LEARNING IN PRACTICE
Members of the veterinary profession have a responsibility to uphold standards to ensure the public has access to
safe, quality veterinary care. When those standards are compromised, the College responds. Every veterinarian can
learn from these situations and publishing the details of complaints received and resolved is intended to support
that learning. Learning from peers is best. The example below is taken from an actual case that went before the
Complaints Committee and is offered as a self-reflection tool to improve practice across the province.
NO ACTION TAKEN WHEN CLIENT DECLINED TREATMENT
CASE SUMMARY
The member examined a client’s pet
dove at the animal hospital with the goal
of obtaining a Health Certificate for travel
across the Canada-US border.
After reviewing documentation from the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA),
the member determined blood testing
and a home visit would be required.
The member provided the client with an
estimate for these procedures. The client
paid for the visit but did not schedule the
recommended procedures.
The client alleged the member should
have known the exact requirements
for transporting the pet dove across
the border. The client did not think
she should have been charged for the
appointment as she did not receive
the health certificate. Further the client
alleged she should have been informed
in advance of the requirements, including
a home visit and examination costs, to
take the bird to Florida.
CASE OUTCOMES
The panel decided the nature of the
allegations involving the member did
not warrant a discipline hearing and the
panel decided not to take further action.
CASE CONSIDERATIONS
When deliberating on the case, the panel
considered the client’s concern about
having to pay for an office appointment
even though the health certificate for
travel was not obtained.
The client said the hospital should have
told her the requirements and costs
for a border crossing with a dove. The
client believes she should not have been
charged for the appointment because
she did not obtain a health certificate.
Health certificate requirements for pets
can vary considerably depending on
the type of animal and the destination.
The CFIA regulatory veterinarian helps
to interpret the requirements and
the clinical veterinarian assesses the
animal’s health and assists the owner
in meeting the requirements. It is the
responsibility of pet owners to investigate
the requirements as they apply to their
individual situations.
Because the United States considers
doves to be poultry, a site inspection
is required. The member said the
treatment plan included time for a site
inspection as the member would be
away from the hospital for four hours or
longer. A site inspection is not a service
that the member is required to provide
but it was offered to assist the client in
meeting border crossing requirements.
The panel noted regulations for travel
with animals outside the country depend
on the type of animal and vary from
country to country. The panel noted rules
can change on short notice particularly in
response to disease outbreaks.
The panel agreed the member’s job is
to assess the health of an animal and
to assist the animal owner in meeting
the requirements. As part of the health
certificate, the member was required
to attest to the bird’s exposure to other
avian species including poultry. In
addition, a blood sample was needed to
evaluate blood count.
Until all requirements of the health
certificate were fulfilled, the member
could not sign and issue the certificate. In
the panel’s opinion, it was reasonable for
the member to propose a treatment plan
that included a site visit.
The client was billed for a physical
examination and a consultation at the
hospital, which was documented in the
medical record. The record indicated
that extensive consultation occurred,
as reported by both parties, as well
as an additional consultation with a
representative of the CFIA. Although the
client did not receive a health certificate,
the charge for the services provided
appeared to be appropriate.
The panel acknowledged part of the
reason for a consultation is to discuss
and consider the travel requirements so
a client can decide whether to proceed
with obtaining a health certificate. The
panel also acknowledged that because
requirements are fluid, it was appropriate
for the member to consult with the CFIA
regarding the current requirements for
the type of animal.
With regard to the fee for the home
inspection, the panel felt that, given the
distance from the hospital to the site,
the charges were not unreasonable. The
panel also noted that it was the client’s
prerogative to decline the site visit,
however, she could not expect to receive
the health certificate if the conditions for
its completion were not fulfilled.
In conclusion, while the client was
concerned that the member and her staff
were incompetent and unprofessional
when she sought assistance in obtaining
a health certificate for travel outside
the country with her pet dove, there did
not appear to be sufficient evidence to
support this allegation.
6
College Connection Summer 2020 cvo.org