I just read the linked article and found it very interesting. In particular the General Counsel's decision to look for language that would allow a Vet to have Legal Representation accompany them or allow a vet to record an appointment. The decision was was based on there being no statutory language that allowed/suggested the idea of accompanying representation or the use of a recording device neither could be allowed. They didn't take the perspective that since it wasn't specifically prohibited it could be allowed (which I believe they should have in this situation). Something is seriously broken in this interpretation.....
Question
green
I just read the linked article and found it very interesting. In particular the General Counsel's decision to look for language that would allow a Vet to have Legal Representation accompany them or allow a vet to record an appointment. The decision was was based on there being no statutory language that allowed/suggested the idea of accompanying representation or the use of a recording device neither could be allowed. They didn't take the perspective that since it wasn't specifically prohibited it could be allowed (which I believe they should have in this situation). Something is seriously broken in this interpretation.....
http://www.hadit.com/failure-to-submit-to-medical-examination-insistence-on-the-presence-of-an-attorney-and-use-of-a-recording-device/
Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
Popular Days
Mar 18
1
Mar 19
1
Top Posters For This Question
HorizontalMike 1 post
green 1 post
Popular Days
Mar 18 2016
1 post
Mar 19 2016
1 post
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now