BILL NUMBER:S4341

TITLE OF BILL:

An act
to amend the education law, in relation to the practice of veterinary
medicine

PURPOSE:

This bill is designed to bring the NY Veterinary Practice Act into
compliance with most of our neighboring states and those states with
large raring and e~line populations by including animal dentistry
within the scope of practice of veterinary medicine.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 6701 of the education law is amended to include the treatment
of dental conditions as within the definition of the practice of
veterinary medicine.

A new paragraph 14 is added to Section 6705 to "grandfather" persons
engaged in oral adjustment of floating of teeth in horses and who are
not otherwise qualified from the prohibitions contained in this
amendment.

              

JUSTIFICATION:

When the New York veterinary practice act was first enacted, there was
general agreement that the practice of veterinary medicine included
all of the veterinary specialties and for many years the practice
operated under that assumption.

Recently, the State Racing and wagering Board attempted to exclude
unlicensed "veterinary dentists" from racetracks in the state. The
State Education Department's Office of the Professions joined in the
effort to prohibit this unlicensed practice. The decision in State
Supreme Court in the Matter of Chris Brown v. the NYS Racing and
Wagering Board was unfavorable and the state appealed the matter. The
Appellate Division upheld the lower Court on the grounds that the New
York Practice Act, unlike many others, did not include specific
reference to dentistry in its definition of veterinary medicine.

The court noted that the New York statute marks a "departure from
parallel statutes of sister states in our region. We are guided by
the maxim
expression unius est exclusion alterius, that the failure of the
Legislature to include a matter within a particular statute is an
indication that its exclusion was intended." While the State
Education Department urged the Court to accept its view that
dentistry was within the scope of practice of veterinary medicine,
the Court noted that this was a legislative matter for consideration
and modification if it was to occur.

It is important to note that most of the states in this region
including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut,


Maryland and Rhode Island, along with other states with significant
equine industries, including Kentucky, Oklahoma, California, Texas,
Montana, Minnesota, Washington and Ohio include dentistry within the
scope of veterinary practice.

The New York practice Act has not been significantly modified in many
years, during which many of these states' statutes were enacted or
amended. It is therefore appropriate that New York join with similar
states in the treatment of animal dentistry. This is especially
fitting given the efforts of the Racing and wagering Board and State
Education Department to seek continuity in racing standards through
regional and national compacts.

The legislation reflects the fact that there are a small number of
persons who have been floating teeth and providing similar services
to horse owners throughout the state and it protects them by
grandfathering their ability to act in this regard.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

This bill is similar in intent to S.6461/A.9562 of 2010.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This act shall take effect immediately.