Did a veterinarian working for a Texas government agency need a state veterinary license if the agency, rather than the public, paid for the services?

Texas AG Opinion JM-339: Government Veterinarian Licensing

Plain-English summary

The Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners asked whether a veterinarian needed a Texas license when a government organization, rather than a member of the public, paid for the work. The request asked whether article 7465a required a license for a veterinarian who received "compensation for his services from a government organization rather than directly from the public." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

JM-339 answered that the source of payment did not create an exemption. The Veterinary Licensing Act defined covered practice to include specified veterinary services performed "for compensation," and the opinion said the Act placed "no limitation on the nature or source of the compensation." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

The opinion also relied on the Act's express exemptions. It stated that a veterinarian working for a governmental body was "not among the exemptions" in section 3, while another licensing law expressly exempted certain government-employed psychologists. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

The conclusion was limited to employees whose titles or functions brought them within the statutory definition of practicing veterinary medicine. JM-339 said a state employee outside that definition "would not be subject to the requirements of article 7465a." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did JM-339 treat all government veterinary employees as automatically licensed practitioners?

No. It said the licensing requirement applied only to people who "practice, offer or attempt to practice veterinary medicine" within section 2(b)'s definition. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Did it matter that the government, rather than the animal owner, paid the veterinarian?

No. The opinion said the Act did not require "that the party benefited be the party who compensates the veterinarian." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Why did the psychologist statute matter to the analysis?

JM-339 used it as evidence that the Legislature knew how to write a government-employment exemption when it wanted one. The opinion contrasted article 7465a with article 4512c, which "exempts any psychologist employed by a government agency" from its licensing requirement. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Could the Veterinary Board imply a government-employment exception that was not listed?

JM-339 said no. It cited Brazos River Authority v. City of Graham for the rule that "exceptions to statutes may not ordinarily be implied." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Did the opinion mention any separate route for an out-of-state veterinarian?

Yes. It pointed to section 10(b), described as a "discretionary waiver provision for veterinarians licensed out of state." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Article 7465a, section 4, required a license for a person who practiced, offered, or attempted to practice veterinary medicine. Section 2(b) defined the practice through conduct such as performing surgical or dental operations, diagnosing or treating animal conditions, immunizing animals, or prescribing veterinary drugs and appliances "for compensation." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Section 3 supplied specific exemptions, but JM-339 found no exemption for veterinarians employed by governmental bodies. The opinion reasoned that if the Legislature intended that result, "it could have done so," as it had in the Psychologists Certification and Licensing Act. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

The opinion therefore separated two questions: who paid the worker, and whether the worker performed conduct within the statutory definition. Government payment did not matter by itself, but a government employee whose title and functions fell outside section 2(b) did not need a veterinary license under the opinion's reading of article 7465a. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Citations and references

• V.T.C.S. article 7465a, sections 2(b), 3, 4, and 10(b)
• V.T.C.S. article 4512c, sections 21 and 22(a)(1)
• Brazos River Authority v. City of Graham, 354 S.W.2d 99, 109 (Tex. 1961)

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0339
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0339.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

August 13, 1985

Mr. Roger D. Shipman
Executive Secretary
Texas Board of Veterinary
Medical Examiners
3810 Medical Parkway, Suite 119
Austin, Texas 78756

Opinion No. JM-339

Re: Whether an individual who performs veterinary services for a governmental agency must be licensed under article 7465a, V.T.C.S.

Dear Mr. Shipman:

In your letter you ask the following question:

Does article 7465a as it regards the definition of the practice of veterinary medicine in the state of Texas, together with the exceptions therein contained, require a Texas license of a veterinarian who receives compensation for his services from a government organization rather than directly from the public?

The Veterinary Licensing Act requires anyone who practices, offers or attempts to practice veterinary medicine to obtain a license from the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. V.T.C.S. art. 7465a, §4. Section 2(b) of the act defines the "Practice of Veterinary Medicine" as follows:

(b) Any person shall be deemed in the 'Practice of Veterinary Medicine' who represents himself as engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine; or uses any words, letters or titles in such connection or under such circumstances as to induce the belief that the person using them is engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, or any person who performs a surgical or dental operation or who diagnoses, treats, immunizes or prescribes any drug, medicine, application or veterinary appliance for any physical ailment, injury, deformity or condition of domestic animals, for compensation.

V.T.C.S. art. 7465a, §2(b).

In your letter you suggest that veterinarians who work for governmental bodies might not be engaged in the practice of medicine because they do not receive compensation directly from the public. The act simply states, however, that someone who renders certain services "for compensation" is engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine. The act places no limitation on the nature or source of the compensation; nor does it require that the party benefited be the party who compensates the veterinarian.

Also, section 3 of the act exempts from the act's licensing requirements persons who engage in specific types of conduct. V.T.C.S. art. 7465a, §3. A veterinarian who works for governmental bodies is not among the exemptions. If the legislature had intended to exempt such veterinarians from the act, it could have done so, as it did in the Psychologists Certification and Licensing Act, which requires anyone who "offers psychological services . . . for compensation" to be licensed by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists but exempts any psychologist employed by a government agency from the requirement. V.T.C.S. art. 4512c, §§21, 22(a)(1). Furthermore, it is well established that exceptions to statutes may not ordinarily be implied. Brazos River Authority v. City of Graham, 354 S.W.2d 99, 109 (Tex. 1961).

We must conclude, therefore, that veterinarians employed by governmental agencies are not exempt from article 7465a simply because of the source of their compensation. We do note, however, that the act's license requirement applies only to veterinarians who practice, offer or attempt to practice veterinary medicine, as defined in section 2(b). Thus, a veterinarian employed by the state whose title or functions do not bring him within that definition would not be subject to the requirements of article 7465a. See also section 10(b) (discretionary waiver provision for veterinarians licensed out of state).

SUMMARY

Veterinarians employed by governmental entities are not exempt from the licensing requirement of article 7465a, V.T.C.S.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Sarah Woelk