OVERVIEW
Many veterinarians enter the profession out of a genuine love for animals and their care. As a result, it is no surprise when veterinary professionals are themselves very concerned when an animal does not recover, or complications arise during their care. However, the fact that an animal may suffer complications or even pass away during or following a veterinarian's care does not automatically mean that the veterinarian was negligent.
Veterinarians are unique from many other professionals because they owe a duty of care to both the animal and animal's owner. In general, it will not be controversial that the veterinarian owed a duty of care. Most cases will be a conflict over whether the veterinarian satisfied the requisite standard of care.
The standard of care for veterinarians is that of a “reasonable veterinarian”. Put another way, a Court will consider whether the veterinarian acted reasonably in all the circumstances. If a Court finds that the veterinarian did not act reasonably in all the circumstances, then the veterinarian will be found negligent.
This is a fact-based exercise and there is no one-size-fits-all analysis. The analysis will likely require considering what the accepted practices within the veterinarian community were at the time. Veterinary practices develop and change over time. As a result, it is important to consider what the accepted practices were at the relevant time (even if those practices have changed now). The analysis will also likely require considering what standards or policies from the veterinarian's governing body (the College of Veterinarians in Ontario) or legislation (the Veterinarian Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V.3) apply. For example, under the Regulations for the College of Veterinarians in Ontario, written consent is required before performing any surgical procedures on companion animals. Legal counsel will assist in determining whether a veterinarian's conduct met, exceeded, or fell below the requisite standard of care.
To use a practical example of how a veterinary malpractice case may play out, we can look to the case of Brettell v. Main West Animal Hospital Ltd., 1992 CarswellOnt 4943. In this case, a veterinarian removed loose teeth of a Bichon Frise without informing the owner and without knowledge that the animal was a show dog. Based on expert testimony, the Court accepted the fact that there were no policies set by the governing body at the time with regard to tooth extraction, and so once a dog is under anaesthetic, it becomes a judgment call whether to remove the teeth or not if they are loose. The Court also recognized that a veterinarian is not expected to be an expert in every instance. Therefore, the veterinarian was found to have met the standard of care and the claim against the veterinarian was dismissed.
Veterinary malpractice cases can be complicated. Every veterinarian should ensure they have appropriate insurance to respond to claims of veterinary malpractice.
As your legal counsel, we know that a veterinary malpractice lawsuit can have negative impacts on a veterinarian's reputation and business overall, even while the case is ongoing. As your legal counsel, we are equipped to assist veterinary professionals in navigating veterinarian malpractice lawsuits while also bearing the professional's reputation and business needs in mind.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.