Dept of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs v. Bruce P Langlois Dvm
330451
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Respondent Bruce Langlois, D.V.M., operated a full-service clinic and two mobile "Spay Neuter Express" clinics that performed high-volume spay/neuter and other services.
- The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs' Board of Veterinary Medicine Disciplinary Subcommittee revoked Langlois’s veterinary and controlled-substance licenses and fined him $25,000.
- Complaints alleged multiple instances of substandard care, inadequate follow-up arrangements for postoperative patients, and deficient medical/rabies recordkeeping.
- Expert veterinarians Joseph Kline and Suzanne Laskaska testified that Langlois failed to provide required backup care for mobile-clinic patients, abandoned patients by not arranging follow-up, and issued or maintained deficient rabies certificates and other records.
- Langlois argued his records were complete (just uncompiled) and challenged the agency’s findings and the ALJ’s delayed ruling on whether the medical-record retention requirement was three or seven years.
- The ALJ concluded the three-year retention rule applied and found sufficient evidence of inadequate recordkeeping within that period; the Court of Appeals affirmed the disciplinary decision.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency findings are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence | Agency: Expert testimony supports findings of substandard care, inadequate follow-up, and deficient records | Langlois: Evidence insufficient; records were complete and errors are not supported | Affirmed: findings supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence; appellate deference applies |
| Whether providing mobile clinic services without arranged backup care violates standard of care | Agency: Initiating care requires arranging backup; failure equals abandonment and below standard of care | Langlois: Mobile model acceptable; owners were told to seek care elsewhere | Held: Experts established that failing to arrange backup care is abandonment and below standard of care |
| Whether Langlois maintained adequate medical and rabies records | Agency: Records were incomplete/deficient (missing signatures, incorrect vaccine duration) | Langlois: Records existed but were uncompiled; some issues predate retention period | Held: Record deficiencies shown within three-year retention period; unsigned/incorrect rabies certificates violate the standard |
| Whether ALJ abused discretion by delaying ruling on record-retention period | Agency: Delay harmless; ALJ ultimately applied three-year rule and found violations within that window | Langlois: Delay prejudiced him; argued events older than retention should not be penalized | Held: No abuse of discretion; three-year retention applies and violations within that period were proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Community Health v. Risch, 274 Mich. App. 365 (discussing deference to administrative credibility findings and standard of review)
- Dowerk v. Oxford Charter Twp., 233 Mich. App. 62 (defining "substantial evidence")
- Huron Behavioral Health v. Dep’t of Community Health, 293 Mich. App. 491 (courts should defer to agency expertise and factual findings)