People v. Langlois
Decision Date | 12 July 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 340477,340477 |
Citation | 924 N.W.2d 904,325 Mich.App. 236 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce Phillip LANGLOIS, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Laura Moody, Chief Legal Counsel, and Robert M. Hayes, Assistant Attorney General, for the people.
Chapman Law Group (by Robert J. Andretz ) for defendant.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Boonstra, JJ.
In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution appeals by delayed leave granted1 the trial court’s order denying the prosecution’s motion in limine to preclude defendant from presenting a delegation defense to the jury. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Because this appeal presents a question of law that hinges on statutory interpretation, we will only briefly discuss the factual background of this case. It is undisputed that defendant is a formerly licensed veterinarian whose license to practice veterinary medicine in Michigan was revoked in November 2015.2 In 2016, the Michigan Bureau of Professional Licensing received complaints that defendant had performed "spay and neuter" surgeries without a valid license. An investigation revealed that defendant owned a business called "Spay Neuter Express." Dr. Duane Fitzgerald, a licensed veterinarian, worked for Spay Neuter Express as an independent contractor and was designated as its attending veterinarian. Dr. Fitzgerald described the business as "an ambulatory service that serves remote areas or rural areas for spaying and neutering people’s pets ... set up in a mobile home that has been converted to a surgical facility."
Defendant was charged with three counts of the unauthorized practice of a health profession, MCL 333.16294, related to performing veterinary surgery in December 2016 while his license to practice veterinary medicine was revoked. During defendant’s preliminary examination, Dr. Fitzgerald testified that on December 16, 2016, defendant performed many of the surgeries that had been scheduled for that day and that he and defendant performed their respective surgeries in the same general area. Dr. Fitzgerald stated that he did not oversee defendant; he agreed that he did nothing to ensure that defendant was performing the procedures properly and that he did not check to see how many procedures defendant had completed. He also believed the animals on which defendant operated were defendant’s patients, not his. Dr. Fitzgerald was aware that defendant’s veterinary license had been suspended or revoked. He characterized defendant as a competent surgeon who possessed the knowledge and skills to perform veterinary surgery.
After defendant was bound over to the circuit court, he moved to quash the information on the ground that Dr. Fitzgerald, a licensed veterinarian, had properly delegated to defendant the surgical tasks that he performed. In response, the prosecution asserted that a delegation defense was unavailable as a matter of law and moved to preclude defendant from presenting such a defense to the jury. After an evidentiary hearing, at which Dr. Fitzgerald testified consistently with his preliminary examination testimony, the trial court denied the prosecution’s motion, stating that there was not "anything within the statutes or rules that say, ‘You cannot perform a surgery’ " and that it was "a question for the jury."3
This appeal followed. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion for a stay of proceedings pending the resolution of this appeal.
We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine. Bartlett v. Sinai Hosp. of Detroit , 149 Mich. App. 412, 418, 385 N.W.2d 801 (1986). However, we review de novo as a question of law matters of statutory interpretation. People v. Thomas , 263 Mich. App. 70, 73, 687 N.W.2d 598 (2004). Further, when "delegation of authority ... [is] a legal nullity, the question of whether [the] defendant’s actions constitute illegal conduct is one of law to be decided by the trial court." People v Ham-Ying , 142 Mich. App. 831, 836, 371 N.W.2d 874 (1985). A trial court abuses its direction when it makes an error of law or operates within an incorrect legal framework. People v. Everett , 318 Mich. App. 511, 516, 899 N.W.2d 94 (2017).
The prosecution argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold as a matter of law that defendant may not present the defense of delegation in this case. Given the specific acts alleged in this case, the undisputed expert testimony, and the language of the relevant statutes, we agree.
"The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Thomas , 263 Mich. App. at 73, 687 N.W.2d 598 (quotation marks and citation omitted). In order to discern legislative intent, this Court first looks to the language of the statute. People v. Borchard-Ruhland , 460 Mich. 278, 284, 597 N.W.2d 1 (1999). "When construing a statute, the court must presume that every word has some meaning and should avoid any construction that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory," and "[i]f possible, effect should be given to each provision."
Id . at 285, 597 N.W.2d 1. "This Court must look to the purpose of the statute ... [and] the harm it is designed to remedy, and apply a reasonable construction that accomplishes the statute’s purpose." People v. Stone Transp., Inc ., 241 Mich. App. 49, 51, 613 N.W.2d 737 (2000).
Veterinary medicine is an occupation that falls within the purview of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.1101 et seq . A veterinarian is "an individual licensed ... to engage in the practice of veterinary medicine." MCL 333.18805(3). Persons who are not licensed "or otherwise authorized" are prohibited from practicing veterinary medicine. MCL 333.18811(1). MCL 333.18805(2) provides:
, or injury in or to an animal.
(c) Diagnosing or prognosing, or both, a disease, deformity, or defect in an animal by a test, procedure, manipulation, technique, autopsy, biopsy, or other examination.
Under the Public Health Code, the unauthorized practice of a health profession, including veterinary medicine, is a felony:
Except as provided in [ MCL 333.16215 ], an individual who practices or holds himself or herself out as practicing a health profession regulated by this article without a license or registration or under a suspended, revoked, lapsed, void, or fraudulently obtained license or registration, or outside the provisions of a limited license or registration, or who uses as his or her own the license or registration of another person, is guilty of a felony. [ MCL 333.16294.]
MCL 333.16215 provides certain exceptions to the statute criminalizing unlicensed practice, stating in relevant part:
Defendant argued in the trial court, and argues on appeal, that there is no specific statute or administrative rule prohibiting the delegation of veterinary tasks (including surgery) to an individual whose license has been suspended, noting that the Board of Veterinary Medicine has promulgated a rule regarding delegation that does not preclude the delegation of tasks to unlicensed individuals. See Mich. Admin. Code, R 338.4911. Defendant’s argument ignores the fact that MCL 333.16215(1) prohibits a licensee from delegating an act, task, or function that, "under standards of acceptable and prevailing practice, requires the level of education, skill, and judgment required of [a] licensee...." At the motion hearing, unrebutted expert testimony by Dr. Dwight McNally, a licensed veterinarian who sits on the State Veterinary Board and was qualified as an expert in veterinary medicine, established that the "acceptable and prevailing practice" for veterinary medicine does not allow for the delegation of surgery to an individual who is not licensed at the time. Moreover, because defendant’s license was revoked for providing substandard care to animals upon which he performed spay and neuter procedures,5 a determination has been made that defendant does not meet the requirements of a licensee regarding "the level of education, skill, and judgment" required, not only to practice veterinary medicine in general, but to perform the specific task that forms the basis of the charges against him.
Our conclusion is supported by the fact that veterinary technicians, who are defined as persons who have obtained licensure as a veterinary technician, MCL 333.18811(2), and who "practice ... veterinary medicine based on less comprehensive knowledge and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Xun Wang
...of the offense for which the prosecutor has the burden of proof, see People v. Rios , 386 Mich. 172 (1971) ; but see People v. Langlois , 325 Mich. App. 236 (2018) ;[7 ] (2) if the statutory exception is an element of the offense, whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the evide......
-
People v. Glisson
...at 212. "A trial court abuses its direction when it makes an error of law or operates within an incorrect legal framework." Langlois, 325 Mich.App. at 240. is essential that prosecutors and defendants be able to give the jury an intelligible presentation of the full context in which dispute......
-
People v. Robinson
... ... tether, on the date in question. We agree but conclude that ... the error was harmless ... A trial ... court's decision on a motion in limine is reviewed for an ... abuse of discretion. People v Langlois , 325 ... Mich.App. 236, 240; 924 N.W.2d 904 (2018) ... Evidence ... is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the ... existence of any fact that is of consequence to the ... determination of the action more probable or less probable ... than ... ...
-
People v. Welch
... ... that the snowy conditions and/or Goemaere's driving ... caused the collision that resulted in the victim's ... injuries. We disagree ... A trial ... court's decision on a motion in limine is reviewed for an ... abuse of discretion. People v Langlois , 325 ... Mich.App. 236, 240; 924 N.W.2d 904 (2018). "An abuse of ... discretion occurs when the decision results in an outcome ... falling outside the range of principled outcomes." ... Barnett v Hidalgo , 478 Mich. 151, 158; 732 ... N.W.2d 472 (2007). We review de ... ...