Licenses & Permits – Veterinarian – Vaccine Maintenance

The ALC improperly reversed the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners’ decision that a veterinarian violated S.C. Code Sect. 40-69-140(12) since substantial evidence existed that he failed to adequately ensure the vaccines were properly acquired and/or maintained, the Court of Appeals ruled in Ratcliff v. S.C. Dept. of Labor, Licensing & Regulation (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-101-08) (3 pages).
Background
The respondent practiced veterinary medicine at the Pet Vac Express in the Greenville area. He operated Pet Vac Express’ mobile veterinary clinic on Saturdays. The board held a hearing based on a report from a member of the public against three veterinarians, including the respondent. The board filed a complaint against the veterinarians, alleging the veterinarians failed to ensure that vaccines were properly maintained.
After a hearing, the board concluded the respondent violated South Carolina Code Sect. 40-69-140(12) by not adequately ensuring the vaccines were properly acquired and/or maintained. The board issued a public reprimand and ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of $250. The respondent appealed to the ALC. On appeal, the ALJ found no substantial evidence to support the board’s order and reversed. This appeal followed.
Discussion
The board argues the ALJ erred in reversing its findings against the respondent. We agree. Section 40-69-140(12) of the South Carolina Code enables the board to reprimand a veterinarian for “engaging in conduct determined by the board to be incompetent or negligent in the practice of veterinary medicine.” Regulation 120-7.8(c) governs the practice of veterinary medicine relating to vaccines and requires that “temperature control shall be maintained for all drugs and biologics.”
We find substantial evidence to support the board’s sanction against the respondent. He testified that he and Tabor “pretty much” knew when the vaccines would arrive based on the order date. However, the evidence also indicates the vaccines were sent to a postal delivery site and remained there until Tabor took them to her home. At best, the delivery site offered only an interior location out of the elements, and there is no evidence indicating such an environment would provide the necessary temperature control required by Regulation 120-7.8(c). Based on the limited record and our limited standard of review in APA cases, we find the ALJ erred in reversing the board’s findings. Accordingly, the order on appeal is reversed.
Ratcliff v. S.C. Dept. of Labor, Licensing & Regulation (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-101-08) (3 pages) (Per Curiam) (SCCOA) Appealed from the Administrative Law Court, Carolyn C. Matthews, J.; Kenneth P. Woodington for appellants; James W. Ratliff III, pro se (Unpublished No. 2008-UP-250) (May 7, 2008).