Written by Don Riddick, GVMA Legal Counsel
If you’ve been keeping up with veterinary news lately, you might have seen an article published by the AVMA discussing two recent court cases—Chiles v. Salazar and Hines v. Pardue.
Between the legal jargon and the headlines flying around social media, it might sound like the in-person VCPR (Veterinarian-Client-Patient Relationship) requirement has been invalidated in order to protect free speech.
It is completely understandable if this caused some anxiety or confusion in your clinic! However, as legal counsel for the GVMA, I want to offer you some peace of mind: We do not believe these rulings dismantle the VCPR in Georgia. Thanks to our proactive legislative work on SB 105 last year, your telemedicine practices remain well-protected.
Here is a plain-English breakdown of what these cases actually mean, and why Georgia veterinarians are in a uniquely secure position because of the leadership efforts of the GVMA, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Senator Anavitarte and Representative Jaspers.
Speech vs. Conduct: The Heart of the Matter
The panic in other states among veterinarians largely stems from a misinterpretation of the Hines case out of Texas. In a nutshell, Dr. Hines was disciplined by the state board for giving general veterinary advice over email and phone without an in-person VCPR. He did not physically examine the animals, perform surgeries, or prescribe medications.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor based on a critical legal distinction:
- Professional Speech: Giving general advice, discussing hot-button topics (like tail docking or breeders), or providing basic information is considered protected speech under the First Amendment.
- Professional Conduct: Actually practicing medicine—diagnosing a specific illness, creating a treatment plan, using medical devices, and prescribing drugs—is considered conduct.
The courts essentially told Texas that they cannot use the VCPR requirement to restrict a veterinarian’s right to simply talk and share general knowledge. However, the courts completely reaffirmed that states have full authority to regulate medical conduct. The in-person VCPR requirement for prescribing and treating remains firmly intact.
The Georgia Advantage: We Are Already Ahead of the Curve with our Recently Updated Practice Act…
If you are wondering how this impacts you here at home, the answer is: it doesn’t. In fact, these rulings actually validate the hard work the GVMA and our legislators did last year on SB 105.
Unlike the older Texas laws involved in the Hines case, our Georgia Veterinary Practice Act is modern, clearly defined, and incredibly pro-veterinarian. When we passed our definitive telemedicine bill last year, we intentionally built in the very protections that the 5th Circuit just highlighted:
- Teleadvice and Teletriage: Under Georgia law, you are already permitted to use your expertise to determine urgency (teletriage) or offer general health advice (teleadvice) without needing a pre-established VCPR. We already recognized this as protected communication.
- Telemedicine: When it comes to the actual practice of veterinary medicine—diagnosing, treating, and prescribing—Georgia law clearly classifies this as conduct. Doing these things via telemedicine strictly requires a valid VCPR.
In addition, this year HB 1195 was passed, which reinforces the principles set out in SB 105 that a VCPR is not needed for teleadvice or teletriage.
If a scenario identical to Hines occurred in Georgia today, we believe the outcome would be entirely different. Our state board wouldn’t need to be tangled in a First Amendment lawsuit because our Practice Act already legally permits you to provide general teleadvice without an in-person exam.
So, Keep Practicing with Confidence
The bottom line is that the foundational rules of your practice have not changed. You are not going to be replaced by unregulated telemedicine platforms, and the ethical standard of the VCPR is not going away.
You can continue to provide top-notch care, utilize telemedicine responsibly within our state guidelines, communicate generally with teleadvice and teletriage without first having to see the animal… and trust that the GVMA has already paved the way to keep your license—and your First Amendment rights—protected.
For further reading: If you would like to read the original article that sparked this conversation, you can find it here.
