Lambert v. Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine
case brief
489 So.2d 1341
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine appealed from a judgment of
the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge
(Louisiana), which reversed the board's decision to revoke plaintiff
veterinarian's license to practice veterinary medicine.
FACTS: The board notified the veterinarian that an adjudicatory hearing would be held to consider evidence concerning the veterinarian's record keeping and the veterinarian's prescription of Schedule II drugs. The board determined that the veterinarian had engaged in unprofessional conduct in violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:1526(14) by (1) failing to establish a patient/veterinarian relationship prior to dispensing Schedule II drugs and (2) failing to maintain proper individual records on each animal treated. On appeal, the court reinstated the judgment in which the board revoked the veterinarian's license to practice veterinary medicine. The court concluded that the notice given by the board satisfied the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 49:955(B) and 49:961(C) because the notice was sufficient to apprise the veterinarian of the facts which warranted the board's inquiry. The court held that there was sufficient evidence supporting the board's determination that the veterinarian did not actually examine animals before prescribing controlled substances and that the veterinarian's records did not included a listing of each complaint, diagnosis, and therapy that was utilized.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the trial court's judgment and reinstated the decision in which the board revoked the veterinarian's license to practice veterinary medicine.
FACTS: The board notified the veterinarian that an adjudicatory hearing would be held to consider evidence concerning the veterinarian's record keeping and the veterinarian's prescription of Schedule II drugs. The board determined that the veterinarian had engaged in unprofessional conduct in violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:1526(14) by (1) failing to establish a patient/veterinarian relationship prior to dispensing Schedule II drugs and (2) failing to maintain proper individual records on each animal treated. On appeal, the court reinstated the judgment in which the board revoked the veterinarian's license to practice veterinary medicine. The court concluded that the notice given by the board satisfied the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 49:955(B) and 49:961(C) because the notice was sufficient to apprise the veterinarian of the facts which warranted the board's inquiry. The court held that there was sufficient evidence supporting the board's determination that the veterinarian did not actually examine animals before prescribing controlled substances and that the veterinarian's records did not included a listing of each complaint, diagnosis, and therapy that was utilized.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the trial court's judgment and reinstated the decision in which the board revoked the veterinarian's license to practice veterinary medicine.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment