Board of Directors
2019 |
President
Lance Roasa, DVM, MS, JD
President - Elect
John Thomas, Esq.
Secretary-Treasurer
DISTRICT DIRECTORS
District I:
Elizabeth Choate, Esq.
District II:
Marty Greer, DVM
District III:
Donna Kline, JD
At Large:
John Scott, DVM, JD
At Large:
Debra Hamilton, JD
|
| STAY IN TOUCH! |
|
AVMLA Contacts:
202.449.3818 phone
202.449.8560 fax
EMAIL:
|
| Join Our List |
 |
|
|
| AVMLA Membership & More |
|
AVMLA's Member 2020 Drive Continues...
Any renewed American Veterinary Medical Law Association
(AVMLA) memberships will expired December 30, 2019
AVMLA is the most cost-effective way to stay up-to-date on the latest trends and best practices for our unique area of veterinary medical law.
Your AVMLA member benefits include quarterly educational webinars, $100 discount on the annual national conference, bi-monthly News Brief and networking with peers through the
AVMLA list-serv,
Facebook, and Twitter.
Renew today
and receive these benefits for only $12.50 per month.
We offer several convenient ways to renew your membership:
- To renew your AVMLA Membership dues, simply renew online, or you are welcome to download/print/mail your membership app to AVMLA, 1750 K Street, NW, Ste. 700, Washington, DC 20006, email your app, fax (202.449.8560) or give our office a call at 202.449.3818.
We greatly value your membership and hope AVMLA will continue to be the go-to organization for your professional development.
If you are interested in contributing to the AVMLA News Brief, advertising or posting a help wanted ad, please send an email to info@AVMLA.org.
|
| AVMLA Call for 2020 Speakers |
|
2020 AVMLA Annual Continuing Education Conference
August 1 - 2, 2020, San Diego, CA
Proposal deadline Jan. 30, 2020
|
| AVMLA Member Podcast |
|
|
Why Do Pets Matter?
Hosted by Debra Hamilton, Esq.
Pet custody, pet drama, pet problems and pet solutions will be featured on
Why Do Pets Matter?, a podcast dedicated to pets hosted by pet-focused attorney, Debra Hamilton, Esq.
|
Anglin v Jamison petition
|
|
The Anglin v Jamison petition in the case of the dog that was euthanized 45 minutes after a hearing declaring the dog a "dangerous dog" even though the owner appealed the order which automatically grants an 11-day period for the owner to correct the conditions which resulted in the dog being deemed dangerous. This case is unusual because the owner is not suing the City of Dallas, nor Dallas Animal Services, which are both governmental entities and probably immune from suit except in exceptional circumstances, but is suing Edward Jamison, the Director of Dallas Animal Services personally.
|
| Case Law Summary |
|
By: John F. Scott, DVM, JD, Scott Veterinary Services
The presentation of court cases involving veterinary medicine is provided as a benefit to all AVMLA members. Our membership consists of both lawyers and veterinarians, some of whom have substantial interest in veterinary law as well as those who are new to the field. Consequently, I try to provide current cases when possible, but will also provide older cases if they consider a basic principle of veterinary law, especially if that principle differs from the law as it is applied to other areas. I encourage your comments on how to make this section better and
also solicit cases you become aware of which might be published in this format. In order to save
research time and expense, if possible please provide a written copy of the entire case in pdf
format. If you only have a cite to a legal reporter, I will try to locate the case and consider it for
publication. You may contact me at
jscottlaw47@aol.com
or telephone 806-231-4678,
John F. Scott, DVM, JD
_____________________________________________
ALLEGATIONS OF MALPRACTICE AGAINST RACE TRACK VETERINARIAN
AFTER NEEDLE BROKE OFF IN HORSE'S JUGULAR VEIN WHILE DRAWING
A BLOOD SAMPLE AND VETERINARIAN ABANDONED TREATMENT
OF THAT HORSE TO FINISH DRAWING BLOOD SAMPLES FROM 25
ADDITIONAL HORSES FOR PRE-RACE SAMPLING.
Restrepo v. State of New York, 550 N.Y.S. 2d 536 (Ct. Cl. N. Y. 1989)
BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT:
Restrepo's filly was one of 25-30 horses scheduled to run at Aqueduct Race Track in Queens New, York. Pursuant to rules of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, all horses running at New York tracks are required to have pre-race blood tests for illegal drugs or medicines. Dr. Ahearne, the veterinarian employed by the Board for the testing would draw blood samples from the jugular vein of each horse. During the process of drawing blood from Restrepo's horse the two-inch needle broke off in the vein for no apparent reason. The veterinarian could feel the needle under the skin, but because he had no surgical equipment and had to complete the other blood tests, he circled the spot where the needle could be felt with a green marker and told the groom to arrange for another veterinarian to treat her.
Several hours later Dr. Brewer examined the horse but was unable to locate the needle. He arranged for the horse to be transported to the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine about two weeks after the needle was broken off. X-rays revealed that the needle was located in an inoperable area of the horse's lungs. The horse never raced again.
|
Price v Brown
|
|
VETERINARIAN SUED FOR BREACH OF BAILMENT
FOR DEATH OF A DOG DURING SURGERY
Price v Brown, 545 Pa. 216 (1996)
BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT:
Price brought her English Bulldog to Dr. Brown for surgical repair of a prolapsed urethra. Price visited the dog following surgery and, after noticing that the dog was panting strenuously and appeared groggy. She requested that the dog be monitored on a 24-hour basis and was assured by an agent of Dr. Brown that would be done. Price alleged that the dog was left unattended after midnight that evening and died the following morning.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:
Price asserted liability based only upon a theory of bailment. She alleged that the dog had been entrusted to Dr. Brown in reliance upon the promise and representation that she would perform the necessary surgery and return the dog to her in the same general health as before. Price alleged that Dr. Brown had breached the agreement by failing to monitor the dog's condition and failing to return the dog in good health. The trial court preliminary objections by Dr. Brown and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding that allegations of a breach of a bailment agreement, without more, are insufficient to state a cause of action against a veterinarian for death of injury to an animal entrusted to his or her care for professional treatment.
The Superior Court reversed, finding that the complaint was sufficient to state a cause of action and that the issue of whether a bailment agreement existed was a matter for the fact-finder. The court did not consider the allegations that Dr. Brown failed to monitor the dog, reasoning that where the owner of an animal chooses to bring a cause of action in bailment rather than negligence the only relevant question is whether sufficient facts were presented to support an implied agreement between the parties. The Superior Court remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court granted allocatur, reversed the finding of the Superior Court and reinstated the trial court's order dismissing the complaint.
DISCUSSION BY THE COURT:
The Supreme Court stated that they must examine the elements of a cause of action for breach of bailment agreement and those of a cause of action for professional negligence to determine whether preliminary objections were properly sustained by the trial court.
A bailment is a delivery of personalty for the accomplishment of some purpose upon a contract, express or implied, that after the purpose has been fulfilled, it shall be redelivered to the person who delivered it, otherwise dealt with according to his directions or kept until he reclaims it. A cause of action on that basis arises if the bailor can establish that personalty has been delivered to the bailee, a demand for return of the bailed goods has been made, and the bailee failed to return the personalty. When the bailor produces evidence to satisfy those elements, the bailee has the duty of going forward with evidence accounting for the loss and if the bailee fails to do so, he is responsible for the loss. It is assumed under those circumstances that the bailee has failed to exercise the duty of care required by the agreement. On the other hand, should the bailee go forward with evidence showing that the personalty was lost and the manner in which it was lost, and the evidence does not disclose a lack of due care on his part, then the burden of proof again shifts to the bailor who must prove negligence on the part of the bailee.
|
| AVMLA Membership & More |
|
RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY!
To renew your AVMLA Membership dues, simply renew
online
, or you are welcome to
download/print/mail
your membership app to AVMLA, 1750 K Street, NW, Ste. 700, Washington, DC 20006,
email your app,
fax
(
202.449.8560)
or give our office a call at
202.449.3818.
If you are interested in contributing to the AVMLA News Brief, advertising or posting a help wanted ad, please send an email to info@AVMLA.org.
|
|
| |
|
