|
NC - Malpractice - Chapter 90. Medicine and Allied Occupations. |
This North Carolina statute provides the standard of health care in actions for damages for personal injury or death arising out of medical-based malpractice. Under the statute, the plaintiff must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the health care provider’s actions fell below the standards of practice of other health care professionals similarly trained and situated in the same or similar communities. |
|
NC - Veterinary - Article 11. Veterinarians. |
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. |
|
ND - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct |
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. |
|
ND - Veterinary - Chapter 43-29. Veterinarians |
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. |
|
NE - Lien, veterinary - Article 7. Veterinarian's Lien. |
These Nebraska laws provide the state's veterinary lien provisions, which concern only liens on livestock animals. Under Section 52-701, a licensed veterinarian who is contracted or hired to treat or in any way take care of any kind of livestock has a lien on that livestock for the reasonable value of services and medicines provided. This lien is treated as an agricultural lien under the UCC and may be enforced in the manner of other secured transactions in article 9 of the UCC. The lien must be perfected as provided under article 9 with the information outlined in this law. |
|
NE - Veterinary - Article 33. Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act |
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. |
|
Nelson v. State Board of Veterinary Medicine: The Commonwealth Court Carves A Sharper Definition of Veterinary Malpractice |
This survey provides a foundation of some basic animal law doctrine, as well as the current state of the law of veterinary malpractice in the United States and, more narrowly, in Pennsylvania. It then examines the Nelson case and how the Commonwealth Court came to its conclusion that rude behavior toward a human client does not constitute malpractice of the animal patient. This survey then renders an evaluation and critique of the Commonwealth Court's decision from the viewpoint of administrative law.
|
|
NH - Insurance - Pet insurance |
This New Hampshire chapter from 2023 deals with health insurance for pets, or "pet insurance." The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public welfare by creating a comprehensive legal framework within which pet insurance may be sold in this state. |
|
NH - Veterinary - Chapter 332-B. New Hampshire Veterinary Practice Act. |
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. |
|
Nikolic v. Seidenberg |
When the pet owner adopted a dog, she signed a contract agreeing to have her dog spayed at the vet's facility and to return the dog to the vet if it was sick. For days after the surgery the dog was ill so the other vet performed exploratory surgery and repaired a cut in the dog's intestine. The pet owner filed an action to recover the medical expenses and the lower court granted the vet's motion to dismiss. The reviewing court held that the language in the contract was not sufficiently clear and explicit to exculpate the vet from negligence because the vet was not a party to the contract and thus not a direct beneficiary of the contract.
|
