Vet assistant doing the job of a Licensed Vet Tech: Legal?

[Swarley]

Wondering if anyone could find information on this, because I haven't had any luck. I was employed for 4 years at a small animal hospital as a "veterinary assistant" along with 4 other employees of the same skill status (also named assistants). In general a veterinary assistant's job is more clerical/janitorial and only involves less skilled work with animals like restraining, taking weights, etc. However, my boss did not hire any veterinary technicians (must have an AVMA accredited degree, pass a certification test, and have a license). So, he trained all his assistants to do the job of the technicians. We did everything from diagnostic testing to taking/processing x-rays to scaling and polishing teeth on dental surgeries.

In the last year I looked into getting my degree to become a licensed vet tech and came to a realization that myself and my co-workers were not supposed to be doing said jobs. So I was wondering if anyone could find anything about the subject and if it's legal to give a non-licensed/certified employee these responsibilities.

[Souj]

Just tell your boss that if you don't get a huge raise you'll report him.
If he gives you the raise, it's illegal. If he doesn't then probably not.

[BerenTebogo]

Don't think it is legal for him to misrepresent the aspects of your given position for a specific pay rate but I dunno.

[Norellicus]

Just tell your boss that if you don't get a huge raise you'll report him.
If he gives you the raise, it's illegal. If he doesn't then probably not.

I think you missed the past-tense part of his statement.

[Silviya]

I know a girl going to school for her Vet Tech degree. She works as a veterinary assistant, but like you was basically doing vet tech stuff. The way she put it is that as long as she is "supervised" by a Vet Tech or a Veterinarian it's all good. Now apparently their definition of "supervised" is pretty loose at her clinic. I know it doesn't exactly answer your question about how legal it is, but at least you know you're not the only one(s) doing it.

[Souj]

okay, then just ask for a big lump of money instead of a raise.

[zoobernut]

*not a lawyer speaking purely from anecdotal evidence which may or may not be accurate*

It seems that the main thing you gain from your license legally is the ability to handle the drugs and controlled substances unsupervised. But maybe you do have to have your license or at least your tech in training license in order to perform those actions. As stated above I think it is mostly about being supervised vs. unsupervised when performing certain actions.

I think Nyx is a vet tech so she might have some better insight on this.

[Callisto]

Maybe be glad you were trained on how to do more important shit than hold a cat down while they get a thermometer in the butt far earlier than most people pursuing your career path?

[AidenCarby]

For vet techs? the only difference in being licensed or not is being able to ask for more pay. They perform the same tasks as a medical assistant would in a facility that tends to humans as opposed to animals. My girlfriend works as a vet tech in a small animal hospital in New York, uh...Lagrange? Or some town like that very rural place, it's pretty nice. They can handle controlled substances, but merely carrying out the Vets orders and using their DEA number along with the prescription handed to them. So technically what the vet did might not be the most honest thing but it's technically not illegal either.

[Quixon]

Friend of mine has a similar situation, but it's an actual doctor's office not a vet lol.

She does eye tests, some simple injections (flu shot type of thing), and a bunch of other diagnostic tests as well. The doctor basically trained her to do everything, but she has no formal schooling at all in nursing.

[Kwijiboe]

You said, "you realized you weren't supposed to be doing said jobs." At what point did you realize this, or more specifically what did you read that told you this. Provide source (or quote here) and then BG Law might be able to help you. But in an analogous situation, in pharmacy for example, a certification for pharmacy technician just means you are going to get paid more because it suggests that you know how to do most of the responsibilities of the job and don't need to go through all the training.

[Swarley]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

Kwiji, I realized this more recently when I had an interview to continue in the same field. The job was for a veterinary assistant title, and the employer seemed confused at my experience/responsibilites written on my resume. When I asked about what the job entitled in his office, he looked at my resume and asked "Well how much would you like to do?". I responded "I can do as much as I did before, whatever is needed", and he replied "Well you can't do that, there are some things you can't do yet" (meaning without my certification).

I have no intention to write a letter to my past boss or report him and so on. I just want to know if that was legal or not, and I'm considering taking some of these tasks off my resume for future veterinary offices.

[Kwijiboe]

Then you should offer to do both 'whatever is needed' and 'what you can do now.' If it turns out that you can not do those additional 'things' without a certification, do a cost benefit analysis to determine if you should go and get that certification. Also, don't feel that you have to remove those 'things' from your resume... unless of course, it creates such confusion that would lead you to not getting the job you are applying for, or further ruin future job interviews. It seems like the employer that you had an interview with is interested in you, should you get hired, ask him. As for looking up the laws... We'd have to know what state you're in, under what Acts or Laws veterinaries are held to, and other stuff... You're better off asking someone in an authoritative position.