Court Opinion

ID: 9758271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:18:38.665453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:48.807837
License: Public Domain

Terry Crabtree, Judge, concurring. I am in full agreement with the decision to affirm this case. I write separately to express but one concern. I am disturbed that the Medical Malpractice Act applies to veterinarians. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-201(2) (Repl. 2006). Although I have a duty to apply the law as written, and have done so in this case, I sincerely question the propriety of applying the Act to veterinarians. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to apply the same restrictions of the Act to veterinarians because the dynamics of a lawsuit for an injured pet are not as devastating as that of a patient under the Act. Further, notice of an injury to an animal may not manifest itself in the short time required by the Act. In my view, it is mixing apples with oranges.