South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDLLR vs. Judy Tabor d/b/a Pet-Vac Express

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, South Carolina Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

Respondents:
Judy Tabor d/b/a Pet-Vac Express
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
07-ALJ-11-0455-IJ

APPEARANCES:
Sheridon Spoon, Esquire, for the Petitioner

No Appearance, for the Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (Court) as a Petition for Injunctive Relief filed by the South Carolina Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Board) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§1-23-630(A), 40-69-200 and 40-1-210 (Supp. 2006). The Board seeks to enforce a Cease and Desist Order it served upon the Respondent on August 6, 2007. The Board further requests that the Court impose a fine of up to $10,000.00 against the Respondent for each violation. A hearing into this matter was held before me on September 26, 2007.[1]

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and taking into consideration the burden of persuasion and the credibility of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence:

1. Respondent, Judy Tabor individually and doing business as Pet-Vac Express owns and operates a mobile veterinary facility which provides immunizations and rabies vaccinations to small animals at various locations throughout the State of South Carolina. Respondent typically advertises her services through signage placed at Wal-Mart and other high traffic locations. These signs are placed seven to fourteen days in advance of Respondent’s scheduled visit to a particular location.

2. On May 19, 2007, Respondent provided vaccinations and immunizations to small animals at the junction of Hwy 6 and South Spring Street in Swansea, South Carolina. More specifically, Mr. Randall Clegg, Respondent’s employee, vaccinated several dogs and other small animals on that date in the presence of an investigator for the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (Department). Following the vaccinations, the customers would walk to the front of the van and pay Judy Tabor for the services rendered.

Respondent and her employee, Mr. Clegg identified themselves to the Department’s investigator as performing professional veterinary services under the authority of veterinary license #2049. However, Mr. Clegg is not licensed by the Board. Moreover, License #2049 is not the license number of Randall Clegg but of Dr. Angela Marie Delillo. Dr. Delillo, a duly-licensed veterinarian in this state, was previously employed on a part-time by Respondent and had provided a copy of her license to Respondent as part of the terms of her employment. Though Dr. Delillo had provided a copy of her license to Respondent, she did not authorize Respondent to do anything with her license other than retain a copy for business purposes.

3. On August 9, 2007 Dr. Shannon Hurst, D.V.M., a duly-licensed veterinarian, faxed a letter to the Department indicating she had not authorized Respondent to open an account in her name at Bayer Pharmaceutical Company and which further provided a list of other pharmaceutical companies and a draft letter that Dr. Hurst was providing to said companies notifying them of the attempts to open accounts in her name by Respondent. Dr. Hurst had no personal or professional relationship with Respondent or her company. LLR later confirmed that Respondent had made at least one attempt to open an account in the name of Dr. Hurst.

4. Based upon these facts, the Board served Respondent an Order to Cease and Desist dated August 6, 2007, and a Summons and Petition dated September 7, 2007. The Order to Cease and Desist and the Summons and Petition were mailed to Respondent’s address, Pet-Vac Express, 3420 Pelham Road #303, Greenville, South Carolina 29615.[2] Since the issuance of the Board’s Order to Cease and Desist, Respondent has continued to advertise her veterinarian services.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The Board is the state agency of the State of South Carolina that is vested with the authority to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in this State pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-69-30 et seq. (Supp. 2006). S.C. Code Ann. § 40-69-20 (18) (Supp. 2006) defines “veterinarian” as a person who has received a doctor's degree or equivalent in veterinary medicine. Section 40-69-20 (13) further provides that the practice of “veterinary medicine” means to:

(a) diagnose, prescribe, or administer a drug, medicine, biologic, appliance, or application or treatment of whatever nature for the cure, prevention, or relief of a wound, fracture, or bodily injury or disease of an animal;

* * *

(e) use words, letters, or titles in such connection or under such circumstances as to induce the belief that the person using them is engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-69-30 (Supp. 2006), a person must be issued a license by the Department in order to practice veterinary medicine. Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 40-69-210 provides, in part, that:

(A) If the board has reason to believe that a person is violating or intends to violate a provision of this chapter, it may, in addition to all other remedies, order the person to immediately desist and refrain from that conduct.

(B) The board may apply to an administrative law judge, as provided under Article 5, Chapter 23, Title 1, for an injunction restraining the person from that conduct.

See also S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-1-210 and 40-1-100 (Supp. 2006). This Court's power to enter an injunction or other remedial writ also necessarily extends to Respondent's agents and servants. See ALC Rule 16 (“The administrative law judge may issue remedial writs as are necessary to give effect to its jurisdiction. . .”); See also S.C. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (noting that an injunction or other restraining order is binding upon the parties and “their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise”); 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions § 300 (2000) (“One is bound by an injunction even though he or she is not a party to the suit in which the injunction was issued, if he or she has notice or knowledge of the injunction and is within the class of persons whose conduct is intended to be restrained, or acts in concert with such a person.”).

2. The above facts establish that Respondent is engaging in the unlicensed practice of veterinary medicine in this state warranting the issuance of an order enjoining that unlawful practice. An injunction is a proper remedy to prevent the violation of statutes regulating businesses or professions in which a license is required. Any doubt concerning the necessity for an injunction to safeguard the public interest should ordinarily be resolved in favor of the grant of relief. 43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 133a (1978); see S.C. Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass‘n v. Froelich, 297 S.C. 400, 377 S.E.2d 306 (1989) (out-of-state attorney enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent, Pet-Vac Express and Respondent’s agents and employees are permanently enjoined from practicing veterinary medicine in this state until such time, if ever, as she is properly licensed to do so by the Board.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

Ralph King Anderson III

Administrative Law Judge

October 2, 2007

Columbia, South Carolina



[1] Respondent Judy Tabor d/b/a Pet-Vac Express was served with a Notice of Hearing by U.S. mail on September 18, 2007 at Respondents last and only known address, Pet-Vac Express, 3420 Pelham Road #303, Greenville, South Carolina 29615. That Notice informed Respondent of the date and time of the hearing. The Notice of Hearing mailed to the Respondent has not been returned to this office by the Post Office. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, notify the Court that she would not be appearing or request a continuance of this matter.

[2] The Order to Cease and Desist was mailed separately via regular and Certified Mail to Respondent. The Certified Mail was returned by the Postal Service on August 10, 2007. The postal stamp indicates “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward”. The Postal Service also wrote on the returned envelope “refused.” The copy of the Order to Cease and Desist which was sent by regular mail has not been returned. Nevertheless, mailing the Order to the address given by Respondent accomplished service of the Order.


~/pdf/070455.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court