text:
Oh, dear readers, we thought in this issue, we would be reporting to you the judgement rendered in the final hearing of the July 1, 2008 lawsuit brought by massage therapist H. Mercedes Clemens and the Institute for Justice (IJ) against the Maryland State Board of Chiropractic Examiners in which the plaintiff’s allege that the State is violating Mercedes’ constitutional rights.
But no, the final hearing has been postponed and then postponed, and is now scheduled for July 30.
In the June issue we reported that Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge David A. Boynton gave the the Chiropractic Board a chance to rethink their cease and desist order, but after the Board’s monthly May meeting, they declined to do so.
So, on June 3, Mercedes and her team filed a motion for a summary judgement, which would not only set aside the Board’s cease and desist letter, but would also expressly state that the Board has no jurisdiction over animal massage.
On June 5, the Board filed a motion to dismiss the original case, supposedly because they rescinded the cease and desist (but The Equiery has not found evidence that the order was rescinded and is relying on hearsay; as of press, the court documents had not yet been made available to the public).
Regardless of whether or not the order was rescinded, the plaintiffs still want a summary judgement in order to ensure that the Board does not later issue to either Mercedes or any other animal massage therapist another cease and desist order.
On June 12, Mercedes and IJ filed another motion, this time to consolidate all three motions (their original lawsuit, their request for summary judgement and the Board’s motion to dismiss).
On June 17, the Board filed motion opposing consolidation. Filed a motion opposing the consolidation? Well, apparently the courts thought the motions should be consolidated, and have now scheduled all three to be heard on July 30.
This is in response to non-veterinary trained (lay) persons providing dental care to horses, and to The Equiery’s question of “What’s in a Name: Dental Technician or Dentist?” (January 2009).
A veterinary technician or a dental technician plays a supportive roll similar to that of a nurse to a doctor. A “dentist” by definition is a person formally trained and licensed to perform dentistry. In the case here, dentistry is part of veterinary medicine. Is it just a play on words? No, it does really matter. Words mean things. Especially since neither “dental technician” nor “dentist” is an appropriate term to be used by unlicensed, non-medically trained (lay) people.
As a horse owner, the question I have is, why is the horse the only animal we allow and accept non-medially trained (lay) people to provide medical services, such as dentistry? Dentists or dental technicians, in all other realms, have to be college or university-trained graduates, tested, licensed, etc., to provide medical services. This includes cats and dogs. So why are horses treated differently? Aren’t horses just as important?
At the heart of the matter is [the fact that] these lay people are given the same opportunity and (with work) could become veterinary technicians or – for that matter – veterinarians, [just] like anyone else. They just need to make the efforts, plus the personal and financial commitments to go to a recognized school for veterinarians or veterinary technicians, as the rest of the medical field personnel had to do. They then could be called “professionals” and use the terms dentist or dental technician because they would actually be [those professionals].
Why do these lay dental people think they cannot do the proper medical training, testing and licensing, with regards to our horses? Why do they have this special privilege? Should the laws of Maryland allow it?
Editor’s Comments to Mr. Salazar and Equiery readers: Mr. Salazar’s question, “Should the laws of Maryland allow it?” is answered in prior issues of The Equiery and on www.equiery.com. The current debate began as a result of Maryland’s law requiring that, except for a few procedures, equine dentistry be performed only by licensed veterinarians.
I have had many occasions to use both licensed veterinarians and so-called equine dentists to work on many horses’ teeth over the years. Usually the vet charges less money than an EQDT, so that to me is not an issue. I have seen the results in my horses: The vets tend to do a very thorough job, as well as some lay people.
But I have also had some serious issues resulting from the use of lay dentists that really did not know what they were doing. I agree that it is up to the owners to treat their animals as they see fit; however, I do not believe that these EQDTs should use the term “dental technician,” as that implies to people that they are trained at an accredited veterinary school or university. I believe that is highly misleading to the general public. I think they should use different terminology, as most of these “lay dentists” have not had any anatomy and physiology courses at an accredited university. Possibly use a term that is very easy for the general public to understand the difference. So for a “dentist” to go to a two-week program and then be certified as an “equine dental technician” is very misleading. I would like to see them have to have more study hours. I strongly advise anyone to investigate [this] thoroughly for themselves.
The Equine Dentist Debate Extends Across the U.S.
We have been quite amazed to receive letters from throughout the country regarding Maryland’s veterinary practice laws. Apparently, The Equiery and equiery.com is developing a national readership tracking this issue. Here is a sampling from our mailbag.
Missouri Vet: Who’s Arrogant? Vets or Non-Vets?
I would like to respond to the article which you published by Dr. Casey on the subject of non-veterinary equine dental practitioners, and also in reference to other, similar stances by veterinary boards in many states besides Maryland. Most of my comments will be toward the equine dentistry aspects, since I have limited my veterinary practice to that part of horse health for over the last decade.
The statements that we see about equine dentistry/massage therapy/etc. always having been considered a part of veterinary medicine are not quite true, as is the case with most of the claims made by the veterinarians who comment on these issues. In fact, the American Veterinary Medical Association came out with the “Model Practice Act” in the late 1980s or early ‘90s and only then included, basically, anything dealing with the health of animals, as being “part of veterinary medicine.” The insinuation is that the “primary care provider” is the veterinarian who periodically sees the animals, rather than the person who sees the animal on a daily basis and provides the stuff of survival constantly (little things like water, food, etc.) and also monitors the health of the animal by observing [its] behavior and physical condition thousands of times more often than the veterinarian. Obviously a false claim from the veterinary camp.
While it would be great if, in fact, we veterinarians did possess thorough knowledge of all of the fields claimed by the practice acts, the actual case is that we do not—no one can be expert in all fields, although the veterinary practice acts attempt to regulate them. Oh, yes, some veterinarians are excellent equine dental practitioners, and some may even have some capabilities in massage therapy and/or chiropractic, grooming, farriery, etc., but most do not.
And there are some excellent non-veterinary equine dental practitioners. Notably, they are the ones primarily responsible for resurrecting our interest in the area of horse health care dealing with teeth. Probably most notable is Dale Jeffrey, who began looking into equine dental care in the early 1980s and had the audacity to begin trying to help horses with dental issues after discovering that veterinarians willing or in fact capable of providing help with that part of horse health care could not be found. His efforts riled the local veterinarians, who brought his actions to the attention of the authorities and eventually resulted in legal cases which led to the defeat of the non-vet in the state of Nebraska.
The reality of the conflict can be related by the old statement: “There are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth.” We have a few veterinarians that are good at horse dentistry, a few non-veterinarians also, and now that the veterinarians have seen the features and benefits of thorough equine dental care, they are beginning to look at it realistically, although some will continue to emphasize “education” as the most important factor in evaluating a practitioner’s abilities. They are referring, of course, to “formal education” rather than practical experience, which is always the best teacher. The veterinarians arguing against the non-vets often mention the extreme importance of years of college, studying everything from embryology of the pig through pharmacology for ostriches, while seldom admitting that they did not receive exposure to equine dental issues, neither theoretical nor applied.
While a few veterinary colleges are beginning lately to offer good exposure to equine dentistry, they often utilize the services of some excellent non-veterinary equine dental practitioners, though they will not admit such in their printed or online information. This fact says a lot about the status of the vet vs. non-vet issue.
I have seen that the most important aspects of equine dentistry are learned from those who have done the most of it, especially if they have done it with an open mind and continually considered what is best for the horse. I believe that we currently have more non-veterinarians that fit into that classification than vets at this point in time, and with the decreasing percentage of graduating veterinarians heading for horse practice, that is not likely to change. The better, smarter vets in general practice, desirous of providing the best care for their equine patients, will employ (or at least refer horse owners to) individuals that can provide the best service, whether that be a local non-veterinary equine dental practitioner or a veterinarian.
But, then, I do have to admit my bias: I am more in favor of horses than of veterinary state boards or large veterinary associations that claim as their creed the advancement of the well-being of the horse, while conducting themselves in ways that decrease the availability of sources of care for these noble creatures.
The most worrisome thing to me is that the horse owners are still sitting on their hands, not letting the bureaucrats know that they really want to retain their right to choose who works on their horses. Perhaps your efforts will help with getting them to speak up effectively.
A message from a massage therapist in Texas.
According to the Daily Racing Form, on January 15, the New York State Appellate Court upheld the Nassau Country Supreme Court’s ruling that equine dentists need not be licensed vets. Interestingly, it was not New York’s version of the Maryland Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners that issued the “cease and desist” order; it was the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, which ruled off all lay dentists as being insufficiently certified. Thirty-year lay dentist Chris Brown challenged the case and won. The Racing Board now has the option to appeal to the State Supreme Court.
What’s in a Name? Is a Dental Technician a Denstist?
While The Equiery certainly appreciates the impact of words and terms, we would be interested in hearing from our readers whether the distinction between “dentist” and “dental technician,” in referring to non-veterinarians, is meaningful to them.
I would just like to say that after reading the article by Dr. Casey in the November 2008 issue of The Equiery about equine dentistry, I was pretty mad, to be blunt honest. I could use other words. I’m an equine dentist myself in this area and I also went to Dr. Hyde’s school, American School of Equine Dentistry. I could not believe the stuff that vet was saying. So, after reading Mrs. Leslie Favre’s argument back on the subject, I’m now so happy.
I read Dr. Casey’s article over and over again in disbelief. I know there are plenty of vets out there that do like to do horses’ teeth themselves, but there are also a lot of vets that don’t like working on horses teeth. I have a few vets myself that refer their dental clients to me. I work with a number of different vets that meet me for appointments to sedate horses for me. I don’t think it is fair to say all equine dentist are bad because Dr. Casey witnesses one equine dentist that he didn’t agree with the job that was being done.
Why, as a equine dentist, should I be condemned because of a poor job done by another dentist? And if that dentist was doing something that Dr. Casey felt was dangerous, why didn’t Dr. Casey jump in and stop him?
I do think there are bad equine dentists out there, but there are also bad farriers, bad vets, bad massage therapists—in any profession there is going to be someone who doesn’t do the job the best.
I feel it is the horse owner’s responsibility to make sure the person (dentist, farrier or even a vet) working on his or her animal has the experience to know how to do the job correctly. I just wanted to say “thank you” for running Mrs. Leslie Favre’s response. It was definitely needed.
I have read the articles and responses regarding the discussion of the “Vet Law Challenge” and would like to weigh in. “Equine dentists” present and deceive the public by implying they are medically trained when they are not. More importantly many claim to be “certified” or “masters” and say they have earned 200 credit hours. How misleading!
I have a Bachelors of Business Administration (BBA) degree and a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree. It took me six years to obtain these degrees and 150 college credit hours from an accredited University. I have been on the faculty of both a college and a university. I know it takes a lot more years for some of the brightest, most accomplished people to receive PhD’s, Medical degrees, Dental degrees, and Veterinary degrees. These “equine” lay people claim they have obtained 200 credit hours in a two week program. Please, how absurd to pass this off as comprehensive training. Furthermore, these aren’t even credit hours because these “equine dental schools” and “organizations” are not accredited by any authority; not any state board of higher education, nor the American Veterinary Medical Association, or the American Association of Equine Practitioners. These “equine dentist” or their “schools” are not even recognized for licensure by the Department of Health Profession or the State Board of Veterinary Medicine.
“Equine dentists” say they have been “practicing dentistry” for years. Then they are not only misleading the public into believing they are something they are not, but providing medical care when they shouldn’t. They shouldn’t be practicing anything they are not degreed and licensed in. They shouldn’t use titles that deceive the horse owner.
Webster’s 9th New Collegiate Dictionary defined dentistry as “the art or profession of a dentist,” and if defines dentists as “one who is skilled in and licensed to practice the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases, injuries and malformations of the teeth, jaws and mouth…” Obviously, dentistry is medicine and meant to be performed by medically trained people who have passed an accredited program.
Basically, the “equine dentist” are telling us that anyone can go to any type of unaccredited program or school, say we are certified, and provide medical services. This type of activity is illegal in human medicine as well as canine and feline veterinary medicine. Why do we allow it with our equine friends?
I personally wouldn’t go to or take my children to a human doctor or dentist practicing without a medical degree. I certainly would not let these so called “equine dentists’ treat my horse. So getting straight to the point, all responsible horse owners should make themselves well informed before letting someone float their horse’s teeth. The “equine dentist” can hang their shingles out all they want but they are not qualified to perform dentistry. If they want to perform dentistry then they should go to an accredited school of veterinary medicine.
There seems to be great debate over equine auxiliary care: massage, chiropractors and, most recently, dentists. The arguments are heated, but so far the only voices heard are those of the professionals. Perhaps it is time for horse owners to weigh in on the issue. After all, in any service or medical debate, the customer or patient should come first – and the patients are our horses.
To me, the care of a horse’s mouth is about having a happy, healthy horse and a safe relationship, either on the ground or in the saddle or sulky -— and [it’s] about saving money on feed. As the owner of seven Thoroughbreds and a pony, I have had both veterinarians and lay dentists work on my horses. Dentistry, like any other technical skill including blacksmithing, has a scientific basis. However, then there is the actual execution of the skill—and this is where the “art” comes in.
The underlying premise of any procedure is to first do no harm, whether the work is performed by a professional or a lay person. Both may understand the terms, but solid practice also figures into the equation.
Anyone who has watched a horse’s teeth being floated knows that dentistry is hard physical work. It requires the conditioning of shoulders, arms and wrists. Oftentimes, the dentist has to put his or her back into it, even get on bended knee to float a pony or mini. Conditioning comes with practice; practice makes perfect, so it makes sense that whoever tends to your horses should regularly practice the dentistry trade, be he or she a vet or a layman.
Then there is the advent of dental power tools like grinders to consider. These tools are oriented toward the practitioner, not the horse. Power tools eliminate much of manual labor but usually necessitate medication. Perhaps the sudden zeal within the veterinary association to take over the dentistry profession is due in part to the development of sophisticated power tools, making dentistry easier, quicker and hence more lucrative to practitioners.
In conclusion, this is not an “us or them” scenario. I read somewhere that a veterinarian might successfully be able to handle a caseload of 2,000 to 2,500 horses a year. (This is assuming use of power tools and medication.) According to the American Horse Council’s 2005 study, there are 153,000 horses in the state of Maryland. That tells me that there is plenty of work to go around -— especially if I am not keen on having my horses medicated.
As horse owners, we have the right to manage our own animal’s heath care, and we want only skilled people practicing dentistry, be they vets or lay people.
After all, this is still America, the land of opportunity and freedom of choice!
I appreciate your continued coverage of important equine issues.
Readers of The Equiery who have been following the developments in “Vet Law Challenged” about the lawsuit filed by H. Mercedes Clemens, NCTMB, LMT, EBW, may be left with questions regarding several aspects of this issue. For example: What are the laws? [Editor’s Note: please visit www.equiery.com to read the law.] Does the current veterinary medicine practice act constitute a monopoly over all treatment of animals? How have treatments been developed for animals that have not been part of traditional veterinary medicine?
Are animals endangered by treatments provided by those who are not licensed veterinarians? Is the public served or protected by the current situation? And most importantly, what is the best way forward? This commentary will attempt to clarify these issues for the consideration of Equiery readers.
Chris H. Runde, DVM, President, State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (SBVME) accurately represents the broad scope written into the veterinary practice act. “Treatment of any nature”* of an animal is subject to being misconstrued as the practice of veterinary medicine, regardless if the treatment is not part of standard veterinary medical education or practice.
Anyone who is not a licensed veterinarian [and] who provides any treatment for an animal stands accused of the practice of veterinary medicine without a license. On its face, this does reflect a monopoly. However, as noted previously, exemptions do exist in the veterinary practice act for treatment of animals by non-veterinarians. In fact, a precedent exists for licensed acupuncturists to practice their discipline with animals.
It is well known that veterinarians and their staff are receiving this sort of education and training taught by professionals in acupuncture, chiropractic, massage/body work, physical therapy and other alternative, complementary, or conventional interventions. Recently discussed advances in animal dentistry have also been developed in this manner. In fact, this sort of interaction between veterinary and human medical fields has led to advancements in both. Indeed, all such beneficial treatments have been the product of collegial relations between veterinarians and those in other fields who have adapted and applied their disciplines to animals out of a caring desire to improve animal health and well being.
However, while veterinary medicine has benefited from the fruits of these collaborative efforts, with rare exceptions those who are not veterinarians—yet who have been instrumental in developing these practices for animals—have been restricted from providing these services by regulation.
Dr. Runde reports that, concurrent with the surge in courses in animal chiropractic, there has been an increase in the number of complaints to the Board of Chiropractic concerning manipulation on animals. Combined with his statement that the mission of the SBVME is to protect animal health and welfare, he gives the impression that animals are being injured by this practice.
Without a description of the nature of these complaints, it is impossible to directly comment on Dr. Runde’s inference. What is not known here, in addition to the question [of whether] any actual harm to animals is alleged, is whether these manipulations were performed by licensed chiropractors, veterinarians or their staff, other licensed professionals or lay people.
What is known is that upon investigation, no complaints had been registered with either the Acupuncture Board or SBVME regarding the acupuncture treatment of animals by certified licensed acupuncturists. Coincidentally, just as no harm to animals was demonstrated over 11 years ago when acupuncturists were served their “cease and desist” from the treatment of animals by the SBVME, no harm was done to horses treated by Ms. Clemens. In spite of the fact that Ms. Clemens’ clients were [apparently] satisfied with her services, as they had filed no complaints with either the Chiropractic or Veterinary boards, she was arbitrarily served a “cease and desist” based on regulatory technicalities.
The current situation is not conducive to protecting animal health and welfare, the public seeking services they desire and find helpful for their animals, or practitioners who happen not to be veterinarians. It appears that veterinary medicine, while enjoying the expansion of animal treatments beyond the traditional scope of veterinary medical education and practice, is reluctant to enter the 21st century.
Instead of following the interdisciplinary team approach model in human health care, where one may take advantage of many services offered safely, effectively and efficiently by those who are not medical doctors, veterinary medicine would prefer to remain a monolithic anachronism.
The public and their animals would be best served and protected by having access to treatments that are not part of traditional veterinary medical education or practice, provided by those who are regulated in these fields and can demonstrate proficiency in applying these disciplines to non human species. Obviously, one can seek such services from veterinarians or their staff under current regulations. However, even if one can find a veterinary practice offering such treatments, no regulatory standards exist for veterinarians or their staff to provide acupuncture, chiropractic, massage/body work, physical therapy, dentistry, etc.
The model provided by the precedent set for licensed acupuncturists works well. They must meet stringent education and practice standards to qualify to treat animals. The public and their animals are well protected by this sort of regulation. It has proven to be safe and beneficial, with no threat to the animals, acupuncturists, veterinary medicine or the public.
The SBVME has the authority to promulgate regulations for those who are not licensed veterinarians to provide treatment for animals under Agriculture Article 2-304(e). However, in the 11 years since this clause was added, the SBVME has failed to utilize this authority. In the case of physical therapy for animals, the SBVME has refused to do so in ways that would not conflict with or contradict well-established existing regulations for the physical therapy treatment of humans that have been time-tested and proven.
The way forward is clear. Either the SBVME uses the authority granted them in Agriculture Article 2-304(e) fairly, without compromising existing regulatory standards, or the state legislature must act (as was done in the case of acupuncture for animals in 1997) to ensure that clients, their animals and all professionals offering animal services are protected by regulation.
I join Ms. Clemens in urging those concerned to contact their state district representatives and senators to get them to act on this detrimental situation.
Leslie Favre is married to Davidsonville equine dental technician Bruno Favre, for whom English is a second language. These are his thoughts.
I am writing in response to the letter by Dr. James Casey (November 2008) regarding Equine Dental Technicians (EqDTs). My husband, Bruno Favre, has been practicing as an EqDT for 10 years. He is a proud graduate of the American School of Equine Dentistry. Despite what Dr. Casey says about this program, it is a comprehensive 200-credit hour program put together by a veterinarian and it far surpasses the 10 hours of course work, according to the VA-MD Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, that any vet gets in the normal course of his education.
My husband is also a member of the International Association of Equine Dentistry, which was founded by both EqDTs and veterinarians from all over the world. According to its website, the purpose of the IAED is “to promote the advancement of equine dentistry throughout the world amongst veterinarians and non-veterinary dental technicians.” The IAED meets several times per year to share ideas, new techniques and provide continuing education to equine dental professionals, vets and EqDTs together. They also offer certification programs and examinations.
Though Dr. Casey holds little respect for these two organizations and those who belong to them, I am sure your readers are intelligent enough to realize that is his opinion and that there are many veterinarians who do respect these organizations and what they are trying to do to maintain and improve the quality of dental care our horses receive.
Historically, equine dentistry has been a very labor-intensive job that vets were simply not interested in doing and welcomed a good EqDT to provide that service to horses. Most vets are just too busy doing what they were trained to do, diagnose and treat horses. Now that there are power tools and the job is less labor-intensive and more lucrative, Dr. Casey wants to become specialized, which is fine; but he should not attack the EqDTs who have taken care of horses for decades. Dr. Casey claims that equine dental care has become so technical and advanced that only a veterinarian should do the work and that he is only looking out for the horse’s welfare. If that is the case, shouldn’t Dr. Casey also be buying a set of blacksmith tools? Haven’t the same advances been made in the care and maintenance of equine hooves?
I personally do not understand why a veterinarian would want to concentrate his practice on the general maintenance of equine teeth. I can only assume they are not very busy in their other “specialties.” Horse owners who are also veterinarians hire EqDTs to do their horses’ teeth. Why? Hopefully one will write in and answer that question for us. But, I believe it is because an EqDT does many horses every day. They have the strength and tools to do the job. The vet may even acknowledge that the EqDT is probably going to do a better job because it is his or her specialty.
The practices my husband has learned from the American School of Equine Dentistry, along with numerous other EqDTs who have shared their knowledge with him, have served him and his equine clients well. Dr. Casey says cutting canine teeth with a cutter is dangerous but neglects to comment that there are problems reducing canine teeth with power tools, such as bringing too much heat to the tooth or grabbing the tongue with the burr (the grinding mechanism of the power tool). Many EqDTs and vets cut canine teeth every day without any problems. Dr. Casey is also against bit seats, when, in fact, most professionals in the field acknowledge the necessity of them.
The bottom line, to me, is that the horses are being well taken care of and it isn’t the clients who are writing in and complaining. My husband, like many other EqDTs, has taken care of thousands of horses’ teeth for hundreds of owners – many of which he has been doing for a decade. If he comes across a problem that he himself cannot fix, he refers his client back to the veterinarian and/or a certified master equine dentist or dental technician.
I urge your readers to believe that the EqDTs who have taken good care of your horses for years are very knowledgeable and capable of continuing to provide excellent, safe and affordable care to your horses. We are all here for the well being of our horses and should work in a friendly cooperation with one another.
In the July issue of The Equiery, we reported that a lawsuit had been filed against the Maryland State Boards of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Vet Board) and Chiropractic Examiners (Chiropractic Board) by a licensed human and certified equine massage therapist who had received several cease and desist letters from the Chiropractic Board, using a memo from the Vet Board as justification. On November 13, the Circuit Court granted the Vet Boards motion to dismiss while denying the Chiropractic Board’s motion to dismiss.
We would also like to remind our readers that this section of The Equiery, “News & Views” contains just that: personal points of view. If you have a viewpoint on a current issue, please e-mail your letter to editor@equiery.com.
– The author of the following commentary, James M. Casey, D.V.M., M.S., is an equine vet who is based in Laurel and who specialized in dentistry, sports medicine and surgery. These are the views of Dr. Casey a not of The Equiery. The Equiery remains neutral on the issue.
Both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) have always considered and defined dentistry as veterinary medicine. Today we have an increased awareness of equine dental problems. Veterinary medicine concerning equine dentistry is going through rapid improvements in dental techniques with vastly improved equipment and instruments. Also, in veterinary equine dentistry we have ever advancing diagnostic aids and better understanding of equine dental anatomy, physiology and pathology.
As a result of these many advances in veterinary medicine, there is a lot more to your horse’s dental care than just floating their teeth. Horses’ modern day dental care is vastly better than what it was even a few years ago. So the question comes, who should provide your horse’s dental care?
There are some lay people that proclaim themselves to be a “horse dentist.” As a professional horseman and with what I see in my veterinary practice, only a very small minority of these so called and self proclaimed “horse dentists” do an adequate to good job of the basic floating of horse’s teeth. The vast majority of these self proclaimed “horse dentists,” in my experience, do extremely poor, often neglectful and at times out right fraudulent work.
The terms “dentist” and “performing dentistry” to most people refer to some one with at least eight years of higher (college) education. In the human field of dentistry, this would be someone with a Doctor of Dental Science (D.D.S.) or a Dental Medical Doctor (D.M.D.) degree.
Veterinarians usually have eight or more years of college and professional training. The self-proclaimed “horse dentist” does not have this training or education. Some say that veterinarians get little training in equine dentistry while in veterinary school. There isn’t any truth in that statement. Furthermore, today more than ever, equine medicine and veterinary dentistry are under going changes in [the] schools of veterinary medicine. Special elective courses in equine dentistry are more often offered. The AAEP even has programs with experienced equine practitioners going into veterinary schools and teaching equine dentistry.
What is misunderstood by the non-veterinarians is how a veterinarian’s education is structured. First, one must gain entrance into a school of veterinary medicine, which is not easy. Most [entrants] have at least a bachelor’s degree, usually in a science, and must excel in courses such as biology, chemistry, physics and advanced mathematics. Once in veterinary school, [a] doctoral graduate level of intense, detailed study is done in Anatomy, Physiology, Histology, Embryology, Pathology, Toxicology and nearly every “-ology” dealing with animals you can think of. Then veterinary education moves into diagnosis, treatments, surgery and so on. One who graduates with a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree has a base or platform of education and knowledge to build upon.
A Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree is NOT where a veterinarians’ education ends. After graduation from veterinary school, one often goes to work with experienced veterinary practitioners. Many complete externships, internships and residencies. Many more veterinarians. after graduating from veterinary school, complete additional study and research leading to a Master of Veterinary Science or PhD (doctorate) degrees. After graduating from veterinary school, a number of veterinarians acquire intense training in a specific area and become board certified in various areas of veterinary medicine.
Then there is continuing education for veterinarians. The requirements vary from state to state. Usually, I complete 80 to 90 hours of continuing education a year and have completed over 150 hours of continuing education in a single year. Of course, most veterinarians subscribe to and read a number of professional veterinary journals to further our educations and keep current.
Equine dentistry, equine dental techniques and equine dental science are advancing rapidly. The AAEP has state-of-the-art continuing education on equine dentistry at all [its] national meetings and the AAEP has devoted an entire focus meeting to equine dentistry in recent years. Many state organizations (Florida Association of Equine Practitioners, etc) have meetings on equine dentistry. These meetings of advanced continuing education are well attended by veterinarians. Unfortunately, few non-veterinarians attend these meetings.
In deed, part of the veterinary oath is a commitment to life long continuing education. The self proclaimed “horse dentist” often has no formal training or [has] attended an unaccredited program for a couple of weeks.
Poor training and lack of the most basic knowledge in equine dental anatomy, physiology and pathology is dangerous and can be harmful to your horse. For example, I once observed a non veterinarian (a “lay dentist”) floating a horse’s teeth [gets] out what appeared to be a bolt cutter device and cut off the horse’s canine teeth. A horror right in front of my eyes! Cutting the canine teeth of a horse in this manner can fracture the teeth, open the pulp chamber (soft area) within the tooth and cause premature loss of the horse’s teeth. This dangerous procedure could potential cause infection of the bone and soft tissue in the horse’s jaw. I cautioned this person on the dangers of cutting equine teeth with a bolt cutter device. This “horse dentist” told me he was a graduate of the American Academy of Equine Dentistry, and this was how he was taught to address overgrown canine teeth in horses. Furthermore, he was employed by a non-veterinarian, a self described “certified equine dentist” of the International Association of Equine Dentistry. He told me that his employer had demonstrated and instructed him to cut off horses’ canine teeth in this manor.
Radical bit seats were another detrimental thing to the horse’s teeth that this “lay horse dentist” was doing. This is reducing or grinding away 30% or more of the first cheek teeth. This “lay dentist” told me he was educated by the “Academy of Equine Dentistry” to perform these radical bit seats and that it is also considered standard practice by his employer, again the self described, non-veterinarian “certified equine dentist” of the International Association of Equine Dentistry. I pointed out to this “lay horse dentist” that horses’ teeth are not a block of wood to be chipped and carved up; they are living structures. Reducing teeth or grinding more than 3 – 4 mm (less than ¼ inch) of tooth material at a time risks opening the pulp chamber, is very dangerous to the horse’s dental and overall health.
Additional things I often find in my veterinary practice are large caudal hooks, overgrowths and other abnormalities left uncorrected by these self described “horse dentists.” Without proper technique, knowledge, modernized instrumentation, diagnostic equipment, availability of sedation and anesthetics when needed, it is impossible to gain access to even apply a full-mouth speculum and visually and digitally examine every structure in the vast majority of horses’ mouths without endangering the horse, the handler and yourself.
Since both the AVMA, AAEP and State Veterinary Practice Acts define dentistry as veterinary medicine, to use the term “equine dentist” and to be performing equine dentistry should be reserved for those who are veterinarians.
The group who calls themselves the International Association of Equine Dentistry is made up of both veterinarians and non-veterinarians. The majority of this group are non-veterinarians. This group started out calling themselves the International Association of Equine Dental Technicians (IAEDT). Then they were trying to draw the analogy to a human dentist’s dental technician. However, they did NOT have degrees from an accredited college in dental (equine) technology and usually [are] not employed by a veterinarian. Human dental technicians are employed by and work for human dentists. You can not compare an equine lay dental education (four weeks max–no prerequisites not even a high school diploma) to a dental hygienist. To become a dental hygienist in United States, you must graduate from a dental hygiene program, with either an associate’s degree (most common), a certificate, a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree from a dental hygienist school that is accredited by the American Dental Association (ADA). All dental hygienists in the United States must be licensed by the state in which they practice, after completing a minimum of two years of school.
Now the organization calls itself the International Association of Equine Dentistry (IAED) and not only do the members proclaim to be “equine dentists,” but now call themselves “certified equine dentists” and “certified master equine dentists.” Keep in mind the non-veterinarian members, the majority of this group, do not have a doctoral-level education and haven’t spent a day in veterinary school.
If a group formed and called themselves the International Association of Lasik Eye Surgery (IALES) and proclaimed themselves to be Master Lasik Eye Surgeons, NOT having a medical doctoral degree, NOT having years of internship and residency in ophthalmology, would you allow some one from this group of self proclaimed “Master Lasik Eye Surgeons” to operate on your eyes? I don’t think so.
The reason we have practice acts is not to protect the veterinary profession but to protect the public, and [they were] demanded by the public. Most practice acts define dentistry as veterinary medicine. In most states, only veterinarians can legally perform dentistry on animals. In some states, such as New York, a human dentist can only work on animal’s teeth when under the supervision of a veterinarian.
The Maryland Veterinary Practice Act defines equine dentistry as veterinary medicine. However, it does have a clause permitting the floating of equine teeth by non-veterinarians. This clause in the Maryland Veterinary Practice Act was placed in the law many decades ago. It is my understanding the clause was placed in the practice act chiefly for an individual who was employed by and worked for a group of veterinarians, and NOT for someone proclaiming to be an equine dentist and/or working on their own.
In those days equine dentistry had not changed much for 100 or more years. We did not have the knowledge, instrumentation, diagnostic capabilities, sedation and anesthetics, and the many other advances we have today.
Lynn Caldwell, D.V.M., the chair of the AAEP Dentistry Committee, cautioned that wording in Veterinary Practice Acts [requires] great care to avoid unintended consequences. It is not likely that when the exception was placed in the Maryland Veterinary Practice Act decades ago, it could have foreseen the advances in veterinary medicine, surgery and dentistry of today, where we can drill and fill equine teeth, perform root canal surgery, have effective motorized instrumentation, portable digital x-rays in the field and so on. If these advances had been foreseen the exception may not have entered the Maryland Veterinary Practice Act.
Who should provide my horse’s dental care? From my veterinary stand point, the ultimate consumer (you and your horse) are the ones at risk. Another part of the Veterinary Oath states “The health of my patients, the best interest of owners, and the welfare of my fellow man, will be my primary considerations.” Here is the big dilemma: there are some very well educated, skilled veterinarians available to perform dentistry on your horse and a few non-veterinarians capable of doing basic care (floating teeth). Then there are a number of poorly educated individuals doing you and your horse a disservice.
I urge horse owners and trainers to regard equine dentistry as a professional service and an important part of horses’ healthcare. The services of a qualified veterinarian [who is] also licensed to perform surgical procedures and to administer medication is invaluable.
Are they looking at what they are doing?
They should be using portable surgical grade light (not a flash light), a padded stand, a full mouth speculum, and a veterinary assistant to steady the horse’s head. All equine dental procedures are best performed when you can see what you are doing. This work does not need to be done blindly.
All dental instruments, the speculum (device that holds the horse’s mouth open), buckets, etc are all cleaned and washed with an antimicrobial disinfectant (I use Nolvasan Scrub and Solution) between each and every horse. No exceptions!
They should be well equipped with good instrumentation, both motorized and non-motorized. I have over 100 different instruments that I use and probably could use more.
A complete examination with the use of surgical grade lighting, a dental mirror, and other appropriate instruments should be done. A record indicating all teeth in your horse’s mouth, noting location and significance of all abnormalities, what work needs to be done, and time of follow up examinations should also be included.
This should be done when indicated and needed. An array of medications is available to assist us when we perform dentistry. These medications make your horse more comfortable. When the horse is sedated, it allows us to do a better job in a safer way.
They should have access to diagnostic imaging equipment, such as x-rays, preferably digital x-rays. This allows us to uncover and manage a host of equine dental abnormalities.
When any invasive procedure such as wolf teeth extraction is performed, it should be done with sterile instruments under sterile techniques.
Over the years now I have been told lots of times that I either hadn’t “kept up with the times” (that’s okay, neither have the horses that I know of) or that I simply didn’t know what I was doing. As long as the horse knew what I was doing, and they seemed to, I figured I would live with those opinions from people, most of whom have been on this planet for less time than I have worked with horses.
Now, however, I find that what I have done, what almost all of my contemporaries have done in fact, is not only wrong, it is illegal. Yep, illegal, at least as far as the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and the Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners is concerned. I can’t afford a chiropractor and don’t worry too much about what they think about me anyway, but, gee, I have always thought highly of almost every vet I ever met. And yet, here I am, in noncompliance with their rules and regulations.
If I am not allowed to massage horses for money, was I acting illegally all those years that I worked as a groom? I know that nowadays folks mainly tie up a horse and bathe them, but back in the bad old days, we groomed them every day. If a good all over grooming is not a form of massage, I’ll eat one of those big old horse brushes.
So where does that leave grooms? They certainly aren’t working on their own animals. They are working on other people’s animals, and for money, too. A groom normally administers to the regular ills and injuries of the animals owned by his employers. If he did not he wouldn’t be much of a groom.
Does this mean that a groom can’t deal with gravel with the blacksmith? No more hooves covered with duct tape without a vet standing over us each and every time we wrap that hoof up? Are there vets enough to go around for this sort of supervision?
What person can afford to have a vet on hand to supervise a groom in dealing with every small boo-boo that a horse can get in a normal day’s turnout in the pasture?
“Yes, yes, it IS an emergency! The horse that I groom has a one half inch cut on his gaskin and I need a vet here to wash it out and apply a bit of ointment. And, yes, you have better have him plan to come out and deal with this for the next three or four days. This horse never has healed all that quickly from anything! Oh, and by the way, I leave at five on the dot. This is not a very nice horse so the vet better drop everything and get on over here if he wants to live through this!” Yeah, right!
But, come to think of it, if the vet has to deal with everything anyway, according to the SBVME, why should the groom hang around? Grooms get paid by the week and their days go on forever. It would seem to me that one expert on the case ought to be enough. Get the vet to leave a fully written explanation of what he has done and go on out to a movie, right? Wrong!
If it comes to this pass the first person who will complain will be the owner who has to pay the vet bills and the second person who will complain will be the long-suffering vets who never get enough sleep anyway. Most vets depend upon good grooms to have sense enough to know what they can handle and what needs the vet’s expertise.
That groom/vet relationship has been going on for a long, long time. If the SBVME tries to get in the middle of that I’ll bet they will hear about it from a lot people much closer to them than the equine massage practitioners and the Institute for Justice.
After the September issue of The Equiery hit the streets, I—as the editor and publisher—was questioned about my decision to publish an anonymous letter from a veterinarian; the letter commented on the lawsuit recently filed by Mercedes Clemens against the Maryland Boards of Chiropractic Examiners and Veterinary Medical Examiners.
As regular readers of The Equiery know, we have closely followed the lawsuit filed by Mercedes Clemens against these two Boards. At issue is whether or not the Boards are imposing unnecessary regulations that imping on Clemens’ ability to make a living, thereby violating her rights under the Maryland State Constitution. The Equiery has received and published several commentaries supporting her efforts or detailing the writers’ personal experiences with the Vet Practice Laws. Almost all letters published are critical of Maryland’s Vet Practice Act.
Privately and off the record, several veterinarians have set forth coherent and logical reasons for the laws as they currently stand. Additionally, several veterinarians have noted that, in their opinion, the issue is not really about the Maryland Vet Practice Act, but about the Chiropractic Board’s regulations. The anonymous letter published in the September 2008 issue explores this is some detail.
For reasons that are perhaps typical of the breed (veterinarians being among the more scholarly and conservative of equine professionals), no veterinarian had, as of press time for the September issue, been willing to go on the record. The Equiery has been promised—and will no doubt some day receive—a letter from one or more vets who are willing to go on record outlining the benefits of the Vet Practice Act as it currently stands. Of course, since they are a scholarly breed, it may take these vets the same length of time it took them to get through vet school to get the letter written.
In the meantime, The Equiery was stuck. On the one hand, the magazine was getting criticized for running only one side of the issue, and but on the other side, no one was willing to go on the record and outline the coherent points that they were willing to share with us privately.
In the interests of providing some sort of balance, I made the decision to print a commentary without attribution. I was subsequently called to task for it, noting that it was not “fair,” because those challenging the Maryland Vet Practice Act had done so publicly, allowing their criticisms to be attributed to them by name. They had “stuck their necks out,” and it was not fair for The Equiery to publish an opposing viewpoint anonymously.
Since then, we have received, and will publish in a future “News & View” (The Equiery’s “op/ed” page)—a commentary from Dr. James Casey, DVM, a Maryland veterinarian who specializes in dentistry.
And we continue to encourage anyone who has an opinion on this subject, or any Maryland related equine industry issue, to share their opinions and thoughts with our readers.
The Equiery first reported on massage therapist Mercedes Clemens’ lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s Vet Practice Act in the July issue. Earlier this year, the Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners (“Chiropractic Board”) issued Clemens, a licensed human massage therapist and a certified equine massage therapist, a “cease and desist order,” noting that a license from the Chiropractic Board (which regulates human massage therapists) prohibits her from practicing on animals.
The Chiropractic Board’s letter said that if Clemens did not immediately cease practicing on animals, the Chiropractic Board would revoke her license to practice on humans.
Clemens ceased her equine massage practice and subsequently, through the Institute for Justice, filed a lawsuit against both Boards for violation of her constitutional rights.
In July, the Vet Board attempted to distance itself from the Chiropractic Board by issuing a statement stating that it had no problem with Clemens’ massage practice, implying that the Chiropractic Board had not only acted alone, but had acted inappropriately in using its [the Vet Board’s] memo.
Since then, the Associated Press has picked up the story, with news outlets from USA Today to CNN Radio to the Australian Broadcasting Company running articles or interviewing Clemens. In addition, an AOL poll pulled in thousands of participants.
In August, the Chiropractic and Vet Board filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss based on improper venue. The Institute for Justice filed the suit in Montgomery County Circuit Court, and the Motion to Dismiss notes that the “domiciles” of the two Boards are Baltimore City (for the Chiropractic Board) and Anne Arundel County (for the Vet Board), and that therefore, Montgomery County is an inappropriate venue (see equiery.com for a copy of the motion).
The letter that Clemens received was based upon a human health regulation, not the Veterinary Practice Act, and [the fact that]she was not told that she could not do massage on horses, but rather that she could not do massage on horses while retaining her license to do massage on people.
A person who is licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized to practice a health occupation under this article may not practice the health occupation on an animal unless the person: (1) Is a licensed pharmacist practicing pharmacy under Title 12 of this article; (2) Is a licensed acupuncturist practicing in accordance with § 2-301(g)(11) of the Agriculture Article; or (3) Provides care to an animal in accordance with § 2-304(e) of the Agriculture Article.
These rules govern the conduct of human health care professionals, not lay people working on animals—and altering the Practice Act would have no effect on this situation.
(e) (1) The Board may authorize the practice of a health occupation on an animal by a health care practitioner licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized under the Health Occupations Article.
(ii) Require the registration of each health care practitioner authorized to practice a health occupation on an animal in accordance with this subsection.
This provision seems as though it could be a reasonable mechanism to allow people like Mercedes Clemens who are already licensed in a human health profession to work on animals using existing law.
My Story – Courtney Molino (ESMT, CMT) is a certified equine sports massage therapist and owner of the Maryland-based “Hands On Horses” practice. To read her letter in full, click here.
I am trained in equine anatomy, massage techniques, gait analysis, muscle function and common musculoskeletal disorders. I studied equine science and anatomy at Virginia Tech before pursuing my equine massage certification in 2004. I believe I bring a much-needed alternative service to my clients of all riding disciplines and levels, from competitive athletes and pleasure horses to aging equines and those recuperating from illness or injury.
I have always been careful to ensure that my clients realize that massage therapy does not equate with veterinary medicine. In fact, I very clearly state the following on my website and in all promotional materials. In no way are massage services meant to be construed as the diagnosis or treatment of injury or disease, but rather as an aid to promote and improve the animal’s overall wellness. A massage program is not a substitute for medical treatment, and it is always recommended to consult your veterinarian prior to beginning a massage program.
However, my disclaimer apparently was not clear enough to the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, who sent me a letter in January 2008, stating that I may be in violation of the Maryland Veterinary Practice Act and therefore practicing veterinary medicine without a license. Specifically, the Board was taking exception to certain phrases I used on my website, such as being trained to “identify muscle spasms,” “alleviate sore backs, stiffness and lameness” and “relieve pain.” According to the Board, only licensed veterinarians are legally qualified to do these things.
The Board requested that I “cease and desist immediately from activities constituting the practice of veterinary medicine.” They further informed me that I should give a “thorough and thoughtful revision” to my website and promotional materials to “avoid giving the appearance” that I was practicing veterinary medicine. I was surprised, to say the least, as I honestly believed I was only offering massage services to my equine clients.
The Vet Board was “particularly concerned about the barn call aspect of the business, which is without the benefit of direct veterinary supervision.” I agree a good massage practitioner is able to work with the veterinarian as part of a comprehensive healthcare team, but it is unreasonable to expect the veterinarian to serve as a “direct, standing-over-your shoulder, watching every move” supervisor. In fact, many of my clients come from veterinary referrals, and most of the veterinarians I have talked with express no desire to massage horses. Their expertise is best utilized elsewhere.
And, apparently, since there is no exclusion under the Practice Act for “certified massage therapists,” the state of Maryland “views a certified equine massage therapist no differently than any individual having no training whatsoever.” Because the state does not “regulate or license massage therapists for animals” nor certify “equine/canine massage therapists,” then those of us who have spent vast amount of time and money learning this trade apparently are bad people who must be reeled in and banished from the animal world! I’m sure my fellow qualified practitioners who, like me, have dedicated themselves by expending the time and resources to learn the skills of this trade would disagree.
Luckily for me, I was able to continue serving my equine clientele by making the terminology changes the Vet Board suggested.
As horse owners, we have the right to self-determine the type of care our horses receive, as long as the care (or lack of care) does not constitute animal abuse. This includes having access to trained professionals who successfully demonstrate their ability to promote overall wellness and keep the entire equine body in peak physical condition. Holistic and alternative services for our horses should be available to all of us and provided by individuals qualified to provide those services, [which does not necessarily mean] four-plus years in medical school.
As the profession of equine massage continues to grow, it is a given that we will all suffer from growing pains. However, there is a better way to handle this. With the recent outpouring of animal massage certifications schools, some better than others, it is imperative and the responsibility of horse owners to do their homework to ensure only trained professionals work on their animals. It is critical for practitioners to supplement the knowledge gained in massage school with continuing education, and for the practitioners and public to demand this level of expertise. None of us should ever stop learning!
While we all wait for the outcome of the current lawsuit brought against the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, you can make a difference. Contact the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Laura Downes, Executive Director, 410-841-5862, downeslc@mda.state.md.us) and let them know that you want free access to the healthcare practitioners of your choice. Contact Christopher J. Kelter, M.P.A., Deputy Director/Massage Therapy Program Manager of the Chiropractic Board at 410-764-4738. Let the Boards know that you, as the primary advocate for your horse, want and will demand access to trained professionals of alternative services as you determine yourself!
There is strength in numbers. It is up to all of us to make a difference!
I am writing regarding the unwarranted interference of Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners, in collusion with the Maryland Board of Veterinarians, that affects my rights and abilities to select the best care options for my horses—-specifically equine massage therapy. I am the OWNER of said horses, not the Chiropractic Board, and to have my options blocked by a group who in all likelihood doesn’t even know which end of a horse eats is simply outrageous.
Horse people, almost by definition, have back problems and use chiropractors with some frequency. Until that is, they come to know that chiropractors are blocking them from receiving the equine massage therapy they may desire for their horses. Let’s see, what do you think will happen? Who will be blamed? Can you spell B-O-Y-C-O-T-T? What will your chiropractors think of their own board if it causes such problems for them?
I, for one, will not set foot in my chiropractor’s door until they back off, and I will do my level best to make sure every horse person in Maryland is aware of this situation.
What do you think? E-mail your thoughts to editor@equiery.com.
In the July issue of The Equiery, we reported that on June 10, massage therapist Mercedes Clemens filed a lawsuit against the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (“Vet Board”) and the Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners (“Chiropractic Board”) for violation of her constitutional rights. Last winter, this Gaithersburg resident received a “cease and desist” letter from the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. A follow-up letter from the Chiropractic Board, reaffirming its position, included a generic notice from the Vet Board.
In response to our original article in the July issue, The Equiery has been receiving numerous phone calls and e-mails from therapists and equine health care workers. Some are willing to share their stories with our readers, but others – out of fear that legal action will be taken against them – are not willing to go on record, as they are still practicing, just “off the radar.” We want our readers to form their own opinions on this controversial subject, and so we will endeavor to let our readers, including the chairman of the Vet Board, speak for themselves. As they provide us with their stories, letters and/or other materials, we will make these available to our readers through both our print and digital publications.
– On June 17, 2008, the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (“SBVME”) received a copy of the lawsuit filed by Ms. H. Mercedes Clemens against the SBVME and the Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Ms. Clemens alleges that both the SBVME and the Board of Chiropractic Examiners have, through their regulatory authority, prevented Ms. Clemens from practicing equine massage in Maryland. The SBVME unequivocally has never interfered with Ms. Clemens’ right to practice massage on horses in Maryland and views this lawsuit against the SBVME as premature.
The SBVME does not regulate equine massage by nonveterinarians if the massage is intended solely for the purpose of helping the animal relax or generally feel better. The SVBME, however, has indicated in communication with the Chiropractic Board that a person engaging in equine massage may be in violation of the Veterinary Practices Act if the massage services offered are for the purpose of diagnosing and treating a specific ailment or injury of a horse. The SBVME, whose mission is to protect animal health and welfare, has the statutory authority to regulate the “practice of veterinary medicine,” which “includes the practice by any person who … diagnoses, advises, administers [an] … appliance, application or treatment of any nature, for the prevention, cure or relief of a wound, fracture, bodily injury or disease of an animal.”— Agriculture Article, § 2-301(f). If a person engaging in equine massage is “practicing veterinary medicine,” as defined, the person must be a licensed veterinarian. —Agriculture Article § 2-313(1).
Ms. Clemens’ lawsuit, however, does not contain a single allegation that she is offering—or advertising— her massage services for the purposes of treating or diagnosing disease or injury of horses. Thus, SBMVE regulatory oversight is not an issue at this time.
Unfortunately, the SBVME is not aware of any effort by Ms. Clemens, or her attorneys, to discuss her situation directly with the SBVME. As chairman, I would have been happy to meet with her in an effort to make the SBVME’s position clear and explain to her that she is not prohibited from massaging horses for the purposes she describes in her lawsuit.
see that the Vet Board was “backpedaling” on its earlier position.
The memo makes no mention of exceptions to the statement, such as massage for “general relaxation” or for making an animal “feel better.” If that was the Vet Board’s view at the time, it should have been included in that memo. So no, the Vet Board’s recent statement backpedaling from their earlier position does not change our plans to proceed with the lawsuit against both the Vet Board and Chiropractic Board (which issued the “cease and desist” order). The Vet Board claims that it has “never interfered” with my equine massage practice. Their earlier statement is unequivocal—massage and other manual techniques are considered to be the practice of veterinary medicine. No exceptions. It is a document that the Chiropractic Board used as justification to shut down my animal massage business. That is pretty clear interference.
There are no exemptions in the veterinary practice act for licensed massage therapists or for massage and other manual techniques performed by non-veterinarians. Yet there remain exemptions in the act for more invasive procedures, such as equine dentistry, farriery, acupuncture and livestock management techniques.
Board, which relied on the Vet Board’s earlier statements to shut me down, hasn’t backed down from its position at all. So until the law is changed, I, along with other licensed massage therapists in Maryland, will remain under threat of losing our businesses.
The plaintiff’s position against the Vet Board is very legitimate from a working member of society’s viewpoint—particularly when that member is educated, certified and licensed.
On Monday, August 11, the Associated Press (a newsfeed service for all media) issued a news release on the massage therapy lawsuit against the Maryland State Chiropractic Board. Look for interviews on ABC Channel 7 (link), CNN Radio (link), WBAL (link), and WTOP (link). To participate in the American Online poll click here.
ARLINGTON, VA (July 11, 2008) —In a statement released today, the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners backpedaled on its earlier position that only licensed veterinarians may perform animal massage in the state of Maryland. However, until the law is changed or struck down, animal massage therapists still cannot practice their craft freely.
The Veterinary Board’s statement was released in response to a lawsuit filed on June 10, 2008, by the Institute for Justice on behalf of Mercedes Clemens, a Maryland entrepreneur with a thriving massage practice in Rockville that, until recently, offered both human and animal massage. In addition to being a licensed massage therapist for people, Mercedes has more than 30 years of practical experience as a horse owner and rider, has been privately certified in equine massage, and has even taught animal massage to others.
Founded in 1991, the Virginia-based Institute for Justice has represented entrepreneurs nationwide who successfully fought arbitrary and unnecessary regulations. These cases include the landmark legal battle to open the interstate shipment of wine in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down discriminatory state shipping laws that hampered small wineries as well as their consumers.
Vet Board Responds to Lawsuit – statement by Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners’ Chair, Chris H. Runde, D.V.M.
ANNAPOLIS, MD (July 9, 2008) – On June 17, 2008, the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (“SBVME”) received a copy of the lawsuit filed by Ms. H. Mercedes Clemens against the SBVME and the Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Ms. Clemens alleges that both the SBVME and the Board of Chiropractic Examiners have, through their regulatory authority, prevented Ms. Clemens from practicing equine massage in Maryland. The SBVME unequivocally has never interfered with Ms. Clemens right to practice massage on horses in Maryland and views this lawsuit against the SBVME as premature.
The SBVME does not regulate equine massage by non-veterinarians if the massage is intended solely for the purpose of helping the animal relax or generally feel better. The SVBME, however, has indicated in communication with the Chiropractic Board that a person engaging in equine massage may be in violation of the Veterinary Practices Act if the massage services offered are for the purpose of diagnosing and treating a specific ailment or injury of a horse. The SBVME, whose mission is to protect animal health and welfare, has the statutory authority to regulate the “practice of veterinary medicine,” which “includes the practice by any person who…diagnoses, advises, administers [an] … appliance, application, or treatment of any nature, for the prevention, cure, or relief of a wound, fracture, bodily injury, or disease of an animal.” Agriculture Article, § 2-301(f). If a person engaging in equine massage is “practicing veterinary medicine,” as defined, the person must be a licensed veterinarian. Agriculture Article § 2-313(1).
Ms. Clemens’ lawsuit, however, does not contain a single allegation that she is offering—or advertising—her massage services for the purposes of treating or diagnosing disease or injury of horses. Thus, SBMVE regulatory oversight is not an issue at this time.
It has become apparent to the staff of The Equiery that over the years, equine dentists and other non-veterinary animal wellness professionals have chafed under Maryland’s strict Code of Veterinary Practice, which essentially prohibits anyone from practicing any sort of animal physical wellness or therapy unless under the “direct” supervision of a licensed vet.
Under this code, certain health care professionals—such as farriers, individuals caring for their own horses, vet techs and acupuncturists—are exempt. Some dentistry is exempt, some not. Acupuncturists must be licensed to practice on animals by the State Board of Acupuncture as well as meeting other strict criteria within the Vet Code. Currently, the Maryland State Board of Chiropractic Examiners licenses massage therapists who work on humans. Mercedes Clemens notes in a June 10 press release and on her website that she is a licensed human massage therapist under the State Board, is privately certified in equine massage and is a Certified Equine Body Worker®. Unlike acupuncture, there is currently no license requirement for animal massage under the governing human board equivalent.

matches:
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2


text:
Matthew Henry (1662-1714), still world-famous amongst Christians for his Commentary, was a Presbyterian minister born in Flintshire, Wales. His father was a renowned pastor of the Puritan era.
Observe, I. Singing the praises of God is here called prophesying (v. 1-3), not that all those who were employed in this service were honoured with the visions of God, or could foretel things to come. Heman indeed is said to be the king's seer in the words of God (v. 5); but the psalms they sang were composed by the prophets, and many of them were prophetical; and the edification of the church was intended in it, as well as the glory of God. In Samuel's time singing the praises of God went by the name of prophesying (1 Sam. x. 5; xix. 20), and perhaps that is intended in what St. Paul calls prophesying, 1 Cor. xi. 4; xiv. 24.
II. This is here called a service, and the persons employed in it workmen, v. 1. Not but that it is the greatest liberty and pleasure to be employed in praising God: what is heaven but that? But it intimates that it is our duty to make a business of it, and stir up all that is within us to it; and that, in our present state of corruption and infirmity, it will not be done as it should be done without labour and struggle. We must take pains with our hearts to bring them, and keep them, to this work, and to engage all that is within us.
III. Here were, in compliance with the temper of that dispensation, a great variety of musical instruments used, harps, psalteries, cymbals (v. 1, 6), and here was one that lifted up the horn (v. 5), that is, used wind-music. The bringing of such concerts of music into the worship of God now is what none pretend to. But those who use such concerts for their own entertainment should feel themselves obliged to preserve them always free from any thing that savours of immorality or profaneness, by this consideration, that time was when they were sacred; and then those were justly condemned who brought them into common use, Amos vi. 5. They invented to themselves instruments of music like David.
IV. The glory and honour of God were principally intended in all this temple-music, whether vocal or instrumental. It was to give thanks, and praise the Lord, that the singers were employed, v. 3. It was in the songs of the Lord that they were instructed (v. 7), that is, for songs in the house of the Lord, v. 6. This agrees with the intention of the perpetuating of psalmody in the gospel-church, which is to make melody with the heart, in conjunction with the voice, unto the Lord, Eph. v. 19.
V. The order of the king is likewise taken notice of, v. 2 and again v. 6. In those matters indeed David acted as a prophet; but his taking care for the due and regular observance of divine institutions, both ancient and modern, is an example to all in authority to use their power for the promoting of religion, and the enforcing of the laws of Christ. Let them thus be ministers of God for good.
VI. The fathers presided in this service, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun (v. 1), and the children were under the hands of their father, v. 2, 3, 6. This gives a good example to parents to train up their children, and indeed to all seniors to instruct their juniors in the service of God, and particularly in praising him, than which there is no part of our work more necessary or more worthy to be transmitted to the succeeding generations. It gives also an example to the younger to submit themselves to the elder (whose experience and observation fit them for direction), and, as far as may be, to do what they do under their hand. It is probable that Heman, Asaph, and Jeduthun, were bred up under Samuel, and had their education in the schools of the prophets which he was the founder and president of; then they were pupils, now they came to be masters. Those that would be eminent must begin early, and take time to prepare themselves. This good work of singing God's praises Samuel revived, and set on foot, but lived not to see it brought to the perfection it appears in here. Solomon perfects what David began, so David perfects what Samuel began. Let all, in their day, do what they can for God and his church, though they cannot carry it so far as they would; when they are gone God can out of stones raise up others who shall build upon their foundation and bring forth the top-stone.
VII. There were others also, besides the sons of these three great men, who are called their brethren (probably because they had been wont to join with them in their private concerts), who were instructed in the songs of the Lord, and were cunning or well skilled therein, v. 7. They were all Levites and were in number 288. Now, 1. These were a good number, and a competent number to keep up the service in the house of God; for they were all skilful in the work to which they were called. When David the king was so much addicted to divine poesy and music many others, all that had a genius for it, applied their studies and endeavours that way. Those do religion a great deal of good service that bring the exercises of devotion into reputation. 2. Yet these were but a small number in comparison with the 4000 whom David appointed thus to praise the Lord, ch. xxiii. 5. Where were all the rest when only 288, and those but by twelve in a course, were separated to this service? It is probable that all the rest were divided into as many courses, and were to follow as these led. Or, perhaps, these were for songs in the house of the Lord (v. 6), with whom any that worshipped in the courts of that house might join; and the rest were disposed of, all the kingdom over, to preside in the country congregations, in this good work: for, though the sacrifices instituted by the hand of Moses might be offered but at one place, the psalms penned by David might be sung every where, 1 Tim. ii. 8.
“A Commentary on the Holy Bible,” Ward, Lock & Co., Vol 2, pp 1037-1038.

matches: v. v. v. v. V. v. v. v. v.


(u) except as otherwise provided by law, perform the duties and carry out the purposes of K.S.A. 74-8102 through 74-8104 and 74-8107 through 74-8111, and amendments thereto.
History: L. 1963, ch. 407, § 5; L. 1974, ch. 350, § 12; L. 1975, ch. 427, § 242; L. 1976, ch. 350, § 1; L. 1976, ch. 349, § 1; L. 1980, ch. 284, § 18; L. 1983, ch. 255, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 296, § 7; L. 1987, ch. 304, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 118, § 181; L. 1990, ch. 283, § 4; L. 1994, ch. 122, § 1; L. 2001, ch. 5, § 322; L. 2005, ch. 104, § 9; L. 2011, ch. 104, § 12; L. 2012, ch. 47, § 96; July 1.


text:
Psalm 132, a text from the later pre-exilic time, is about the well-being of Zion and its faithful. This well-being, essentially David’s, is grounded on the presence of YHWH in Zion. It is realized when YHWH looks friendly upon the Davidic king. The first part of the psalm (vv. 1-10) asks for this favour on the strength of David’s hardships to find for his God a place to dwell. The second part (vv. 11- 18) is an answer to the first. The psalm is an introit-song, composed for the festival of Sukkoth. Expressing notions that remained important to the religious community, it was reintroduced after the exile to be used at the same festival.
Psalm 132: Zionâ€™s Well-Being Psalm 132 is a text which, in view of its content and its place in the psalter, must have been important to the religious community of Zion. What exactly is the purport of this text? What was its function in religious life? To find an answer to these questions, different aspects of the psalm will be investigated. I Considered from a formal point of view, Psalm 132 is a well ordered composition. It can be described as follows. In vv. 1.10.11 and 17 the name of David is found. The repetition can be taken as a twofold inclusion, arguing a division in two main parts: vv. 1-10 and vv. 11-18. There are data to confirm this division. First, both parts consist of 10 distichs precisely. Secondly, an oath is mentioned at the beginning of both. Thirdly, vv. 1-10 are in the main prayers and exhortations, vv. 11-18 mainly words of YHWH in quotation. Some take vv. 11-12 as a further ground (after v. 10a) for the prayer in v. 10b (1). In their view, the text means to say, Do not repudiate your anointed one, since God has made a promise to David. The transition from second to third person (â€˜yourâ€™ â€” â€˜YHWHâ€™) does not favour this reading. Another reason to reject it is the connection between vv. 11-12 and the verses following them. I will return to this point. There is a special relationship between vv. 8-10 and vv. 13-18, to the effect that the prayers of vv. 8, 9 and 10 are answered in vv. 13-14, 15-16 and 17-18 respectively. The relative length of the answering passages is in harmony with their content, indicating a generous measure. In v. 8 YHWH is asked to rise up to his resting place; vv. 13-14 declare that he desires Zion as his resting place forever. Verse 9a is a prayer for the â€˜righteousnessâ€™ (qdx) that can make the priestly service salutary (cf. qdx in Isa 11,5; Job 29,14); in v. 16a YHWH says that he himself will invest the priests with salvation ([vy). In v. 9b it is asked that in Zion (2) YHWHâ€™s faithful may shout for joy; in vv. 15.16b Zion is given the prospect of lavish material blessing (Ëšrba Ëšrb, inf. abs.) and exuberant jubilation (wnnry Ë†nr, inf. abs. again). In v. 10 God is asked for the sake of David not to reject his â€˜anointed oneâ€™; in vv. 17-18 royal welfare and victory are promised in David abundantly. External parallelism and the pattern of textual coherence suggest strophes of alternately two and three verses for the first part of the text (vv. 1-2.3-5, etc.), strophes of two verses for the second (vv. 11.12.13-14, etc.). This division is supported by the relation, mentioned above, between vv. 8-10 and vv. 13-18, and the repetition of words in corresponding positions (bq[y rybal, (1) Thus e.g. F. DELITZSCH, Biblischer Commentar Ã¼ber die Psalmen (Leipzig 41883) 813; E.J. KISSANE, The Book of Psalms. Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text. With a Commentary (Dublin 1953-1954) II, 273; J. SCHREINER, Sion-Jerusalem, Jahwes KÃ¶nigssitz. Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament (MÃ¼nchen 1963) 103. (2) See v. 16 and the use of dysj, â€˜faithfulâ€™, in Ps 50,5; 52,11; 116,15; 149,1-2.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


Lawmen: 6014 26 USC 6065 – to whom does it apply, and why?
What department does the Internal Revenue fall under?
And what are the rules and regulation to its employees?
(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed.
31 CFR 0.208 – Falsification of official records.
§ 0.208 Falsification of official records.
Employees shall not intentionally make false, misleading or ambiguous statements, orally or in writing, in connection with any matter of official interest. Matters of official interest include among other things: Transactions with the public, government agencies or fellow employees; application forms and other forms that serve as a basis for appointment, reassignment, promotion or other personnel action; vouchers; leave records and time and attendance records; work reports of any nature or accounts of any kind; affidavits; entry or record of any matter relating to or connected with an employee’s duties; and reports of any moneys or securities received, held or paid to, for or on behalf of the United States.
31 CFR 0.207 – Cooperation with official inquiries.
§ 0.207 Cooperation with official inquiries.
Employees shall respond to questions truthfully and under oath when required, whether orally or in writing, and must provide documents and other materials concerning matters of official interest when directed to do so by competent Treasury authority.
Subject: [Lawmen: 6014] 26 USC 6065 – to whom does it apply, and why?
Regarding the question about 27 USC 6065 ""
The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.
You could argue that 6065 applies to "any …document required to be made under any provision of the IR laws or regulations" unless the Secretary stipulates otherwise. That would include of course an assessment by an assessment officer. I have never seen an assessment, and I have never seen a 4340 computer printout offered in lieu of an assessment signed under PoP by a person I knew was a duly constituted assessment officer.
You could argue that the IRC requires in numerous provisions that the "Secretary shall" make some list or document, and so 6065 must apply to all those.
"Section 4. Verification of Returns.
"This section gives the Commissioner authority to eliminate the oath in the case of corporate, fiduciary, partnership, estate, and gift-tax returns, and other returns or statements. The present law eliminates the oath in the case of individual income-tax returns and employment-tax returns. These changes will not only relieve the taxpayers of the burden of notarizing their returns but will expedite the processing by the Bureau of returns which might otherwise have to be sent back for compliance with the oath requirement." Sen.Rep.No.685, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., Part II, § 4 (1949).
You might try using a little common sense yourself, and ask yourself whether your tax mess would turn out any different if the IRS agents signed all their documents under Penalties of Perjury, and whether that would just become a big waste of time. You’ll probably conclude that no, it would not do any good, and yes, it would be a waste of time.
Eugene ALEXANDER, Arthur L. Brunwasser and Carol M. Landy, Defendants.
557*557 John D. Morelli, Garnerville, NY, pro se.
Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, Daniel S. Alter, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, for Defendants.
This action for mandamus is before this Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6). Pro se Plaintiff John D. Morelli ("Morelli") brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel Defendants, Eugene Alexander, Arthur L. Brunwasser and Carol M. Landy, agents of the Internal Revenue Service ("the Agents"), to strictly comply with the Internal Revenue Code and regulations.
Morelli charges that the Agents violated various duties under the Internal Revenue Code when they sent him several official notices without signing them under penalty of perjury, 26 U.S.C. § 6065, when they failed to prepare a tax return for him, 26 U.S.C. § 6020, and when they sent him a defective Notice of Intent to Levy, 26 U.S.C. § 6031.
558*558 The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary situations. See Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34, 101 S.Ct. 188, 189-90, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Mandamus is available only when three conditions are met: (1) the plaintiff has a clear right to the relief sought, (2) the defendant has a plainly defined and peremptory duty to perform the act in question, and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. See Anderson v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 1, 5 (2d Cir.1989). Where the party seeking relief under § 1361 fails to demonstrate the existence of any of the necessary criteria, mandamus is not available. See, e.g., Sprecher v. Graber, 716 F.2d 968, 973 (2d Cir.1983).
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
Morelli has incorrectly interpreted this provision. Section 6065 was enacted to permit the taxpayer to submit a verified return rather than a notarized return, see, e.g., Cohen v. United States, 201 F.2d 386, 393 (9th Cir.) (construing § 6065’s predecessor provision), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 951, 73 S.Ct. 864, 97 L.Ed. 1374 (1953), and does not apply to notices issued by IRS agents. See Pursell v. United States, 1995 WL 273175 at *6 (E.D.Cal.1995); Mueller v. Esselstrom, 1995 WL 462219 at *2-3 (C.D.Cal.1995); In re White, 168 B.R. 825, 833 (Bankr.D.Conn. 1994). Accordingly, Morelli has failed to satisfy the second prong for mandamus jurisdiction which requires that there exist a plainly defined and peremptory duty to be performed. See Mueller,1995 WL 462219 at *2-3 (action to require IRS agent to sign Notice of Intent to Levy failed to satisfy jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1361). Further, other adequate remedies are available to Morelli, such as paying the assessed taxes and seeking a refund pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7422. See Mueller, 1995 WL 462219 at *3. See also Davidson v. C.I.R., 589 F.Supp. 158, 161-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (injunction restraining IRS from enforcing a levy denied because payment of the tax assessed followed by a suit for refund constitutes an adequate remedy). Morelli therefore also fails to satisfy the third requirement for mandamus jurisdiction.
Section 6020(b)(1) authorizes the Secretary to make a substitute tax return for any person who fails to make one on his own. Morelli requests the remedy of mandamus which would have the effect of ordering the Agents to prepare a tax return for him. However, section 6020 does not require the IRS to prepare a return for the taxpayer before issuing a notice of deficiency. See, e.g., Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 832-33 (2nd Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238, 111 S.Ct. 2871, 115 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1991); United States v. Stafford, 983 F.2d 25, 27 (5th Cir.1993); Geiselman v. United States, 961 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 891, 113 S.Ct. 261, 121 L.Ed.2d 191; 559*559 Roat v. C.I.R., 847 F.2d 1379, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988). Consequently, the Agents have no duty to file a return for Morelli, and the Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over this claim as well.
Morelli’s final argument is that the Notice of Intent, dated January 18, 1993, fails to comply with the substantive requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6331(d)(4). We do not reach the merits of this claim because Morelli’s action to seek review of the Notice is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421. See Randell v. United States, 64 F.3d 101, 106 (2nd Cir.1995). The purpose of § 7421 is to protect the government’s need to assess and collect taxes as expeditiously as possible with a minimum of pre-enforcement judicial interference, and to require that the taxpayer’s legal rights be determined in a suit for refund. See Randell, 64 F.3d at 106. Section 7421 has been broadly construed to include not only assessment and collection, but also "activities which are intended to or may culminate in the assessment or collection of taxes." Linn v. Chivatero, 714 F.2d 1278, 1282 (5th Cir.1983). See also Weiner v. I.R.S., 986 F.2d 12, 13 (2nd Cir.1993) (taxpayer suit seeking apology or explanation of errors that caused improper levy barred by 26 U.S.C. § 7421); Bianco v. I.R.S., 1994 WL 538020 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (claim regarding the state of taxpayer’s records and requests for corrections barred by 26 U.S.C. § 7421). Therefore, the Anti-Injunction Act divests this Court of jurisdiction to hear Morelli’s claim for preenforcement review of the Notices he received under 26 U.S.C. § 6331.
For the reasons stated, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The clerk shall enter judgment.
 Morelli was sent a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, three Notices of Intent to Levy, a Notice of Deficiency, and an Overdue Tax Return Notice.
 Morelli sues the Agents in their "personal and individual capacities" rather than in their official capacities in an apparent attempt to prevent the Department of Justice from representing the Agents. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1631 refers only to the official acts of government officers and therefore does not give this Court jurisdiction over their personal conduct. See Cook v. Arentzen, 582 F.2d 870, 876 (4th Cir.1978); Mueller v. Esselstrom, 1995 WL 462219 at *3, n. 2 (C.D.Cal. 1995).
 26 U.S.C. § 6331(d)(4), which prescribes what must be included in a Notice to Levy, does not require the signature of an IRS official.
 Section 6331 allows the IRS to levy the property of a deficient taxpayer provided that the taxpayer is given at least thirty days notice of the Secretary’s intent to levy. Section 6331(d)(4) requires that the Notice of Intent to Levy include a brief nontechnical statement informing the taxpayer of, inter alia, (A) the provisions of the internal revenue code relating to levy and sale of property, (B) the procedures applicable to the levy, (C) the administrative appeals available to the taxpayer with respect to such levy, and (D) the alternatives available to prevent such levy (including installment agreements under section 6159).
The Notice of Intent to Levy, dated July 12, 1993, satisfies each of the criteria listed under § 6331(d)(4), but the Notice dated January 18, 1993, neglects on its face, to include the information required under § 6331(d)(4). The fourth sentence of the third paragraph of the January 18, 1993 Notice, however, states that a publication with additional information concerning the levy procedures was enclosed with the Notice of Intent to Levy. Morelli does not deny receiving this publication but charges that the intent of 6331(d)(4) is not satisfied unless the required information is included in the Notice itself.
 A limited exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, not applicable to the facts in the present case, exists if (1) it is clear that under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail on the tax liability issue, and (2) the taxpayer would suffer irreparable injury if the government were not enjoined. See Randell, 64 F.3d at 106-07(citing Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 1129, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962)).
Previous Previous post: 26 USC 6065 – to whom does it apply, and why?


text:
The explosion of the e-commerce industry has dominated headlines for the past two decades, and it’s only accelerating. Yet, despite the colossal spike in online sales revenue, Congress hasn’t taken any action in the past 26 years on internet sales taxes — until now.
The recent five-four vote in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. is the most significant ruling on internet sales taxes since its 1992 decision in Quill Corporate v. North Dakota. While the latter decision ruled that states could only collect sales taxes from e-tailers with a warehouse or office in the state, South Dakota v. Wayfair enables South Dakota to require all retailers, regardless of their physical presence, to collect sales taxes from residents’ online transactions. However, the ruling limited the state taxation to e-tailers with $100,000 or more in revenue or 200 transactions annually.
While the South Dakota v. Wayfair ruling pertains specifically to a South Dakota law, 16 states have similar laws on the books and the remaining 28 states that collected sales taxes are sure to follow suit. Many states have already moved into action. And while Wall Street took a dim view on the ruling in the short term, as share prices of major e-commerce companies initially took a nosedive in its wake, many retailers significantly bounced back shortly thereafter.
It remains to be seen how the ruling will affect logistics space needs for small online retailers. While it may not significantly influence consumer spending, the effect on logistics site selection decisions for both omnichannel as well as pure-play e-tailers will be more immediate. As retailers and logistics executives prepare for the consequences of South Dakota v. Wayfair, it’s important to examine how this will impact traditional versus online sales, and where we go from here.
Many brick-and-mortar retail businesses are applauding the decision because it helps even the playing field with online retailers. The reality is a bit more complicated. Large e-tailers, perceived as the greatest enemies of brick-and-mortar stores, already have the infrastructure to handle tax collection protocols given that their sizable distribution networks cover numerous sales tax-collecting jurisdictions. The ruling even helps simplify those processes. Collecting more taxes to send to more states means scaling upwards, not starting from scratch.
In contrast, online businesses will have to overcome the administrative hurdle of accounting for 10,000 different state and local sales tax jurisdictions, if they haven’t enabled those processes already. Those that use online marketplaces can’t count on those marketplaces to collect the taxes for them, either. Washington and Pennsylvania are among the states that require online marketplaces to collect taxes. However, states such as Rhode Island only require marketplaces to provide a list of the businesses for which they don’t collect taxes — leaving the burden of the sales tax collection on the individual sellers. This disparity of implications between massive e-tailers and smaller online businesses will likely be an ever-evolving nuance of e-commerce over the short term.
For small e-commerce companies, the solution will probably be to invest in accounting software that automatically tracks and accounts for sales taxes. Another possibility is that some online-only retailers will expand their brick-and-mortar presence, as prior restrictions or uncertainty around physical presence requirements have been nullified.
In the wake of South Dakota v. Wayfair, uncertainty still rules the day. We may likely see new state or national laws that build on the ruling and further lighten the burden for smaller online businesses — although a Congress split along partisan lines may be unable to reach a consensus on broader issues. Or, we may see lower court rulings that clarify the rules.
What we can expect: Bigger retailers will find themselves unimpeded by sales tax when planning logistical expansions, while smaller players, if they haven’t already, may be forced to invest in tax-compliance infrastructure at the cost of profit margins and business growth.
Aaron Ahlburn is a Managing Director and Director of Research for the industrial and retail property markets for JLL’s Americas region. His directives include the development, differentiation and implementation of research strategy, methodology, platform deliverables and broad sector analyses for the warehouse, distribution, manufacturing and retail property markets in the U.S., Mexico, Canada and Latin America.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.