In Pennsylvania, the definition of what constitutes veterinary practice is broad and encompasses various diagnostic methods, although not specifically mentioning ultrasound. However, veterinary groups, including the state Veterinary Medical Association, contend that ultrasound examinations, especially for pregnancy and reproductive health in livestock, clearly fall within the realm of veterinary medicine. This perspective was emphasized by Dr. William Croushore from the state association.
The debate over who can legally perform these ultrasound examinations has intensified following the recent arrest of Rusty Herr and Ethan Wentworth, partners at NoBull Solutions LLC. The Pennsylvania Veterinary Medicine Association lodged a complaint back in 2020, accusing the company of engaging unlicensed individuals in veterinary practices, notably in conducting ultrasounds and making related diagnoses.
Despite Herr and Wentworth’s insistence on their innocence and their rights as farmers to engage in standard breeding practices, their legal representative, Attorney Robert Barnes, has criticized the state’s actions as a targeted persecution, suggesting a collusion between veterinary trade organizations and regulatory authorities.
Ben Masemore, speaking for the defendants, articulated the legal intricacies of providing ultrasound services. While farmers can use ultrasound technology on their own livestock or have their employees perform such tasks, the law draws a line at charging for these services without the requisite veterinary license.
Dr. Fred Gingrich of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners echoed the sentiment that ultrasound procedures fall squarely within veterinary practice, arguing that untrained individuals offering such services on a fee basis lack essential regulatory oversight and training, which could jeopardize animal welfare and consumer safety.
The controversy highlights a gray area in professional licensure laws, as noted by Brook Duer, a staff attorney at the Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law. Although the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medicine Practice Act is explicit in its definitions, the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions remain a matter for the courts to decide.
This case has wider implications for the veterinary field, particularly in how ultrasounds and other reproductive services are integral to veterinary work. A potential restriction on who can perform these services might worsen the challenges faced by the sector, including a shortage of large-animal veterinarians and broader public health issues.
This ongoing legal conflict, therefore, represents more than just a regulatory dispute—it is a pivotal moment that could reshape the landscape of veterinary care in Pennsylvania, affecting both legal standards and the practical aspects of animal healthcare.
