In Mark’s Words

A Regulatory Road Map for Telehealth & Pet Health Care

Today’s Veterinary Practice

The veterinary profession in the United States decided to take telemedicine seriously in 2016.

The NAVC (navc.com) launched its Veterinary Innovation Council (VIC) a year ago and numerous organizations stepped up to participate in its first project—a telehealth pilot. In April 2017, Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine (vetmed.tamu.edu) and the NAVC are collaborating to host the Veterinary Innovation Summit, which will include a robust examination of telemedicine and the VIC pilot results.

Read Full Article

Another court opinion scaring folks about the status of pets as property

DVM360 Magazine

Judges’ comments meant to explain why the state of Oregon is hard on animal abusers, not change longheld precedent.

Cushing_logo_new

My last blog analyzed a Georgia Supreme Court opinion about damages for the loss of a pet. Animal health publications and blogs were wringing their hands about the implications of this decision for the longstanding rule of no recovery of non-economic (emotional) damages for the negligent injury or death of a pet.

I spend part of every week defending the veterinary industry from legislative mischief, so I closely read the case to see if it portended the harm that I’d been warned about by colleagues. Fortunately, the Georgia Supreme Court did no such thing and the law against non-economic damages is alive and well in the Peach State.

This week the culprit is the Oregon Supreme Court in State of Oregon vs. Amanda Newcomb.

Read Full Article

I repeat: the Georgia Supreme Court did not change law regarding non-economic damages.

DVM360 Magazine

Court rules unique human-animal bond is beyond legal measure, but pet owners may recover costs of medical care and fair market value.

Cushing_logo_new

Over the past 10 days, much attention has been devoted to a Georgia Supreme Court decision in which a boarding kennel was accused of causing the death of one of its boarders, a dachshund, due to negligence.

Readers should take a deep breath and exhale. The court did not change existing law barring the recovery of emotional or sentimental damages.

Read Full Article