BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 316
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Susan Bonilla, Chair
AB 316
(Maienschein) - As Amended March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Veterinarians.
SUMMARY: Permits a veterinarian licensed in another state to be
called to California by law enforcement, animal control, or a
humane officer, to attend to cases of animal cruelty or animal
fighting as requested, and permits the establishment of
temporary shelters for the purpose of assisting in the
investigation.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) within the
Department of Consumer Affairs for the purpose of
administering the Veterinary Practice Act (Act). (Business
and Professions Code (BPC) Section 4800 et seq.)
2)States that it is unlawful for any person to practice
veterinary medicine in California without a valid, unexpired
or unrevoked license, as specified. (BPC Section 4825)
3)Specifies that the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or
AB 316
Page 2
dentistry occurs when an individual does any of the following:
(BPC Section 4826)
a) Represents himself or herself as engaged in the practice
of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry;
b) Diagnoses or prescribes a drug, medicine, appliance,
application or treatment for the prevention, cure, or
relief of a wound, fracture, bodily injury, or disease of
animals;
c) Administers a drug, medicine or treatment, as specified;
d) Performs a surgical or dental operation upon an animal;
e) Performs any manual procedure for the diagnosis of
pregnancy; sterility or infertility upon livestock or
Equidae; or,
f) Uses any words, letters or titles circumstances as to
induce the belief that the person using them is engaged in
the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry.
4)Requires all veterinarians, actually engaged and employed by
the state, or a county, city, corporation, firm or individual
practicing veterinary medicine, to secure a license issued by
the VMB. (BPC Section 4828)
5)Exempts the following from the provisions of the Act: (BPC
Section 4830)
AB 316
Page 3
a) Veterinarians while serving in any armed branch of the
military service of the United States or the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) while actually engaged and
employed in their official capacity;
b) Regularly licensed veterinarians in actual consultation
from other states;
c) Regularly licensed veterinarians actually called from
other states to attend cases in this state, but do not open
an office or appoint a place to do business;
d) Veterinarians employed by the University of California,
as specified;
e) Students in the school of veterinary medicine of the
University of California or the College of Western
University of Health Sciences, as specified;
f) A veterinarian who is employed by the Meat and Poultry
Inspection Branch of the California Department of Food and
Agriculture (CDFA) while actually engaged and employed in
his or her official capacity; or,
g) Unlicensed personnel employed by the CDFA or the USDA,
as specified.
THIS BILL:
AB 316
Page 4
1)Exempts, from licensure requirements, a regularly licensed
veterinarian who is called from another state by a law
enforcement agency, animal control department, as specified,
or a humane officer to attend to cases that are a part of an
investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state
animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single
geographic location when the law enforcement agency, animal
control department, or humane officer determines that it is
necessary to call the veterinarian in order for the agency or
officer to conduct the investigation in a timely manner.
2)Provides that when determining whether it is necessary to call
a veterinarian from another state, consideration must be given
to the availability of veterinarians in California to attend
to these cases.
3)Requires the agency, department or officer that calls a
veterinarian to this state to notify the VMB.
4)Permits a regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from
another state to attend to cases that are a part of
investigation, described in 1) above, to provide veterinary
medical care for animals that are affected by the
investigation within a temporary shelter facility, as
specified.
5)Exempts a temporary shelter or facility from premise
requirements if all of the following conditions are met:
a) The temporary shelter facility is established solely for
the purpose of investigation;
b) The temporary shelter facility provides veterinary
AB 316
Page 5
medical care, shelter, food and water only to animals that
are affected by the investigation;
c) The temporary shelter complies with specified sanitary
requirements;
d) A notice is posted in a conspicuous location near the
temporary shelter facility to indicate that the facility is
in use for the veterinary medical care of animals affected
by an investigation into alleged violations of federal or
state laws; and,
e) The temporary shelter exists for not more than 60 days,
unless the law enforcement agency, animal control agency,
or humane officer determines a longer period of time is
necessary to complete the investigation.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). According to the
author, "Large scale animal cruelty cases like animal fighting
busts, hoarding arrests and puppy mill raids can quickly overwhelm
a local government's resources. These cases are hard to predict
and can occur in a diverse range of locations, making planning and
budgeting very difficult. The average cruelty case lasts about
45-50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of
$28 per animal per day. At 45 days, the average cost of caring
for these animals is nearly $600,000."
AB 316
Page 6
"Additionally, these cases can also overwhelm the local veterinary
resources. Local veterinarians play a key role in assisting with
the care of seized animals, but local veterinarians typically have
paying jobs or practices that they must return to. This limits
the amount of time they can commit to cases like these. The
combination of huge costs of care for seized animals and the
potential to deplete local veterinary resources can be a huge
deterrent for agencies wishing to investigate a case of large
scale animal cruelty in their community."
2)Background. Under current law, there are a limited number of
persons who are exempt from California's veterinary licensure
requirements when practicing veterinary services in
California. Exempt individuals include persons such as
veterinarians providing services in the military, licensed
veterinarians who have been called in from out of state to
assist with certain cases, veterinarians or persons employed
at the University of California for teaching purposes or other
education research and persons employed by federal and state
agencies such as the USDA and the CDFA. Without one of these
specific exemptions, any other person practicing veterinary
medicine in California is required to have a California-issued
veterinary license.
This bill seeks to add veterinarians licensed in another state
who are called to California to assist in the event of a
large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case to be
exempt from California's licensure requirement. Only law
enforcement, an animal control department or a humane officer
would be permitted to call a veterinarian into California for
these purposes. In addition, this bill would permit the
veterinarian licensed outside of California to treat animals
in a temporary shelter, as long as the shelter has only been
established as a part of the investigation and abides by
specific requirements.
AB 316
Page 7
Consultants from Out-of-State. The exemption under BPC
Section 4830(a)(3) governing out-of-state veterinarians acting
as consultants in California was designed to provide
California-licensed veterinarians with the flexibility to
utilize the experience of an out-of-state veterinarian with a
particular skill. According to the VMB, the intent of the
authorization to allow veterinarians from outside of
California was to enhance the practice of veterinary medicine
while limiting unlicensed practice. Veterinarians who are
called into California are not permitted to establish a
practice in state or practice on animals outside of the
consultation request without obtaining the appropriate license
to practice in California. This bill would specifically
exempt from California licensure requirements veterinarians
called in by a law enforcement agency, an animal control
department, or a humane officer in the event of a large-scale
animal cruelty or animal fighting case. However, this bill
would require those entities to consider the availability of a
local veterinarian when determining when outside assistance is
warranted. In addition, if those entities called-in a
veterinarian from another state, they would be required to
notify the VMB.
Animal Cruelty Cases. Animal cruelty cases can take a variety
of shapes and forms, from small, one-animal incidents, such as
a recent case in Sacramento, where a man was accused of
burning an animal alive in an animal carrier, to large-scale
dog fighting raids or hoarding incidents that involve a large
number of animals. The 2007 arrest and subsequent prosecution
of Michael Vick, for his role in a large-scale dog fighting
ring, highlighted issues of cruelty but also raised the issues
about the resources needed to care for and treat animals when
such events occur.
Animal fighting is currently illegal in all 50 states.
Specifically dogfighting is a felony offense in all 50 states,
and it is also a felony offense under federal law. Other cases
AB 316
Page 8
of animal cruelty or animal hoarding occur closer to home. In
February 2015, it was reported that 191 dogs were found
abandoned on a property in San Bernardino County. Most
likely, the case required a significant amount of local
resources to care for animals and properly investigate the
situation. In the San Bernardino case, the animals were taken
to a local shelter for care.
According to the sponsor, large-scale animal cruelty cases can
overwhelm the resources of the local authorities responding to
these cases. The resource challenges are not strictly
monetary but also become resource challenges related to caring
for the large number of animals that most likely have health
concerns and other issues. The sponsors note that local
veterinarians typically provide services in these types of
cases, but, at times, additional resources may be necessary.
According to the ASPCA, the average cruelty case lasts about
45-50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost
of caring for the animals close to $600,000. The sponsor
notes that the large cost and potential lack of resources
could be a deterrent in prosecuting such cases.
According to the sponsor, animal welfare organizations like
the ASPCA, among others, have response teams in place,
including veterinarians, to assist local agencies in cruelty
cases or emergency disaster situations in other states, but
often, the veterinarians are only licensed in their home
state. This bill would provide a specific exemption to allow
those veterinarians to be called to California in the event of
a large-scale cruelty case to practice in California without a
California-issued license.
According to the Humane Society of the United States, because
there is no national reporting requirement for animal abuse,
there is no way to track the number of animal cruelty cases
that are filed or that make it to court each year. Although
AB 316
Page 9
the total number of cruelty cases is difficult to assess, in
2013-2014, there were more than 13 seizure cases that the
sponsor of this bill was involved in assisting with across the
nation.
Calling in Veterinarians. In the event of an animal cruelty
or abuse case, the entities responsible for handling these
cases are local law enforcement, animal control directors and
other local resources. These entities typically work together
to determine the appropriate steps and process for dealing
with animal cruelty or abuse cases. This bill proposes that
only law enforcement, a humane officer or an animal control
department would be permitted to call in veterinary assistance
from out of state to assist with a cruelty or animal fighting
case investigation.
Temporary Shelters. Under current law, BPC Section 4853
requires all premises where veterinary medicine is being
practiced to obtain a premises permit from the VMB. There are
currently over 3,000 licensed premises in California. In
order to obtain the premises permit, applicants must submit an
application which needs to include the type of practice, the
number of employees, the business model, and business owner
information, along with a $200 registration fee. The VMB
reports that the application process for a premises permit
takes between three and four weeks. This bill will exempt
temporary animal care shelter facilities from premises
requirements as long as the shelter provides veterinary
medical care, shelter, food and water only to the animals
affected by the investigation, the temporary shelter complies
with sanitary requirements, a notice is posted about the
purpose and use of the shelter and the temporary shelter does
not exist for longer than 60 days unless law enforcement,
animal control or a humane officer determines a longer period
is necessary.
AB 316
Page 10
The sponsor notes that animal cruelty cases such as animal
abandonment issues or puppy mill raids can happen rather
quickly which makes planning and budgeting difficult. This
bill aims to assist local authorities with options for
veterinary care and assistance in the event of a large-scale
animal cruelty or animal fighting case by allowing law
enforcement, a humane officer or an animal control department
to call a veterinarian licensed in another state for
assistance with veterinary animal care as part of an
investigation.
3)Current Related Legislation. AB 317 (Maienschein) of the
current legislative session, exempts an organization that
establishes a temporary shelter facility for the purpose of
providing veterinary medical care, shelter and food and water
during a state emergency by a veterinarian licensed in another
state, from a premise registration permit if certain
conditions are met including: providing notice about the use
of the temporary shelter; complying with sanitary standards
and ceasing operation within 60 days of establishment.
STATUS: This bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on
Business and Professions.
4)Prior Related Legislation. AB 2915 (Saldana), Chapter 823,
Statutes of 2006, exempted from state veterinary licensure
requirements veterinarians employed by a local government that
met specified conditions, and provided that the exemption
sunset on January 1, 2011.
SB 1263 (Soto), Chapter 131, Statutes of 2002, exempted
faculty and students of the College of Veterinary Medicine at
Western University of Health Sciences from the laws regulating
the practice of veterinary medicine, and exempt veterinary
medical students at the College of Veterinary Medicine at
Western University of Health Science from having to take the
VMB's law and regulations examination if the student completes
AB 316
Page 11
certain coursework.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The sponsor, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals writes in support, "[This bill] authorizes law
enforcement agencies, animal control agencies and SPCA's who
request veterinarians licensed in another state to assist them
with animal cruelty cases under the existing exemption in [BPC
Section 4830(a)(3)] to establish a temporary facility to house
animals rescued as a result of the case. Large scale animal
cruelty cases like animal fighting busts, hoarding arrests, and
puppy mill raids can quickly overwhelm a local government's
resources. These care are hard to predict and can occur in a
diverse range of location, making planning and budgeting very
difficult."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
None on file.
POLICY ISSUES:
As currently drafted, this bill requires the agency responsible
for calling a veterinarian to California, for the purpose of
assisting with a large-scale cruelty or abuse case, to report to
the VMB that they have called in a veterinarian from another
state to assist with veterinary care or services as a result of
the investigation. In the event of such a case, local resources
may be so consumed with the case they are unable to report the
event to the VMB. The author may wish to require the
organization or veterinarian that has been called to California
to also notify the VMB to ensure that the information is relayed
AB 316
Page 12
to the appropriate regulatory authority.
AMENDMENTS:
In order to make it clear that the veterinarian practicing from
another state has an active license which has not been
disciplined, the author should include the requirement that the
veterinary license be in good standing and not be subject to
disciplinary actions in another state.
On page 3, line 25, after "veterinarian" insert: in good
standing
On page 4, line 4, after "veterinarian" insert: in good standing
REGISTERED SUPPORT:
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(sponsor)
Contra Costa Humane Society
RedRover
Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation
AB 316
Page 13
REGISTERED OPPOSITION:
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Elissa Silva / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301