professionals towards their clients, other colleagues, veterinary assistants, natural resources, and professional associations. | Statute | |
| Johnson v. Wander | 592 So. 2d. 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) |
Petitioner pet owner alleged that respondent veterinarian took her dog to be spayed, and left the animal on heating pads, which resulted in serious burns, so petitioner filed a claim for damages on the basis of gross negligence, damage to property, and emotional distress. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on the claims for punitive damages and emotional distress and, on a subsequent motion, transferred the case to the county court as a claim for less than the circuit court jurisdictional amount. The appellate court held that there remained a jury question on the issues of gross negligence and physical and mental pain and suffering as claimed by petitioner. |
Case | |
| Berres v. Anderson | 561 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) | This is an action for veterinary malpractice brought by the purchasers of cattle that tested positive for Johne's disease. The veterinarian diagnosed the disease in the seller's herd and treated the buyer's herd for the disease. The trial court granted summary judgment for the veterinarian on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired for the malpractice claim. On appeal, the court reversed the district court's granting of summary judgment, as it determined that the record indicated a genuine issue for trial as to the causation of the spread of the disease among the herd of cattle and whether adequate hygiene would have reduced the spread of the disease. | Case | |
| Hoffa v. Bimes | 954 A.2d 1241 (Pa.Super.,2008) | 2008 PA Super 181; 2008 WL 3126320 |
This case arises from the treatment of plaintiff's horse by the defendant-veterinarian. This appeal arises from plaintiff's claim that the trial court erred in granting a compulsory non-suit in favor of defendant finding that the Veterinary Immunity Act bars claims against veterinarians except those based upon gross negligence. This court agreed with the lower court that defendant was confronted with an emergency medical condition such as to fall under the protections of the Act. Further, this court held that the trial court committed no error in concluding that plaintiff's consent was not required before the veterinarian performed the abdominal tap because that procedure was rendered under an 'emergency situation.' |
Case |
| TN - Expert - § 29-26-115. Burden of proof; expert witnesses | T. C. A. § 29-26-115 | TN ST § 29-26-115 | This Tennessee statute provides the requirements for the claimant's burden of proof under malpractice actions, including, inter alia, the proof that the defendant's actions fell below the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the community, proximate cause, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's actions were negligent. | Statute |
| CA - Rodeos - § 596.7. Rodeos; veterinarians present at performances; violation of section | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 596.7 | CA PENAL § 596.7 | This statute regulating rodeos requires that animals involved have access to veterinary care and mandates treatment of injured rodeo animals. This statute forbids the use of an electric prod once an animal is in the holding chute, unless necessary to protect participants or spectators. Violations of this section are infractions punishable by a fine. | Statute |
| Richard B. Rappaport v. Max E. McElroy, D.V.M., Sherwood Veterinary Clinic, Inc. and Does 1 through 30, Inclusive |
In this California case, plaintiff sued a veterinarian for giving his exotic pet (a Serval cat), a flea treatment known to be toxic to cats. The veterinary malpractice action focused on defendant’s negligence in failing to exercise a reasonable level of knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by others practicing veterinary medicine. In fact, plaintiff contended that it is well known in the field and indicated by the manufacturer of Spotton, that the drug should not be used on felines. Plaintiff prayed for damages in the amount of $25,000, which included lost wages, the commercial value of the cat, and loss of companionship, among other things. |
Pleading | ||
| MN - Veterinary - Chapter 156. Veterinarians. Board of Veterinary Medicine. | M.S.A. § 156.001 - 20 | MN ST § 156.001 - 20 | 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 - Veterinary - Chapter 333. Health. Public Health Code | MCLA 333.18801 - 18838 | MI ST 333.18801 - 18838 | 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 |