|
2540 REVIEW DENIED A veterinarian is required to exercise the knowledge and skill possessed by the reasonable veterinarian, and expert testimony is usually required to establish failure to meet this standard; in an action for professional malpractice, testimony by an expert that s/he would have chosen a different treatment than that chosen by the defendant does not establish that defendant failed to meet the standard of reasonable practice.CitationWILLIAMSON v PRIDA (Veterinary Malpractice) 75 CA4 1417 [See: Huffman v Lindquist 37 C2 465; Ladnier v Norwood 781 F2 490; Spilotro v Hugi 93 IllApp3 837; Storozuk v WA Butler 3 OhMisc 60; Bekkemo v Erickson 186 Minn 108]
|
|
