# McAdams v. Curnayn

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · September 13, 2006 · 96 Ark. App. 118

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758271

## Case

- **Full name:** B.J. McADAMS v. Melissa CURNAYN; Tracy Warner; Lisa Faulk, D.V.M.; W. Kendall Faulk, D.V.M.; Paul Winchester; Shondra Harris and Vets & Pets
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 13, 2006
- **Citations:** 96 Ark. App. 118; 239 S.W.3d 17; 2006 Ark. App. LEXIS 615
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Crabtree
- **Judges:** John B. Robbins
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758271

## Opinion text

Terry Crabtree, Judge, concurring. I am in full agreement with the decision to affirm this case. I write separately to express but one concern. I am disturbed that the Medical Malpractice Act applies to veterinarians. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-201 (2) (Repl. 2006). Although I have a duty to apply the law as written, and have done so in this case, I sincerely question the propriety of applying the Act to veterinarians. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to apply the same restrictions of the Act to veterinarians because the dynamics of a lawsuit for an injured pet are not as devastating as that of a patient under the Act. Further, notice of an injury to an animal may not manifest itself in the short time required by the Act. In my view, it is mixing apples with oranges.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758271. Public record. Not legal advice.