Riegel v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Board case brief
655 N.E.2d 220
---
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: Appellant,
a licensed veterinarian, challenged a decision and order from the
Court of Common Pleas of Union County (Ohio), which upheld an order
of appellee, the Ohio Veterinary Medical Board. The Board had
suspended the veterinarian's license for six months for violating
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4742.22(Q) by allowing a registered veterinary
technician to perform surgery.
FACTS: The Board suspended the veterinarian's license when the veterinarian allowed a technician to perform a surgery in violation of § 4742.22(Q). The trial court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that § 4742.22(Q) prohibited registered technicians, as well as student externs and other persons who were not licensed veterinarians, from performing surgeries. The legislative intent in enacting Ohio Rev. Code ch. 4741 was the regulation and control of the practice of veterinary medicine, including student externs and registered technicians. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the Board's suspension order. The technician was always supervised while performing surgery. However, permitting a technician to perform surgery, even while under the supervision of the veterinarian, was a violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4742.22(Q). Additionally, the failure of the witnesses to give the name of the client, the date of the operation, or the type of the surgery performed went to the weight of their testimony. It did not render the testimony unreliable or insubstantial, and the evidence remained probative.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the decision and order.
FACTS: The Board suspended the veterinarian's license when the veterinarian allowed a technician to perform a surgery in violation of § 4742.22(Q). The trial court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that § 4742.22(Q) prohibited registered technicians, as well as student externs and other persons who were not licensed veterinarians, from performing surgeries. The legislative intent in enacting Ohio Rev. Code ch. 4741 was the regulation and control of the practice of veterinary medicine, including student externs and registered technicians. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the Board's suspension order. The technician was always supervised while performing surgery. However, permitting a technician to perform surgery, even while under the supervision of the veterinarian, was a violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4742.22(Q). Additionally, the failure of the witnesses to give the name of the client, the date of the operation, or the type of the surgery performed went to the weight of their testimony. It did not render the testimony unreliable or insubstantial, and the evidence remained probative.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the decision and order.
---
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