By Daniel L. Baxter
The term “duty of care” refers to the way in which you must interact with your clients and patients in order to satisfy the requirements of the law. For California veterinarians, this amounts to:
Being a competent care provider.
Being humane.
Providing care that is consistent with the current veterinary practice standards.
Since “current” veterinary practice standards are continuously evolving, the duty of care evolves as well.
Negligence
When a veterinarian fails to meet the required standard of care, he or she may be guilty of “negligence.” In order to establish veterinary negligence, a plaintiff must show that:
The veterinarian had a responsibility to care for the animal (duty of care).
The veterinarian didn’t act in accordance with the appropriate standard of care.
The veterinarian’s failure to provide adequate care was a proximate cause of injury, which means that the injury occurred as a direct result of the action and would not have occurred if the veterinarian had acted appropriately.
Examples
1. A client brings her cat Lucy in for her annual shots. An inappropriately high dosage is administered, and the animal dies as a result. In this case, the client can sue for negligence because the veterinarian:
Was responsible for providing care to the animal.
Did not act in accordance with pertinent standards of care.
Was the direct cause of the animal’s death.
2. A client brings his dog Fido in for a checkup. After collecting the necessary information and obtaining consent to treatment, the veterinarian administers an appropriate heartworm prevention medication at the correct dosage. The animal has a severe and highly unusual reaction to the medication. In this case, the veterinarian is not guilty of negligence. Even though the veterinarian’s actions were a cause of the animal’s injuries, he or she was acting in accordance with accepted standards of care, and most other veterinarians would have made the same choices.
By Thomas G. Redmon
What is the “Cite and Fine” Program?
The Veterinary Medical Board’s “Cite and Fine” Program was first implemented in 1990 to aid in the processing of complaints made against veterinarians. These guidelines are used to address violations of the law that are not serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution or the suspension or revocation of a veterinarian’s license to practice. In these cases, the VMB issues a citation, and the veterinarian must pay a fine.
Common “Cite and Fine” Issues
Examples of issues that may result in a citation and fine include:
- Discipline of license in another state
- Unprofessional conduct
- Animal abuse or cruelty
- Failure to keep premises and/or equipment clean and sanitary
- Record keeping violations
- Record confidentiality violations
Of these issues, one of the most common citations veterinarians encounter is inadequate recordkeeping. This issue can result in a citation on its own, or it can complicate other actions initiated against the practice. In general, the VMB holds to the belief that information not contained in the records cannot be taken as fact. Thus, this issue often acts as a jumping-off point for more extensive disciplinary actions.
For example, assume a client brings action against your practice on the basis that you did not provide competent care to her pet. Even if the client’s story is misleading, embellished or completely inaccurate, you won’t have a leg to stand on if you don’t have detailed records to support your side of the story. The VMB won’t simply take your word as fact if you have no written documents to back up your position. Thus, you may find yourself facing unnecessary penalties simply because you failed to keep adequate records.
In overturning a trial court decision made two years ago and ordering a new trial to establish damages, California’s Fifth District Court of Appeals has ruled that hospitals can no longer expect to seek reimbursement from health plans in amounts well in excess of the actual value of services rendered to plan members.
In issuing its decision in Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California, the appellate court shifted the state’s health care provider reimbursement landscape. Wilke Fleury’s Dan Baxter, a member of the legal team that tried the original case in 2012 on behalf of Blue Cross in Madera County Superior Court, explained the court’s ruling means the ‘charge master’ system—whereby providers sought, for example, $10.00 in reimbursement for the provision of two aspirin—will no longer stand as a legitimate, defining measure of expected compensation. The appellate court found the trial court erred in not allowing Blue Cross to present evidence of the reasonable value of the services rendered by Children’s Hospital Central California. The court ordered the case retried and awarded Blue Cross its appellate costs.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/06/13/ruling-hospital-bills-should-reflect-reasonable.html
