Ronald S. Hines, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine v. Keith Pardue, et al.

Houston, Texas civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and other on a First Amendment constitutional law theory.

Dr. Ronald S. Hines is a retired, physically disabled, Texas-licensed

veterinarian who enjoys spending his golden years giving online pet-care

advice to animal lovers around the world—often for free. Dr. Hines does not

physically examine animals, perform surgeries, apply casts, splints, or

bandages, administer vaccinations, or prescribe prescription medication. He

merely sends emails. This would be no problem if the patients were people

instead of pets. For humans, Texas law allows telemedicine without first

requiring a face-to-face examination to establish a physician-patient

relationship. Not so with animals, which require an in-person visit. Exam-

free telehealth, turns out, is fine for your Uncle Bernard, but not for your

Saint Bernard.



No one ever complained about Dr. Hines's online pet-care advice or

alleged that it harmed a single animal. However, because Dr. Hines does not

physically examine animals before sharing his expertise, the State of Texas

considered some of his emails criminal offenses, going so far as penalizing

him with a year of probation, fining him $500, and forcing him to retake the

jurisprudence section of the veterinary licensing exam. In 2013, Dr. Hines

challenged the physical-examination requirement on First Amendment

grounds. Over the last decade, his case has been before our court twice—and

now, a third time. After we remanded this case nearly four years ago, the

district court granted summary judgment for the State. Dr. Hines appealed.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to enter

judgment for Dr. Hines.