Dr. Barrey Danvers, VMD, of Princeton, N.J., provided vet work during the summer of 2008 for a horse named River Runs Red for owner Darryl Thomas of Newark, N.J. The trainer of the horse was Rick Bilach of Englishtown, N.J.

Dr. Danvers billed Thomas, who then failed to pay the bill. Litigation was filed on behalf of Dr. Danvers in February 2009, by horse attorney Jeffrey R. Pocaro, Esq., of Fanwood, N.J., in the Special Civil Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County.

The veterinarian testified at trial in Freehold, N.J., in April 2009, that Thomas asked him to care for the horse, but the actual vet work was ordered by the trainer. Thomas testified at trial that he never spoke to Dr. Danvers regarding his taking care of the horse. Thomas also testified that Danvers never sent him a bill, but he did admit that the address on the bills presented as evidence by Pocaro was in fact his address during the billing period.

The court decided the case in Thomas' favor and dismissed the Complaint, on the basis that there was no contract between the parties. Danvers filed an appeal to the Appellate Division.

On December 8, 2009, the Appellate Division heard oral argument on the appeal and decided the case on December 29, 2009. Pocaro argued that Dr. Danvers was entitled to the reasonable value of his services, even if there was no formal agreement between the veterinarian and the owner.

The Appellate Division overruled the trial judge and sent the case back for a new trial. The two-judge panel ruled that Dr. Danvers was entitled to "quantum meruit" (which is Latin for "reasonable value") for the work he performed on the horse.

No date has been set yet for the new trial.

The judge who handled the original trial is no longer sitting in Special Civil Part and has been re-assigned to matrimonial cases, so a brand new judge will hear the case.

"Veterinarians can now rest assured that if a trainer orders work on a horse for an owner and the owner does not pay, the Court will have to award the veterinarian at least the reasonable value of his or her services, when an owner elects to contest the bill in Court," said Pocaro. "No longer will the veterinarian have to worry that he or she never had any beforehand contact with the owner to approve the work being done. This is an important case for veterinarians in New Jersey."

by Paul Ramlow, USTA Internet News Manager

Courtesy of The US Trotting Association Web Newsroom