In Re Griffith

585 N.E.2d 937 (1991)


Cummings sent a letter to P alleging that D had acted in a negligent manner in the treatment and care of Cummings' kitten, Amber. P determined that there was probable cause for formal administrative action. D sent P a notice of opportunity for hearing which stated that D was alleged to be guilty of violating R.C. 4741.22(A) and (R) and Ohio Adm.Code 4741-1-03(A) and (B). At the hearing, P made the following findings of fact. Cummings presented Amber to D to declaw the cat and perform an ovariohysterectomy. D performed the procedures, and Amber was under D's care until July 24, 1989. On the evening of July 24, 1989, Cummings became concerned about Amber's condition and contacted the Beechwold Veterinary Hospital. By the next day, Amber's condition had deteriorated, and Cummings took Amber to the Beechwold Veterinary Hospital and a subsequent surgery revealed that the uterine horns had been pulled over the neck of the bladder and sutured with one ligature around both horns, causing an obstruction to the bladder. The urine was drained from the bladder, and the ligature around the uterine horns was expressed. Approximately thirty minutes after surgery, Amber expired. Subsequent to the hearing, P issued an adjudication order in which it concluded that D had violated R.C. 4741.22(A) and Ohio Adm.Code 4741-1-03(A) and (B). The board ordered that D be issued a written reprimand. D filed a notice of appeal The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the order of P, finding that the order was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and was in accordance with law. D appealed. D claims in part that the trial court erred to the prejudice of D when it affirmed the decision of the Ohio Veterinary Medical Board substituting its expert opinion for that of an expert witness who is acknowledged by the board as an expert witness and whose testimony was not discounted by the board.