Could a Louisiana veterinarian put outside laboratory charges on an invoice and provide the lab's details only if the client asks?

Plain-English summary

The Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine asked whether an invoice could tell clients that laboratory fees included collection, shipping, analysis, and interpretation, while offering the outside lab's name, address, and net charge only on request. The 1998 attorney general opinion drew a distinction based on what had actually happened.

If the veterinarian performed the work without an outside lab, the statute's outside-lab disclosure requirement was not triggered, although the opinion called the proposed wording confusing and perhaps misleading. If an outside lab performed the work and its costs were included in the client's bill, the invoice had to state the lab's name and address and the net amount paid or payable for the tests. Offering that information on request did not satisfy the statute. The opinion said the veterinary board could sanction a practitioner for such a violation, up to license revocation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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.

Veterinarians at the time

For a bill that passed along the cost of an outside lab's tests, the opinion read the statute to require disclosure on the bill itself. It rejected "substantial compliance" through a statement that details were available on request.

Veterinary clients at the time

The proposed invoice wording did not establish whether an outside lab had been used. The opinion said the legal result depended on that fact: no outside lab meant this particular disclosure requirement was not triggered; outside work billed to the client meant the specified details belonged on the invoice.

Veterinary licensing board at the time

The opinion said a veterinarian who used an outside lab, billed its costs, and omitted the required disclosures violated the statute and was subject to board sanction.

Common questions

Q: Was it enough to offer the outside lab's details on request?
A: No. When outside-lab work was billed to the client, the opinion said the invoice itself had to disclose the lab's name and address and the net amount paid or payable.

Q: Did the same requirement apply if the veterinarian did all the lab work?
A: The opinion said no outside lab meant the statute's outside-lab disclosure rule was not triggered. It also described the proposed generic invoice language as confusing and perhaps misleading in that situation.

Q: Could a veterinarian substantially comply without listing every required detail?
A: The office said the statute did not permit less than full compliance when its outside-lab billing conditions applied.

Q: What consequence did the opinion identify for omitting the lab details?
A: It said the Board of Veterinary Medicine could sanction a practitioner for a violation, up to and including revocation of the practitioner's license.

Background and statutory framework

The quoted portion of LSA-R.S. 37:1741(A) addressed practitioners who contracted with a clinical, bioanalytical, or hospital laboratory for tests on patients or animals and then included those costs in a bill. The attorney general applied that language to the proposed veterinary invoice and treated the use of an outside lab and billing of its costs as the decisive facts. The request did not establish those facts for every invoice bearing the proposed wording.

Citations and references

• LSA-R.S. 37:1741(A) (outside-laboratory billing disclosure, as quoted in the opinion)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/98-0273

Original opinion text

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

~tat~ o[ ~o~i~iana
One American Place
301 Main Street, Suite 600
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 94005
CIVIl. DIVISION
TEL.: (504) 342-7013
BATON ROUGE
FAX: (504) 342-2090

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9095
ATTORNEY GENERAL

AUGUST 25 1998

OPINION HIJMBI:::R 98-273

169 - Veterinarians
Mr. Charles Mann
LSA-R.S. 37:1741
LSA-R.S. 37:1741(A)
Executive Director
LSA-R.S. 37:1741(C)
Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine
Failure to comply with each and every requirement of LSA-R.S. 37:1741
263 Third Street, Suite 104
in billing the patient when practitioner has utilized an outside laboratory
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
for test or analysis may subject him or her to sanctions by the Board of
Veterinarian Medicine.

Dear Mr. Mann:

You have asked for an opinion from this office as to whether certain language on a medical invoice from a licensed veterinarian would be substantially in compliance with the requirements of LSA-R.S. 37:1741. The language in question is as follows: "All laboratory fees herein include the costs of collection, shipment, analysis and interpretation of results. Copies of the name, address, and the net amount paid to outside labs for specific analysis are available upon request."

LSA-R.S. 37:1741(A) provides, in pertinent part:

No person licensed in the state to practice...veterinary medicine...shall agree or contract with any clinical, bioanalytical, or hospital laboratory, wherever located, to pay such laboratory for individual test or analyses, combinations of tests or analyses, or tests or analysis series for patients or animals, and thereafter include such costs in his bill or statement submitted to the patient or other person for payment, unless the practitioner discloses on the bill or statement the name and address of the laboratory and the net amount or amounts paid or to be paid to the laboratory for the individual test or analysis, the combination of tests or analyses, or test or analysis series so included.

Your request indicates that the wording at issue is clearly part of a medical invoice. The statement on the invoice can be interpreted in several ways. It could be boilerplate language to cover all situations. It is possible that a patient could receive such an invoice but the actual lab work was done by the practitioner and did not involve an outside lab. In the event that there has, in fact, been no involvement by an outside lab, then the invoice, although confusing and perhaps misleading, does not trigger a violation of the statute. Alternatively, the language could be understood to mean that the practitioner did in fact utilize the services of an outside lab and directs the patient to

Page 2

Mr. Charles Mann
OPINION NUMBER 98-273
Page --,2-

make a specific request for the information regarding the payment made to the lab by the practitioner. The meaning of the language is dependent upon the facts, but if there was work performed by an outside lab then there would appear to be a violation of the statute by failing to include the required information about the lab and the fees.

As to the question of substantial compliance, the statute does not permit less than full compliance. Under the wording of the statute substantial compliance is not permissible. It is clear and unambiguous with regard to it’s requirements. If a practitioner contracts with an outside lab and then includes those costs in his bill to the patient and fails to disclose the name, address and net amount paid to the lab, that person is in violation of the statute and the Board of Veterinary Medicine (Board) has the authority to sanction the practitioner, up to and including revocation of his or her license. LSA-R.S. 137:1741(B).

In summary, if the facts of a particular case clearly show that the practitioner did utilize the services of an outside lab and billed those costs to the patient and the invoice contained only the language referred to in your request, without providing the required name and address of the outside lab, he or she is in violation of the statute and subject to sanction by the Board. It is the opinion of this office that the statute does not afford a practitioner less than full compliance since it is clear and unambiguous.

We hope this is responsive to your request, however should you have any additional questions or comments, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:
ROBERT B. BARBOR~
Assistant Attorney General

RPI:RBB:glb