Veterinarian Issues

Summary:

This is a brief view of the boundaries of a person's relationship with his or her veterinarian.

Summary:

This gives a somewhat detailed view of the relationship between a veterinarian and client.

Summary:

This article provides a short history of the development of veterinary malpractice as a cause of action and also explores the elements of a malpractice suit. It further delineates the concepts of standard of care, proximate cause, and res ipsa loquitur. Defenses to malpractice actions are also discussed.

Summary:

This article discusses the recent attention focused on veterinary malpractice claims. The author suggests that changes in both state legislation allowing recovery of non-economic damages for companion animals as well as isolated litigation awards beyond market value for veterinary malpractice make it imperative for the veterinary profession to take a stance on the issue.

Summary:

This Note argues that treating bailment and veterinary malpractice as mutually exclusive is neither necessary nor desirable. In doing so, it first gives an overview of animals' status as property, the doctrine of bailment, and veterinary malpractice. Second, the seminal case discrediting bailment in favor of veterinary malpractice, Price v. Brown, [FN6] is discussed. Finally, this Note explores the reasons why bailment and veterinary malpractice should not be treated as mutually exclusive, and why pet owners should be able to recover for negligence by a veterinarian under the doctrine of bailment.

Summary:

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.

Summary:

Although all states outlaw cruelty to companion animals, most jurisdictions only prohibit causing unnecessary suffering as well as failure to provide food, water, and shelter. They do not address whether owners must obtain veterinary care. Even the few statutes that mention such treatment do not define exactly what kind and how much is required. This article highlights the deficiencies in these laws. It argues that keeping pets creates an obligation to get them medical treatment when they are sick or injured and also explains why such a duty is necessary. In addition, it proposes uniform legislation that creates an explicit obligation to provide health care to companion animals, imposes a duty on veterinarians to report cruelty, and establishes strict penalties for violations.

Summary:

This comment investigates the factual bases of arguments from the veterinary community and of those that support increasing the malpractice liability of veterinarians. Combining law and economics theory with basic mathematics to evaluate the validity of these positions, it then suggests specific measures for legislatively addressing those parties' concerns.

Summary:

The purpose of this article is to trace the historical trends in the attitudes of humans toward non-human animals generally and apply that analysis to recent and predicted future trends in veterinary malpractice jurisprudence. This article is also designed to assist attorneys representing owners and veterinarians in spotting the myriad legal issues that have arisen from these trends in order to more effectively represent parties to malpractice actions.

Summary:

This gives a detailed view of the boundaries of veterinarian-client relationships, as well as the regulations and administrative policies that make up those boundaries.