The newsletter is published 4 times a year.  Members receive the full newsletter in print.  The entire table of contents is posted here (items in blue are on the web site while those in gray are in the full newsletter).  To join the AVMLA and receive the newsletter see our membership form.  (See Contact Us for Adobe Reader if needed.)

AVMLA NEWSLETTER

     Vol. XIII, No. 2 – Fall/Winter   
American Veterinary Medical Law Association © 2008    

NEWSLETTER

Table of Contents

From the President

AVMLA Executive Director

Annual Conference 2008

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

Legal Status of Animals 
Guardianship
Orders of Protection
Non-Economic Damages
Economic Damages
Pet Food Recall
Pharmacy
Administering, Prescribing, Dispensing and Selling
Compounding Pharmacies
Internet Pharmacies
Practice Issues
Euthanasia Technicians
Veterinary CertificateS
Mandatory Reporting
Owner Consent
Veterinary Medical Records
Unlicensed Practice
Veterinary Loan Repayment
Miscellaneous

CASE LAW

TAINTED PET FOOD CASE CANNOT BE REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT
EQUINE ACTIVITY IMMUNITY ACT MIGHT NOT PROTECT DEFENDANT
VETERINARY HOSPITAL MAY BE LIABLE FOR CLIENT’S PERSONAL INJURY
VETERINARIANS PREVAIL ON APPEAL OF MALPRACTICE ACTION
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ZAPS POWER COMPANY TWICE
THE DEBATE ON WHETHER A GOLDFISH IS A COMPANION ANIMAL CONTINUES
VETERINARY DEGREE IS A “MARITAL ASSET”
DEA VS. PHARMACIES – IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VETERINARY AND HUMAN MEDICAL PRACTICE?
ANTITRUST SUIT HITS LARGE LABORATORY

NEWS AND COMMENTARY

CALIFORNIA COURT OKS CITY'S DECLAWING BAN:
HORSE SLAUGHTER IN TEXAS AND ILLINOIS
The Rule of Lenity

Wecome New Members

OTHER MEETINGS OF INTERST

  With proper citation to the AVMLA Newsletter, 
portions of the Newsletter may be quoted.

From the President



 

How time flies. I have almost completed three quarters of my year already. We will soon meet in convention again.

The biggest news is that the AVMLA has a new executive secretary and her name is Julia Fullerton. She has been involved for about two months and has jumped right in and is making things run smoothly. This is a great help to me and the board. We are continuing to see membership come in and hope that we will reach another all time high. One interesting note that I have observed is that almost 75% of the members have paid an extra fee to get a hard copy of the Newsletter

This years meeting will be held in New Orleans along with the AVMA meeting. However, this will be the last meeting to be held in conjunction with the AVMA. Next years meeting will be held together with the Central Veterinary Conference. This will be on a trial basis for the next three years and the time and place will be: 2009 in October CVC West in San Diego CA, 2010 in April CVC East in Baltimore MD, and 2011 in August CVC Central at Kansas City MO. We hope that these changes will improve and enhance the conference.

Other topics which are on our plate are the election of new officers and directors and to finish this year’s budget. If you have any interest in serving on the board or working on a committee please let Julia know. The budget is expected to be completed by the next board meeting. If the projections for income continue to remain stable we will be in very good financial shape. The board has transferred $10,000 into the Strategic Fund. This fund was set up as a reserve fund in case we see some bad financial times. It is to be funded until we reach 80% of the previous year’s budget.

The other area which we continue to address is outreach to students. We have made some attempts to reach the students in the veterinary schools by funding pizza parties and introducing the students to our organization. These have been the mostly unsuccessful for a number of reasons. If there is any member who has an idea on how to reach the students, please pass it along.

Ed Liebler, DVM, JD President

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT



Thank you, Dr. Liebler, for the kind introduction. I am very pleased to join the AVMLA. The Association is fortunate to have a wonderful group of dedicated core volunteers and Board Members who work to make the Association run. I look forward to working with them to continue to bring the benefits of AVMLA membership to you. I also encourage you to volunteer in the AVMLA. If you have time to contribute to the newsletter, student mentoring program, 2008 conference activities or if you are able to serve as a speaker at any function or have another idea as to how you can contribute to the AVMLA, please contact me at avmlainquiry@gmail.com.

 

 

2008 Annual Conference

The 2008 AVMLA conference in New Orleans (July 19-20) is fast approaching and Dr. Wernette has secured an excellent slate of speakers for the continuing education portion of our annual conference.

The Regulatory Board’s Perspective                                       Teresa Lazo, JD

Veterinary License Defense                                                  Terry Takash, JD

Vaccine Protocols: Standard of Care                                       Charlotte Lacroix, DVM, Esq.

Non-Economic Damages                                                       Kent McClure, DVM, JD

Hank Hannah Lecture Series:                                                Douglas C. Jack, LL.B

Veterinary Professionalism

Microchipping & Ownership Issues                                         Gregory Dennis, JD

Employment Practices in Veterinary Medicine                          Thomas Chandler, JD

Liability in Equine Practice                                                   Thomas Vaughan, DVM

Registration Forms can be downloaded

Also, the elections process for AVMLA President-Elect and for the Directors in Districts IV and V is complete. Dr. Elizabeth Settles was nominated for President-Elect, Bonnie Lutz was nominated as Director for District V and Dr. John Scott was nominated as Director of District IV. Because only one candidate has been nominated for each of these positions, no ballots need be mailed pursuant to articles IV and V of our Bylaws.

Please feel free to call or e-mail me with any questions or ideas about the AVMLA. You may reach me at avmlainquiry@gmail.com.

Julia Fullerton, JD, Executive Director

 

  Legal Brief Topics

Sarah Babcock is asking for suggestions on Veterinary Legal Briefs.  The briefs are presented in the American Veterinary Medical Association Journal as a service of the AVMLA.  If you have a comment or recommendation please send her a message.

Sarah Babcock-Legal Briefs

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

Thank you to the American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Department in the Communications Division for the use of its 2007 legislative and regulatory tracking summary in developing this section of the AVMLA Newsletter.

AVMA indicates that over 4,200 bills and regulations of interest to the veterinary profession were introduced last year. The subject matter of those bills covered a variety of topics including: animal cruelty, livestock handling, non-economic damages, mandatory spay/neuter and loan repayment. The summary below is a sampling of bills introduced and/or adopted in 2007. If you wish to see all of the measures tracked by the AVMA, please see the “Advocacy” portion of their website at www.avma.org.

Legal Status of Animals 

Guardianship

The Guardianship movement started in 2001 with the adoption of the terminology by the City of Boulder in Colorado. Since then, 17 local governments across the nation but only one state, Rhode Island, have incorporated the term into statute in place of the term owner

Bills considering the terminology introduced in 2007 and carried over to 2008 session include the Animal Protection Amendment Act of 2007 (DC B 17-0089) and Mississippi SB 2097.

        Orders of Protection

Non-Economic Damages

Economic Damages

Tennessee law provides that knowingly or intentionally killing the animal of another without the owner’s consent, in instances such as euthanasia, is a theft. The degree of the theft is determined by the animal’s value. SB 172 provides guidance in calculating an animal’s worth depending on the services it provided to its owner:

2) In determining the value of a police dog, fire dog, search and rescue dog, guide dog or police horse under § 3 9-14-105, the court shall consider the value of the police dog, fire dog, search and rescue dog, service animal or police horse as both the cost of the animal and any specialized training such animal received.

Pet Food Recall

In March 2007, the FDA began recalling more than 100 brands of pet foods contaminated with melamine. This year the FDA announced the indictment of two Chinese nationals, their businesses and a U.S. company, its president and CEO for their part in a scheme to import products purporting to be wheat gluten that were actually melamine-contaminated. At least 50 class action lawsuits had been filed by the end of last year.

In the 2007 session, state legislatures were eager to address the pet food contamination issue. Michigan HR 64 urged Congress to investigate and provide remedies for those injured by the contamination. New Jersey considered, but did not adopt, two bills to address the pet food recall. HB 4217 would have allowed civil suit for the recovery of limited loss of companionship damages where a pet was injured or killed as a result of ingesting contaminated pet food. This bill would allow suit against the following entities or individuals: pet food manufacturer, producer, distributor or any other person who caused or contributed to causing the adulteration of the pet food or who had a duty to act to prevent the pet’s illness, injury or death. New Jersey HB 4171 would have required pet food manufacturers to certify to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture that the pet food they sell is safe for pet consumption.

Pharmacy

Administering, Prescribing, Dispensing and Selling

Compounding Pharmacies

Internet Pharmacies

Kentucky SB 88, effective in 2009, will require those Internet pharmacies operating in the state via the Internet or physically to obtain a permit. Pharmacies dispensing 25% or more of their total prescription volume through prescription orders solicited or received over the Internet must have certification as a Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Site or other accepted certification. Additionally, SB 88 requires out-of-state pharmacies transacting business in Kentucky to be validly licensed in their home state.

Practice Issues

Euthanasia Technicians

New Mexico adopted HB 458 to create licensure procedures for euthanasia providers and agencies. Montana adopted HB 503, which deleted the expiration date of the section of code allowing the certification of euthanasia technicians.

Veterinary Certificates

Mandatory Reporting

Owner Consent

The Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners amended its Code of Ethics (201 KAR 16:010) to require written consent, where feasible, of an animal owner prior to euthanasia or for the transportation of a patient to another facility.

Veterinary Medical Records

Unlicensed Practice

Veterinary Loan Repayment

The veterinary shortage continues to generate press and interest from federal and state legislators. Though the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (NVMSA)(P.L. 108- 161) was adopted, appropriations to implement it continue to be an issue. The NVMSA is a federal loan repayment program administered by the USDA to assist veterinarians practicing in shortage areas to repay school loans. Many states took up the veterinary shortage issue, but by session’s end, only two adopted programs.

North Dakota adopted HB 1125. This veterinary loan repayment program allows three veterinarians to receive incentives of up to $80,000 for practicing in a community with a need for veterinary services. The specifics of the loan repayment schedule are as follows:

43-29.1-07. Loan repayment. Upon completing six months of the first year of service, as required by the contract, the veterinarian is eligible to receive a loan payment in an amount up to fifteen thousand dollars. Upon completing a second year of service, as required by the contract, the veterinarian is eligible to receive a loan payment in an amount up to fifteen thousand dollars. Upon completing a third year of service, as required by the contract, the veterinarian is eligible to receive a loan payment in an amount up to twenty-five thousand dollars. Upon completing a fourth year of service, as required by the contract, the veterinarian is eligible to receive a loan payment in an amount up to twenty-five thousand dollars. All payments under this section must be made to the issuer of the student loan. No individual may receive more than eighty thousand dollars under this section. If an individual fails to complete an entire year of service, the amount repayable under this section for that year must be prorated.

Missouri SB 320 increases the number of yearly participants in the large animal loan repayment program from five to six. The Missouri program as amended by this bill, allows qualified veterinary students to receive loan forgiveness where the students obtain licensure and practice in a defined veterinary shortage area for four years. Veterinary students could receive up to $80,000. per student with the state forgiving $20,000. for each year practiced in areas that are underserved with regard to large animal veterinary services. The Governor announced he would pursue half a million dollars in scholarship funding to implement the bill. A special advisory panel appointed by the State Agriculture Director is working to provide recommendations to administer the program.

Miscellaneous

Case Law

TAINTED PET FOOD CASE CANNOT BE REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT

EQUINE ACTIVITY IMMUNITY ACT MIGHT NOT PROTECT DEFENDANT

In Lawson v. Dutch Heritage Farms, Inc., 502 F.Supp.2d 698 (U.S.D.C., N.D. Ohio, E. Div., 8/1/07), plaintiff sued a tourist attraction owner after she sustained personal injuries during a horse-drawn buggy ride. While boarding the buggy and before sitting down, the horse reared and bolted, causing the buggy to flip and break apart. Compensatory and punitive damages were sought.

Defendant Dutch Heritage Farms argued that the claim was barred by Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.32 1(B)(1) of Ohio’s Equine Activity Immunity Act (EALA).³ Equine activity liability acts (EALAs) are acknowledged to be codifications of the affirmative defense to negligence of assumption of risk. However, 23 states, including Ohio, Illinois and Tennessee, have EALAs that are silent as to whether simple negligence as an inherent risk.

The Ohio law states that if a person is present at an equine activity, that person becomes a participant even if merely spectating. The Act is all-encompassing and includes not only members of the public but riders, trainers, drivers, veterinarians, sponsors and spectators. However, the statutory immunity for the sponsor can be forfeited if the sponsor fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine either the equine activity participant has the ability to safely engage in the equine activity, or alternatively, the participant has the ability to safely manage the equine based on the equine activity participant's representations of the participant's ability.

The court agreed that plaintiff was subject to the EALA and her negligence claims fail. However, the defendant could not, as a matter of law, overcome plaintiff’s claim of willful and wonton conduct in failing to qualify her ability to safely participate in the buggy ride. Thus, summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part; litigation will continue.

VETERINARY HOSPITAL MAY BE LIABLE FOR CLIENT’S PERSONAL INJURY

Plaintiff filed suit against a veterinary clinic for premises liability, alleging that she suffered injuries because defendant failed to provide a railing along a stairway entrance. Hobart v. One Park Avenue, LLC, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1998 (Sup. Ct. CT., J.D. New Haven, 7/31/07) [unreported].

The veterinary clinic proceeded with discovery and learned that plaintiff’s handbag caught on the exterior door handle when exiting the hospital. Defendant brought a motion for summary judgment that the presence or absence of a railing was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury.

Plaintiff challenged the motion by contending that a railing may have prevented her fall; she also submitted evidence that the lack of a railing violated the state fire code. This evidence created a question of fact and the case could not be resolved as a matter of law. Thus, defendant’s summary judgment motion was denied.

VETERINARIANS PREVAIL ON APPEAL OF MALPRACTICE ACTION

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ZAPS POWER COMPANY TWICE

THE DEBATE ON WHETHER A GOLDFISH IS A COMPANION ANIMAL CONTINUES

Garcia v. Rivera, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5977 (U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y., 8/16/07) returns to the AVMLA Newsletter on appeal from a criminal case we reviewed in 2004.⁶ Defendant Michael Garcia was convicted of several crimes, including aggravated cruelty to animals and was sentenced to concurrent and consecutive sentences aggregating to 71/2 to 15 years. Pertinent here is Garcia’s argument that his cruelty to animals conviction for the felony violates his due process rights.



6 People v. Garcia, 29 A.D.3d 255, 812 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3714 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't, 2006); People v. Garcia, 3 Misc. 3d 699, 777 N.Y.S.2d 846 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2004).

During an attack on his live-in girlfriend, Garcia smashed a fish bowl containing three goldfish. As the fish were being rescued from the floor, Garcia stepped on one of the fish killing it instantly. In the initial case, Justice Kahn held “that the definition of ‘animal’ within the statute, ‘every living creature except a human being,’ is plain and unambiguous,” and “conforms with generally accepted definitions of this term.” As to goldfish, Justice Kahn explained:

Goldfish are small orange fish often bred by human beings to live in fish tanks. It is not uncommon to see this tiny member of the carp family as a child's pet, dutifully maintained and cared for by its young human owner. A goldfish is almost always named and spoken to as any household pet might be. Moreover, the demise of a goldfish, as with any pet, often causes its young owner much distress, requiring significant consolation, and necessitates a burial or other dignified disposition of the animal's remains.

The statutory definition of “companion animal” uses ordinary terms to express ideas which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding. Both a potential offender of ordinary intelligence and a police officer would be adequately informed of the nature of the offense prohibited by the statute. In this case, all three of the goldfish in the aquarium had names given to them by Juan Torres and his siblings. In fact, the children anthropomorphically named their pet goldfish after themselves. Both Juan Torres and his mother regularly cleaned the fish tank and fed the fish. After defendant destroyed the aquarium, Juan's mother rushed to scoop the fish off the floor and place them into a bowl of water, but defendant killed the fish named “Junior” (Juan's nickname) before she could complete her task. These facts clearly establish that the goldfish were household pets. It is beyond cavil that a person of ordinary intelligence, including a police officer charged with enforcing the law, would know that the common household pet known as a goldfish is a companion animal intended to be protected under the statute, and that, in particular, Juan Torres' goldfish was such a companion animal.

The court analyzed the “due process” petition as a challenge to the trial court’s interpretation of Agriculture & Markets Law Section 353 -a( 1). The role of a federal habeas court is not to “reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Since the interpretation of §353-a(1) is purely a state law issue, the court cannot “re­examine” the state court’s decision.

Nevertheless, the court found meritless Garcia’s argument that his conviction of aggravated cruelty to animals under Agriculture & Markets Law Section 353-a(1) violated due process (i) because a pet goldfish is not a “companion animal” as defined by the statute and (ii) because the killing of the pet goldfish was not accomplished with aggravated cruelty.

Agriculture & Markets Law § 353 -a(1) states:

A person is guilty of aggravated cruety to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty. For purposes of this section, “aggravated cruelty” shall mean conduct which: (i) is intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner.

Agriculture & Markets Law § 350(5) defines “‘[c]ompanion animal’ or ‘pet’ [to] mean[] any dog or cat, and shall also mean any other domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or person who cares for such other domesticated animal,” and not including a “farm animal.”

Section 350(1) defines “‘[a]nimal,’ as used in this article, [as] includ[ing] every living creature except a human being.”

Agriculture & Markets Law § 353-a(2) provides that “[n]othing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit or interfere in any way with anyone lawfully engaged in hunting, trapping, or fishing. . . .”

The District Court concluded that a pet goldfish clearly falls under the statute's definition of “companion animal.” Based on the state court’s review of the evidence, the Martinez family treated their goldfish like domesticated animals maintained in their owner’s household, as required by the statute. Because the state court properly found that the goldfish was a companion animal that Garcia killed in an especially depraved and sadistic manner, Garcia's claim that his conviction for aggravated cruelty to animals violates due process is meritless.

VETERINARY DEGREE IS A “MARITAL ASSET”

In In re Marriage of Wertti, 2008 WI App 1; 743 N.W.2d 167 (Wisc. Ct.App., Dist. 4, 11/21/07), the wife petitioner in a divorce action challenged the inclusion of her veterinary degree as an asset of the marriage. The trial court reduced the wife’s share of the marital property division by the value it assigned to a veterinary degree the wife earned during the marriage.

Three years into their marriage, the wife entered veterinary school and obtained her degree. At the time of the property division trial, she was working three days a week as a veterinarian, earning $3,150 per month. The trial court concluded that the degree was an asset of the marriage worth $81,511, calculated from the tuition and other educational costs plus the employment income while attending veterinary school.

The wife challenged the determination, arguing that there was no evidence that the degree would increase her post-divorce earnings or earning capacity.

Under Wisconsin law, a supporting spouse is entitled to fair compensation for the contribution to the other spouse's education. In determining the appropriate compensation, the guiding principles are fairness and justice. A reviewing court will uphold the resulting award if it is the result of an articulated reasoning process, based on facts of record and the appropriate legal standards, and not excessive or inadequate under the circumstances.

In this instance, the wife earned $20,485 in the last full year of work before she entered veterinary school. At the time of her divorce, she was earning some $3,150 per month as a veterinarian. The court concluded that the degree had enhanced the wife’s ability to support herself and therefore the degree was a valuable asset obtained during the marriage and therefore subject to the property division.

DEA VS. PHARMACIES – IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VETERINARY AND HUMAN MEDICAL PRACTICE?

ANTITRUST SUIT HITS LARGE LABORATORY

NEWS AND COMMENTARY

CALIFORNIA COURT OKS CITY'S DECLAWING BAN:

CVMA CALLS VERDICT A 'SURPRISE,' APPEALS TO STATE SUPREME COURT

Source: JAVMA News

Date: October 1, 2007

In 2003, the City of West Hollywood banned the non-therapeutic declawing of domestic cats, defining it as animal cruelty. The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) sued the City in 2005 contending that the City lacked the authority to regulate the veterinary profession in this fashion. CVMA believed that only the State of California had the authority to regulate the veterinary profession. While the L.A. Superior Court agreed with the CVMA, the Appellate Court sided with the City citing West Hollywood’s “significant interest in exercising its police power to set minimum standards for the humane treatment of animals within its borders." The CVMA sought review by the California Supreme Court. Several organizations, including the AVMA, California Dental Association, California Optometric Association, and Department of Consumers of Affairs, supported the CVMA by urging the Court to review the case. In October of 2007, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Case Cite

California Veterinary Medical Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood California, 152 Cal. App. 4th 536 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2007).

HORSE SLAUGHTER IN TEXAS AND ILLINOIS

THE RULE OF LENITY

Source: U.S. Pharmacist – e-connect, Vol. No: 32:2, http://www.uspharmacist.com/econnect/

Date: 2/20/07

United Pharmacal sold federal legend drugs to clients of veterinarians who had valid prescriptions for their animals for over twenty years. During that time the Missouri Pharmacy Board had investigated the company several times for selling animal legend drugs without a pharmacy license, but failed to take any action – until 2000. That year, the Board informed United Pharmacal that they were in violation of the Missouri Pharmacy Practices Act and ordered them to cease selling prescription-only animal drugs. The Company sought a declaratory judgment action from the local trial court. The trial court ruled that the Company was in violation of Missouri law.

The Company appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court who held unanimously in 2006, that the Board did not have the authority to regulate prescription-only drugs for use in animals. They found the statute ambiguous and no explicit authority for Board authority over animal drugs. The Missouri Legislature codified the decision in 2007 by adopting HB 780, discussed above.

Case Cite

United Pharmacal Co. v. Mo Bd. of Pharmacy, 208 S.W.3d 907 (Mo., 2006).

 

Welcome New Members

District 1
Active:                  Carmine J Carolei, JD: Hopewell Junction, NY
                            John Kerr, JD: Braintree, MA
District 2
Active:

Brian D. DeGailler, JD: Orlando, FL                                   
Madan L. Kharé, DVM, MS, PhD: Highland Park, NJ 08904
Angela Kopet, JD: Chattanooga, TN, 37422

Student:

Christopher Lehman, DVM: veterinary student: Knoxville,TN 37923  
                  
District 3
Active:                 

Kandace Hartneck, JD: Willmar, MN 56201-5275
Elaine Sterrett Isely, JD: Muskegon, MI 49441

Student:

Heather Sizemore, DVM: South Bend, IN 46617

District 4


District 5
Active:                
Geoffrey R Keller, JD: Billings, MT

REQUEST FOR ARTICLES AND NEWS

If you would like to submit a brief veterinary medical law article to the Newsletter, please e-mail Dr. Elizabeth Settles at veterattrn@comcast.net or Julia Fullerton at avmlainquiry@gmail.com. If you’d prefer to mail your contribution, please send your correspondence to Dr. Elizabeth Settles, 250 H Street, Blaine, WA 98230 or, to Julia Fullerton, 5 Golfview Place, DeKalb, IL 60115. Also, if you become aware of a veterinary related court or administrative decision, attorney general opinion, new or proposed law or regulation, please send along the cite and/or a copy.

OTHER MEETINGS OF INTERST

AVMA Annual Conference                                                                              July 19-22            New Orleans, LA

ASVMAE 2008 Annual Conference                                                                  July 17-19            New Orleans, LA

Mackinac Island Veterinary Conference                                                          July 27-30            Mackinac Island, MI

Idaho Veterinary Medical Association                                                             August 10-12        Kuna, ID

VMABC San Antonio, TX, Summer CE Meeting                                                August 17              San Antonio, TX

AVPMCA                                                                                                       August 2 1-22        Kansas City, MO

CVC Central                                                                                                 August 23-26         Kansas City, MO

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, ARTICLES, COMMENTARIES & BOOK REVIEWS WELCOMED

                The AVMLA welcomes letters to the Editor of the Newsletter. Letters should be sent to the Editor at the “AVMLA Newsletter Addresses” listed below. The AVMLA also welcomes articles, commentaries and book reviews on legal matters affecting veterinarians or the practice of veterinary medicine.

                The Editor of the Newsletter reserves the right to decide whether to publish a letter, article, commentary or book review and to edit such to accommodate space limitations.

AVMLA’s COPYRIGHT POLICY

                The AVMLA does assert copyright to its Newsletters. The Newsletter may not be disseminated, distributed, copied and/or reproduced without prior written express permission of the AVMLA Requests for written permission should be submitted to the Editor contained in the “AVMLA Newsletter Addresses” below.

 With proper citation to the AVMLA Newsletter, portions of the Newsletter may be quoted.

ADVERTISEMENTS

                The AVMLA Newsletter does accept advertisements. For information contact the Editor of the Newsletter set forth in the “AVMLA Newsletter Addresses” listed below.

AVMLA ADDRESS

Julia Fullerton, Executive Director
American Veterinary Medical Law Association
5 Golfview Place
DeKalb, Illinois 60115-1854
Tel:         (312) 233-2760
Fax:        (312) 268-6155
E-mail: info@avmla.org

AVMLA NEWSLETTER ADDRESSES

Associate Editor: Elizabeth Settles
2520 Beach Head Way
Richmond, California 94804-7477
Tel:         (510) 504-7163

Associate Editor: Linda H. Wyner
Archer Norris
2033 North Main Street, Suite 800
Walnut Creek, California 94596-3728
Tel:         (925) 930-6600
Fax:         (925) 930-6620

American Veterinary Medical Law Association © June 2008