Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 638 - Veterinarians
Nevada Administrative Code – Chapter 638 (Veterinarians)
Overview
NAC Chapter 638 regulates:
Licensing of veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and euthanasia technicians
Professional conduct standards and ethics
Disciplinary procedures for violations
Supervision and recordkeeping requirements
The rules are enforced by the Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners under statutory authority. The goal is to protect animal welfare and ensure professional competency.
Key Regulatory Provisions
1. Standards of Professional Conduct
Veterinarians must follow ethical rules and recognized standards of care.
Violations may include negligence, incompetence, fraud, or cruelty to animals.
2. Recordkeeping and Supervision
Veterinarians must keep accurate medical records for a minimum of four years.
Supervising veterinarians are responsible for the actions of technicians and assistants.
3. Disciplinary Procedures
Complaints are investigated by the Board.
Hearings are held to determine whether violations occurred.
Decisions may include license suspension, revocation, probation, fines, or corrective actions.
4. Grounds for Discipline
Common grounds include:
Gross negligence or incompetence
Violation of ethical standards
Allowing unlicensed practice
Unsafe or inhumane treatment of animals
Fraud, misrepresentation, or falsifying records
Key Cases Illustrating NAC Chapter 638
Case 1 – Gilman v. Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
Facts:
Dr. Gilman treated a dog that died after surgery. A complaint alleged negligence, incompetence, and unlicensed personnel performing tasks.
Board Action:
License suspended for 60 days, placed on three years’ probation, and costs were assessed.
Appeal:
Dr. Gilman challenged whether there was enough evidence and alleged due process violations.
Outcome:
Court upheld the Board’s decision based on substantial evidence, but remanded part of the cost assessment for review.
Principles:
Boards can discipline based on evidence of incompetence or ethical violations.
Courts defer to the Board’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence.
Case 2 – Adams (Consent Agreement and Probation)
Facts:
Dr. Adams provided substandard care to a cat and had poor medical recordkeeping.
Board Action:
License placed on probation for two years with conditions:
Random inspections
Limited ability to perform surgery
Mandatory additional training
Principle:
Consent agreements allow probation with specific conditions to protect animals while giving licensees a chance to improve.
Case 3 – Failure to Supervise Unlicensed Personnel
Facts:
A veterinarian allowed a technician to perform tasks restricted to licensed personnel.
Board Action:
License disciplined due to failure to supervise, in violation of NAC supervision rules.
Principle:
Veterinarians are responsible for ensuring unlicensed staff do not perform restricted tasks.
Supervision violations are a common source of disciplinary action.
Case 4 – Emergency Suspension for Immediate Threat
Facts:
A veterinarian’s practices posed an immediate threat to animal health.
Board Action:
License immediately suspended pending a formal hearing.
Principle:
NAC allows summary suspension to protect animals in urgent situations.
Formal hearings follow to ensure due process.
Case 5 – Disciplinary Action Without Criminal Conviction
Facts:
A veterinarian engaged in misconduct that did not involve a criminal act, such as poor standards of care and ethical violations.
Board Action:
License suspended based on violations of ethical and professional standards.
Principle:
Criminal conviction is not required for disciplinary action.
Boards can act based on professional standards and animal welfare concerns.
Case 6 – Judicial Review of Board Decisions
Facts:
A licensee challenged a disciplinary action in court, alleging the Board’s decision was unfair.
Outcome:
Court reviewed using the substantial evidence standard.
Board’s decision upheld if facts and findings were supported by evidence.
Principles:
Courts defer to the Board on factual determinations.
Due process must be observed, but factual judgment is primarily the Board’s responsibility.
Key Takeaways
| Topic | Rule / Principle |
|---|---|
| Grounds for Discipline | Negligence, incompetence, ethical violations, unlicensed practice |
| Probation / Consent Orders | Board can impose conditions such as inspections, limits on duties, or mandatory training |
| Supervision Requirements | Licensees are responsible for actions of technicians and assistants |
| Emergency Suspension | Immediate suspension possible if animals are at risk |
| Judicial Review | Courts use substantial evidence standard; defer to Board findings unless arbitrary or unsupported |
RELATED Blog
comments