In the Matter of R. Eric Bloomfield, DVM
166 N.H. 475
| N.H. | 2014Background
- In 2007, Toby, a five-month-old male Shih Tzu, died the same day after Bloomfield restrained him on an examination table during a routine vaccination visit and demonstrated a dominance-submission technique.
- Toby urinated and defecated during the demonstration, and the dog ultimately bled from his mouth; necropsy found non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema as the cause of death.
- Owners had brought Toby for vaccines/de-worming and reported no behavioral concerns; Bloomfield asked if there were dominance issues and proceeded with the demonstration despite no expressed concerns.
- The Board of Veterinary Medicine found Bloomfield failed to conduct a physical examination before the demonstration, and that the restraint was excessive and out of line with the owners’ wishes, constituting unprofessional conduct.
- The Board decided Bloomfield did not commit misconduct under RSA 332-B:14, II(d) (fitness) or causation of Toby’s death, but reprimanded him for unprofessional conduct under RSA 332-B:14, II(c).
- Bloomfield sought reconsideration arguing lack of regulatory definitions for unprofessional conduct and insufficient evidence of standard of care; the Board denied the motion and Bloomfield appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive restraint and lack of exam for unprofessional conduct | Bloomfield | Bloomfield | Evidence supports excessive restraint and no exam prior to demonstration |
| Vagueness of RSA 332-B:14, II(c) under due process | Bloomfield | Board | Not unconstitutionally vague; notice adequate as applied |
| Need for expert testimony to establish standard of care | Bloomfield | Board | Board may determine unprofessional conduct without expert testimony |
| Adequacy of notice referencing AVMA ethics rules | Bloomfield | Board | Notice adequate; references to Vet Vet 501.01-02 given sufficient basis |
| Regulatory basis for unprofessional conduct and notice thereof | Bloomfield | Board | Board properly relied on Vet 501.01-02 and AVMA Ethics for defining unprofessional conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of Huston, 150 N.H. 410 (2003) (board findings reviewed for support by competent evidence; defer to board credibility)
- Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226 (2013) (board may determine unprofessional conduct without expert testimony)
- Smith v. New Hampshire Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 138 N.H. 548 (1994) (unprofessional conduct language not requiring exhaustive regulations)
- Appeal of Boulard, 165 N.H. 300 (2013) (administrative boards may determine standard of care using expertise without expert testimony)
- Campbell v. Board of Medical Examiners, 518 P.2d 1042 (1974) (notice adequate when it details conduct; references to applicable provisions)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires adequate notice to defend)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process flexibility in administrative proceedings)
- Webb v. State ex rel. Arizona Bd., 48 P.3d 505 (2002) (board may establish standard of care by experience and expertise)
- Perez v. Hoblock, 368 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2004) (regulations may be broad yet provide fair warning)
- Rock of Ages Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 170 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 1999) (regulations need not be meticulously specific)