Robb v. Conn. Bd. of Veterinary Med.

• Decision Date: 18 May 2021
• Docket Number: AC 41912
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: JOHN M. ROBB v. CONNECTICUT BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE ET AL.

JOHN M. ROBB
v.
CONNECTICUT BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE ET AL.

AC 41912

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Argued June 29, 2020
May 18, 2021

Lavine, Prescott and Moll, Js.^*

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant state board of veterinary medicine disciplining him on a finding that he was negligent pursuant to statute (§ 20-202 (2)). The plaintiff had been administering less than the prescribed dose of rabies vaccine to dogs under a certain weight in contravention of the applicable statute (§ 22-359b) and regulation (§ 22-359-1). The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, concluding that the board had properly construed § 22-359b and § 22-359-1 of the regulations to mandate the administration of the prescribed amount of rabies vaccines to all dogs regardless of weight and properly determined that the plaintiff had committed professional negligence by failing to comply with the statute and the regulation. The court further concluded that the board's decision was supported by substantial record evidence and that the board did not exceed its authority or abuse its discretion in imposing its disciplinary order. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held:

1. The trial court did not err in concluding that the board properly construed the statute and regulation governing the standard of care for rabies vaccination in Connecticut and properly imposed disciplinary action on the plaintiff on its finding that his vaccination protocol constituted a prima facie violation of the standard of care: § 22-359b and § 22-359-1 of the regulations are plain and unambiguous in requiring that licensed rabies vaccines in Connecticut must be administered as instructed, a plain reading of both does not yield an absurd or unworkable result, and neither the statute nor the regulation conferred discretion on the plaintiff to administer the rabies vaccine in any other manner, which he did not dispute doing; moreover, this court declined to alter the statutory and regulatory scheme governing rabies vaccinations in Connecticut.

2. This court declined to review the plaintiff's claims that the trial court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the board's finding that he had failed to receive informed consent from his client and that the board did not exceed its authority or abuse its discretion in imposing its disciplinary order, the plaintiff having failed to brief these claims adequately; the plaintiff's attempt to incorporate by reference his amended verified complaint into his principal appellate brief was not procedurally proper, and the abstract representations contained in the plaintiff's principal appellate brief, unaccompanied by substantive legal analysis or citation to legal authority, failed to satisfy the plaintiff's obligation to adequately brief his claims.

Procedural History

Appeal from the decision by the named defendant disciplining the plaintiff upon a finding of professional negligence, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury and transferred to the judicial district of New Britain, where the court, Hon. Lois Tanzer, judge trial referee, rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Joseph P. Secola, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Tanya Feliciano DeMattia, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attor-

Page 2

ney general, and Clare Kindall, solicitor general, for the appellee (named defendant).

Page 3

Opinion

MOLL, J. The plaintiff, John M. Robb, a veterinarian, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant Connecticut Board of Veterinary Medicine (board)¹ disciplining him upon a finding of professional negligence pursuant to General Statutes § 20-202 (2).² On appeal, we distill the plaintiff's claims to be that the court incorrectly concluded that (1) the board properly construed General Statutes § 22-359b, as well as § 22-359-1 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, in finding him to have been professionally negligent under § 20-202 (2), (2) there was substantial evidence supporting the board's finding that he had failed to obtain informed consent from one of his clients with respect to his rabies vaccination protocol, and (3) the board did not exceed its authority or abuse its discretion in imposing its disciplinary order. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff is licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Connecticut. On August 1, 2014, the Connecticut Department of Public Health (department) submitted to the board a statement of charges³ against the plaintiff charging him with professional negligence in violation of § 20-202 (2). The statement of charges alleged in relevant part: "From about July, 2010 through about February, 2012, while working at the [Banfield Pet Hospital in Stamford, the plaintiff] failed to meet the standard of care in one or more of the following ways: a. [the plaintiff] instructed employees to administer [one-half] doses of rabies vaccines to animals under the weight of fifty pounds; b. [the plaintiff] instructed employees to refrigerate unused [one-half] doses of rabies vaccines to be used to vaccinate another pet; c. [the plaintiff] failed to adequately document medication administration; and/or d. [the plaintiff] failed to obtain adequate informed consent from pet owners."

On November 3, 2014, the plaintiff answered the statement of charges and asserted three special defenses. The plaintiff twice amended his answer and special defenses. In his operative responsive pleading, the plaintiff alleged that he had "instructed his employees to give an appropriate dose of rabies vaccine" to his clients' dogs, but he otherwise denied the material allegations set forth in the statement of charges. In addition, the plaintiff asserted six special defenses.⁴

The board held six days of administrative hearings between December 2, 2014, and February 23, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the parties submitted posthearing briefs. The record was closed on April 5, 2016, and the board conducted fact-finding on May 4 and November 2, 2016.

On February 2, 2017, the board issued a corrected

Page 4

memorandum of decision⁵ concluding that the department had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that, between approximately July, 2010, and February, 2012, the plaintiff had committed professional negligence in violation of § 20-202 (2). First, the board found that the plaintiff did not contest the department's allegation that he had instructed his employees to administer one-half doses of rabies vaccines to his clients' dogs weighing under fifty pounds; instead, the plaintiff contended that he had exercised his discretion to adjust the doses based on the weight of the dogs. The board concluded that, pursuant to General Statutes § 22-359b⁶ and § 22-359-1 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies,⁷ rabies vaccines had to be administered in accordance with "licensed rabies vaccine label directions," which required the administration of one milliliter of rabies vaccine regardless of the weight of the dog, such that the plaintiff's conduct constituted a deviation from the standard of care.⁸

Next, the board determined that the department had proven its allegation that the plaintiff had instructed his employees to refrigerate unused one-half doses of rabies vaccines for later use. The board concluded that the plaintiff did not breach the standard of care by instructing his employees to refrigerate the unused one-half doses for short periods of time; however, the board reiterated its prior determination that the administration of one-half doses of rabies vaccines to dogs weighing under fifty pounds constituted a breach of the standard of care.

Last, the board determined that the department had proven its allegation that the plaintiff had failed to obtain informed consent from his clients with regard to his rabies vaccination protocol. The board stated that, "when a veterinarian deviates from the administration of a statutorily mandated recommended [vaccine] dose, he or she must document and explain to the client that: there is a mandated dose, why the mandated dose was not used, and the risks of not vaccinating the recommended dose." With regard to Anne Bloomdahl, one of the plaintiff's clients, the board determined that "her testimony supported the finding that she did not receive adequate information from [the plaintiff] as to the legality of [the plaintiff's] rabies vaccine protocol. . . . Bloomdahl incorrectly believed that having her dogs vaccinated with only [one-half] doses of rabies vaccine[s] was sufficient under Connecticut law. . . . Thus, [the plaintiff] failed to receive informed consent from Bloomdahl when he administered [one-half] doses of rabies vaccine[s] to her dogs without informing her that he was statutorily required to inject her dog[s] with a full milliliter of the rabies vaccine, the reason the full dose was not used, the fact that [the plaintiff] could have obtained a rabies vaccine exemption [pursuant to General Statutes § 22-339b (b)], and about the risks associated with the failure to vaccinate . . . Bloom-

Page 5

dahl's dog[s] fully." (Citations omitted.) Additionally, the board found the plaintiff to be "not credible" and "evasive" when questioned about whether he had received informed consent from his clients.⁹

In light of the foregoing determinations, the board concluded that disciplinary action against the plaintiff was warranted pursuant to General Statutes §§ 19a-17¹⁰ and 20-202. In imposing its disciplinary order, the board...