Taylor v. Department of Commerce, State of Utah case
brief
952 P.2d 1090
---
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: Petitioner
veterinarian appealed an order from respondents, Utah Department of
Commerce and Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing
(licensing division), which found that the veterinarian's practices
of veterinary medicine reflected repeated occasions of gross
incompetence and gross negligence and revoked the veterinarian's
license.
FACTS: The veterinarian argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his veterinary license. The veterinarian also argued that the revocation was contrary to the prior practice of the licensing division. The court affirmed the licensing division's revocation order. The court reviewed the evidence from the revocation proceeding at which several witnesses testified as to specific examples that demonstrated that the veterinarian had an extreme deficiency in the basic knowledge and skills necessary to practice veterinarian medicine. The court afforded deference to the licensing division's conclusions and concluded that the licensing division was correct in its determination that the veterinarian was grossly incompetent and grossly negligent in his treatment of animals. The court found that most of the cases cited by the veterinarian regarding the licensing division's departure from prior practice involved no actual malpractice in the care or treatment of animals. The veterinarian failed to establish a prima facie case that the licensing division's decision to revoke his license was contrary to its prior practice.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the order from the licensing division to revoke the veterinarian's license.
FACTS: The veterinarian argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his veterinary license. The veterinarian also argued that the revocation was contrary to the prior practice of the licensing division. The court affirmed the licensing division's revocation order. The court reviewed the evidence from the revocation proceeding at which several witnesses testified as to specific examples that demonstrated that the veterinarian had an extreme deficiency in the basic knowledge and skills necessary to practice veterinarian medicine. The court afforded deference to the licensing division's conclusions and concluded that the licensing division was correct in its determination that the veterinarian was grossly incompetent and grossly negligent in his treatment of animals. The court found that most of the cases cited by the veterinarian regarding the licensing division's departure from prior practice involved no actual malpractice in the care or treatment of animals. The veterinarian failed to establish a prima facie case that the licensing division's decision to revoke his license was contrary to its prior practice.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the order from the licensing division to revoke the veterinarian's license.
---
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