BILL NUMBER:S2742

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 racing and equine 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 amend-
ment.

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 unli-
censed "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 Chris Brown v. NYS Racing and Wagering Bd. 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 veteri-
nary medicine.

The court noted that the New York statute marks a "departure from Paral-
lel statutes of sister states in our region. We are guided by the maxim
expression unius est exclusion alterius, that the failure of the Legis-
lature 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 includ-
ing: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and
Rhode Island, along with other states with significant equine indus-
tries, including: Kentucky, Oklahoma, California, Texas, Montana, Minne-

sota, Washington and Ohio include dentistry within the scope of veteri-
nary 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:  2011,2012: S.4341/A.6480 Referred to Higher
Education

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

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:  None.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This act shall take effect immediately.

                                BILL NUMBER:S2742A

TITLE  OF BILL:  An act to amend the education law, in relation to the
practice of veterinary medicine

PURPOSE:   This bill is designed to  both  reduce  the  potential  for
animal cruelty by prohibiting untrained persons from performing dental
surgery  on  animals  and to bring the NY Veterinary Practice Act into
compliance with most of our neighboring states and those  states  with
large  racing  and  equine  populations  by including animal dentistry
within the scope  of  practice  of  veterinary  medicine.  The  manual
floating  of teeth is specifically excluded from 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 other than the manual floating of equine teeth as
within the definition of the practice of veterinary medicine.

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  Chris  Brown  v.  NYS  Racing and Wagering Bd. was
unfavorable and the state appealed the matter. The Appellate  Division
upheld  the  lower  Court's  decision 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.

Currently,  there  is  the potential for pain, discomfort, and in some
cases cruelty,  to  animals  treated  by  minimally  trained  or  even
untrained  "lay  animal  dentists"  along with evidence of the illegal
dispensing  of  controlled  substance  pain  killers  by  them.   This
legislation  will  free horses from this threat while also recognizing


the longstanding services provided by those who have manually  floated
equine teeth for many years.

This  legislation  would  in no way hinder those dentists who manually
float equine teeth,  who  may  continue  their  practice  of  manually
floating teeth free of regulation.

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  by  making  clear  that
animal  dentistry  is  within  the  scope  of  practice  of veterinary
medicine. 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.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY:    2011,2012:  S.4341/A.6480  Referred  to
Higher  Education  This  bill is similar in intent to S.6461/A.9562 of
2010.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:  None.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This act shall take effect immediately.