BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1548
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
SB 1548 (Figueroa) - As Amended: July 28, 2004
Policy Committee: Business and
Professions Vote: 12-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill extends the sunset date of the Veterinary Medical
Board (VMB) until July 1, 2009, requires liability insurers
providing coverage to veterinarians to report settlement or
arbitration awards of over $10,000, requires veterinarians to
report animal abuse or cruelty, and makes it a misdemeanor to
crop the ear of a dog, except for the treatment of injury or
disease. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires every insurer providing liability insurance to a
veterinarian to send a complete report to the VMB of any
settlement or arbitration award over $10,000 of a claim or
action for damages for death or injury caused by that person's
negligence, error, or omission. Requires the report to be
sent within 30 days after the written settlement agreement has
been signed by all parties, or within 30 days after service of
the arbitration award on the parties.
2)Requires a veterinarian who has reasonable cause to believe an
animal under his/her care has been a victim of animal abuse or
cruelty to promptly report it to the appropriate law
enforcement authorities of the city or county in which it
occurred. Prohibits a veterinarian from incurring civil
liability as a result of making any report.
3)Makes it a misdemeanor for any person to crop the ears of any
dog, or to procure the cropping of a dog's ears within the
state of California, except for the treatment of disease or
injury of the dog. Defines ear cropping as the surgical
alteration of the pinna that is performed for the purpose of
manipulating the ears of any dog for cosmetic reasons so that
SB 1548
Page 2
the ears heal pointed. Defines disease or injury as a
condition that impairs normal physiological functioning and
does not include prevention of ear infections.
FISCAL EFFECT :
1)No significant fiscal impact to the VMB.
2)Unknown, likely minor, nonreimbursable local incarceration
costs, offset to a degree by fine revenue.
3)Indeterminate sales tax revenue loss, to the extent this bill
results in fewer dog owners showing their animals at dog shows
in California. If 10% fewer dogs are shown in California,
there is a potential state and local sales tax revenue loss of
as much as $1.7 million.
SUMMARY CONTINUED
1)Increases the maximum filing fee for an application for
examination of a registered veterinary technician from up to
$100 to an amount the VMB determines is reasonably necessary -
up to $200 - to provide sufficient funds to carry out the
purposes of existing law.
2)Requires the fee for the California registered veterinary
technician examination to be set by the VMB in an amount - up
to $300 - it determines is reasonably necessary to provide
sufficient funds to carry out the purposes of existing law.
3)Increases the maximum civil citation the VMB is authorized to
levy under existing law from $2,000 to $5,000. Requires
regulations adopted by the VMB regarding the assessment of
civil penalties to follow the procedures and systems for
citations and fines in existing law.
4)Extends the sunset date of the VMB and its authority to
appoint an executive officer from July 1, 2005 to July 1,
2009.
5)Requires the Registered Veterinary Technician Committee (RVTC)
to advise the VMB in the examination of applicants for a
veterinary technician registration and in the inspection and
approval of schools or institutions offering curriculum for
SB 1548
Page 3
training registered veterinary technicians.
6)Authorizes the VMB to extend the expiration date of a
temporary license issued to an applicant to practice
veterinary medicine under the supervision of a licensed
veterinarian for up to one year for reasons of health,
military service or undue hardship. Requires an application
for an extension to be submitted on a VMB-approved form.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose . This bill is a sunset review bill authored by the
chair of the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (JLSRC)
to implement legislative changes recommended by JLSRC for
several licensing boards reviewed by JLSRC in 2003-04.
2)Support . The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA)
supports the continuation of the VMB and the additional
recommendations that strengthen the duties, tasks, and
oversight of the VMB.
3)Ear Cropping Prohibition . Ear cropping is typically performed
to make a dog's ears stand upright, and is performed on
approximately 16 breeds, such as Boxers, Doberman Pinschers,
Boston Terriers, and Bouvier des Flandres. No state currently
bans cosmetic ear cropping but over a dozen countries
currently ban the procedure.
Generally, proponents of the ban argue that ear cropping is
cruel, causes the animal pain, and carries risks such as
infection and blood loss. Opponents argue that ear cropping
is a personal decision for dog owners, and that it is a safe
procedure when performed with knowledge and experience.
Additionally, opponents argue the ear-cropping prohibition
will adversely affect dog shows, and that the ear-cropping
provision is inappropriate for a bill reauthorizing the
Veterinary Medical Board.
The American Kennel Association (AKC) has 1,382 events in
California with an average of 2,000 dogs at each event. AKC
has a rule that makes any dog whose ears have been cropped or
cut in any way ineligible to compete at any show in any state
where the laws prohibit cropping or cutting the ears. AKC
indicates that if a particular law is adopted that affects AKC
events, the AKC Board of Directors would have to evaluate the
SB 1548
Page 4
situation and make a decision at that time.
Analysis Prepared by : Scott Bain / APPR. / (916) 319-2081