Vet holding pet as collateral

[ceara19]

The information about Texas that you have provided, is an OPINION. An OPINION is not a LAW. The document CLEARLY states, no less then 5 times, the it is an OPINION. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand that. Read the entire OPINION and cross reference it with the statute and cases cited. Section 801.357 of the Occupations Code is the only statute cited and it deals with a veterinarians obligations if the animal is ABANDONED.

§ 801.357. RESPONSIBILITY OF VETERINARIAN TOWARD
ABANDONED ANIMALS. (a) A veterinarian may dispose of an animal
that is abandoned in the veterinarian's care if the veterinarian:
(1) gives the client, by certified mail to the client's
last known address, notice of the veterinarian's intention to
dispose of the animal; and
(2) allows the client to retrieve the animal during
the 10 days after the date the veterinarian mails the notice.
(b) A veterinarian may not dispose of an animal under
Subsection (a) if:
(1) a contract between the veterinarian and client
provides otherwise; or
(2) after notice is given under Subsection (a), the
veterinarian and client agree to extend the veterinarian's care of
the animal.
(c) The client's contact of the veterinarian by mail,
telephone, or personal communication does not extend the
veterinarian's obligation to treat, board, or care for an animal
unless the veterinarian and client agree to extend the
veterinarian's care of the animal.
(d) An animal is considered abandoned on the 11th day after
the date the veterinarian mails the notice under Subsection (a)
unless an agreement is made to extend the care for the animal.
(e) Notice given by a veterinarian under Subsection (a) does
not relieve a client of liability to pay for treatment, boarding, or
care provided by the veterinarian.

Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended
by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 971, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

Further more, none of the cases cited involve a veterinarian holding an animal for collateral. All of this is irrelevant anyway because the OPINION was issued on October 3, 2001 and is now not only outdated, it is also not applicable. John Cornyn is no longer the Attorney General and his OPINION on Texas legal matters means nothing.

There is no need for further discussion due to the fact that your theory has once again been proven to be false. If you would like to continue making yourself look like a complete idiot, be my guess!

 

[g-n-c]

no less then 5 times, the it is an OPINION.
.....Further more, none of the cases cited **************.., be my guess!

If you want yourself to have any credibility, at least learn to spell and use the proper words.....it speaks volumes about your intelligence.....or lack thereof.... (than..not then, that..not the, furthermore..not further more, guest..not guess)

Reread that opinion.....it clearly states that UNDER TEXAS LAW......you can't spell, you must not be able to comprehend either. The LAW has not changed. You did not answer my question....why not? Hmmmm? Perhaps because it proves YOU wrong? Go ahead....keep grasping at straws....not going to change a thing.

 

[StarryKnight]

Three little words

Under...Texas...Law

I'm not sure why there's such a big debate on this. The words "UNDER LAW" speak for themselves. It does not say Under Texas Opinion. It does not say Under Texas Rules. It does not say Under Texas Policy that Regulates Veterinarians.

It says UNDER TEXAS LAW.

It is ILLEGAL, UNDER TEXAS LAW, to hold an animal as lien until the vet gets paid. That means it is enforceable, and if a vet in Texas is stupid enough to try to hold a pet for payment, they WILL be held accountable and they WILL be forced to turn the pet back to the owner and seek other recourse for payment -- lawsuit, threat of lawsuit, collection agency, small claims court, etc. If they do not, they will face a legal proceeding. Period.

If a vet does this in Texas, and the owner files a complaint with the state board, the attorney general counsel steps in and if a violation is found, the STATE BOARD takes that case against the vet. It's not just a little friendly reminder -- it becomes a legal proceeding presided over by an administrative law judge.

From there, the owner can certainly hire his/her own attorney and file a civil suit against the vet, but they don't need to. First and foremost would be the LAW at the disposal of the state Board to do something about this stupid vet. If a vet wanted to go ranting about, claiming there is "no law" that prevents him from doing what he's doing, I guarantee you that the state Board would view it otherwise and step in to ENFORCE TEXAS LAW.

The law is the law. To claim that there is no Texas law that says a vet can't keep a pet like a mechanic's lien when it clearly states that UNDER TEXAS LAW you CANNOT DO THAT, is kind of shortsighted and foolish. If a vet came to you for legal advice, and you told him don't worry, there's no law, Doctor! You just go ahead and hold that animal as long as you want! that vet might be in for a very big, very unpleasant surprise when he is notified by the state Board that he has just been filed on by the owner, he CANNOT do what he is doing and that is IS enforceable and they WILL take action to both remand the animal back to the owner AND seek sanctions against the vet, I think at that point, the vet will not be arguing the semantics of the word "law." He will be looking for a new attorney.

 

[g-n-c]

Under...Texas...Law

I'm not sure why there's such a big debate on this. The words "UNDER LAW" speak for themselves. It does not say Under Texas Opinion. It does not say Under Texas Rules. It does not say Under Texas Policy that Regulates Veterinarians.

It says UNDER TEXAS LAW.

It is ILLEGAL, UNDER TEXAS LAW, to hold an animal as lien until the vet gets paid. That means it is enforceable, and if a vet in Texas is stupid enough to try to hold a pet for payment, they WILL be held accountable and they WILL be forced to turn the pet back to the owner and seek other recourse for payment -- lawsuit, threat of lawsuit, collection agency, small claims court, etc. If they do not, they will face a legal proceeding. Period.

If a vet does this in Texas, and the owner files a complaint with the state board, the attorney general counsel steps in and if a violation is found, the STATE BOARD takes that case against the vet. It's not just a little friendly reminder -- it becomes a legal proceeding presided over by an administrative law judge.

From there, the owner can certainly hire his/her own attorney and file a civil suit against the vet, but they don't need to. First and foremost would be the LAW at the disposal of the state Board to do something about this stupid vet. If a vet wanted to go ranting about, claiming there is "no law" that prevents him from doing what he's doing, I guarantee you that the state Board would view it otherwise and step in to ENFORCE TEXAS LAW.

The law is the law. To claim that there is no Texas law that says a vet can't keep a pet like a mechanic's lien when it clearly states that UNDER TEXAS LAW you CANNOT DO THAT, is kind of shortsighted and foolish. If a vet came to you for legal advice, and you told him don't worry, there's no law, Doctor! You just go ahead and hold that animal as long as you want! that vet might be in for a very big, very unpleasant surprise when he is notified by the state Board that he has just been filed on by the owner, he CANNOT do what he is doing and that is IS enforceable and they WILL take action to both remand the animal back to the owner AND seek sanctions against the vet, I think at that point, the vet will not be arguing the semantics of the word "law." He will be looking for a new attorney.

I couldn't have said it better myself.....THANK YOU, StarryKnight!