Board complaints move into the veterinary risk-management spotlight

Two veterinary media outlets are putting a spotlight on a familiar but often underdiscussed risk in practice: board complaints, and how communication can help prevent them. In a recent Vet Blast podcast episode from dvm360, Dr. Beth Bennett discussed how veterinarians should think about board complaints as a professional reality rather than a rare outlier. A separate episode from Dr. Andy Roark’s The Cone of Shame focused specifically on informed consent, featuring Dr. Beth Venit, chief veterinary officer at the American Association of Veterinary State Boards, who framed consent conversations as a practical safeguard when pet parents decline diagnostics, treatment, or follow-up care. Broader guidance from AAVSB, AVMA PLIT, and AAHA reinforces the same point: complaints are handled by state boards, standards vary by jurisdiction, and documentation is often central to the outcome. (drandyroark.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is less about legal drama than daily workflow. State boards are there to protect the public, not the profession, and even complaints that are ultimately dismissed can take months, require written responses, and create major stress. Multiple sources emphasize that clear medical records, documented consent and declinations, and familiarity with the state practice act are among the strongest defenses when care is questioned. AVMA PLIT also notes that malpractice coverage typically doesn’t cover board matters unless separate veterinary license defense coverage is in place. (aavsb.org)

What to watch: Expect continued attention on informed consent, recordkeeping, and license-defense preparedness as practices look for ways to reduce complaint risk and support clinicians through investigations. (drandyroark.com)