DISCUSSION
In cases of alleged veterinary malpractice, the standard applied to veterinarians is generally the same standard applied to physicians and surgeons in medical malpractice actions. In order to prove veterinary malpractice, a plaintiff must show (1) a duty to perform according to the appropriate veterinary standards; (2) that the veterinarian breached that duty by deviating from the appropriate veterinary standard; (3) that the plaintiff suffered damages; and (4) that the breach was the proximate cause of the damages. In addition, as with medical malpractice claims, expert testimony is required to establish the appropriate standard of care, the ways in which the veterinarian deviated from it, as well as causation, unless such conduct …show more content…
South Texas Veterinary Association, the plaintiff acquired a cat and did not know the cat’s vaccination history. On two separate occasions the defendant’s veterinarian vaccinated the cat, which included a vaccination known as adjudicated feline leukemia vaccine. Several months later, the plaintiff returned to the defendant with the cat who had developed a golf-ball sized mass. The defendant diagnosed the cat with an infection, prescribed an antibiotic, and instructed the plaintiff to return if the cats symptoms did not improve. The cat’s symptoms did not improve so the plaintiff took the cat to another clinic. The clinic diagnosed the cat with vaccine-associated sarcoma, a type of tumor found in cats linked to certain vaccines. Another veterinarian concurred in the diagnosis. Following the diagnosis, the cat underwent two surgeries, however, the cat was ultimately euthanized as a result of complications from the vaccine-associated …show more content…
Smith is similar to the case at hand because both the plaintiff and Ms. Perez contend that the defendant and Dr. Hou deviated from a standard of care that would have been exercised by a reasonable, prudent veterinarian under similar circumstances. Moreover, as in the precedent case, Ms. Perez will likely be required to present expert testimony from an experienced veterinarian from a similar community as Dr. Hou, thoroughly detailing the standard of care and how Dr. Hou’s conduct deviated from it when administering vaccinations to Clementine. As the plaintiff’s in McGee attempted to do, lay witness testimony in regards to the negligence of the defendant will have no probative force, thus Ms. Perez will be exempt from testifying as to how Dr. Hou failed to conform to the standard of care when treating her mare. While expert testimony is generally a requisite to establishing the deviation from a standard of care, it is plausible that a court will find Dr. Hou’s negligent conduct to be within the common knowledge of a layperson. A court might find that by Dr. Hou failing to review Clementine’s medical records which thoroughly stated her reactions to the previous two West Nile vaccines and suggestions of precautions to take, to be a deviation from what a reasonable, prudent veterinarian would have
In cases of alleged veterinary malpractice, the standard applied to veterinarians is generally the same standard applied to physicians and surgeons in medical malpractice actions. In order to prove veterinary malpractice, a plaintiff must show (1) a duty to perform according to the appropriate veterinary standards; (2) that the veterinarian breached that duty by deviating from the appropriate veterinary standard; (3) that the plaintiff suffered damages; and (4) that the breach was the proximate cause of the damages. In addition, as with medical malpractice claims, expert testimony is required to establish the appropriate standard of care, the ways in which the veterinarian deviated from it, as well as causation, unless such conduct …show more content…
South Texas Veterinary Association, the plaintiff acquired a cat and did not know the cat’s vaccination history. On two separate occasions the defendant’s veterinarian vaccinated the cat, which included a vaccination known as adjudicated feline leukemia vaccine. Several months later, the plaintiff returned to the defendant with the cat who had developed a golf-ball sized mass. The defendant diagnosed the cat with an infection, prescribed an antibiotic, and instructed the plaintiff to return if the cats symptoms did not improve. The cat’s symptoms did not improve so the plaintiff took the cat to another clinic. The clinic diagnosed the cat with vaccine-associated sarcoma, a type of tumor found in cats linked to certain vaccines. Another veterinarian concurred in the diagnosis. Following the diagnosis, the cat underwent two surgeries, however, the cat was ultimately euthanized as a result of complications from the vaccine-associated …show more content…
Smith is similar to the case at hand because both the plaintiff and Ms. Perez contend that the defendant and Dr. Hou deviated from a standard of care that would have been exercised by a reasonable, prudent veterinarian under similar circumstances. Moreover, as in the precedent case, Ms. Perez will likely be required to present expert testimony from an experienced veterinarian from a similar community as Dr. Hou, thoroughly detailing the standard of care and how Dr. Hou’s conduct deviated from it when administering vaccinations to Clementine. As the plaintiff’s in McGee attempted to do, lay witness testimony in regards to the negligence of the defendant will have no probative force, thus Ms. Perez will be exempt from testifying as to how Dr. Hou failed to conform to the standard of care when treating her mare. While expert testimony is generally a requisite to establishing the deviation from a standard of care, it is plausible that a court will find Dr. Hou’s negligent conduct to be within the common knowledge of a layperson. A court might find that by Dr. Hou failing to review Clementine’s medical records which thoroughly stated her reactions to the previous two West Nile vaccines and suggestions of precautions to take, to be a deviation from what a reasonable, prudent veterinarian would have