The Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine can continue to regulate the floating of horses’ teeth as the practice of veterinary medicine, according to the Fourth Judicial District Court for Hennepin County. In a 51-page decision rendered June 20, 2008 (Johnson v. Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine), the Court found a rational basis for state regulation of non-veterinarians who float teeth. The decision came two years after Chris Johnson, a third-generation lay equine dentist, filed a lawsuit against the state board in response to a cease and desist order directing him to stop floating teeth or face possible criminal charges.

Minnesota law allows non-veterinarians who are certified by the International Association of Equine Dentistry to float teeth under the direct or indirect supervision of a large animal veterinarian. An exception also is granted to individuals with substantial on-the-job experience who work with veterinary supervision. Neither exception applies to Johnson, however, and the lawsuit argued that the regulations denied him the right to earn a living at the vocation of his choosing.

Johnson is represented by the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based public interest law firm that litigates challenges to state regulation of professions and trades. Lee McGrath, executive director of the Institute’s Minnesota Chapter, argued the plaintiff’s case with attorney Clark Neily. McGrath said that it was unfair for the state board to threaten Johnson and other teeth floaters while ignoring farriers.

The Minnesota veterinary practice act excludes certain herd management activities (including cattle dehorning, docking of sheep, and castration of cattle, swine, goats, and sheep) from the practice of veterinary medicine. Farriers, who are not specifically excluded, have not been prosecuted by the state board, according to McGrath.

The Court found that there are “true, genuine, and substantial differences between equine teeth floating and other types of animal husbandry,” including farrier work, and that the challenged statutes “are devised and directly relate to protect the health, safety, and welfare of horses and teeth floaters.” Although the American Veterinary Medical Association considers floating teeth to be the practice of veterinary medicine, more than a dozen states allow non-veterinarians to legally do so.

“Treating one profession significantly different from another is inherently unfair,” McGrath said after the decision was rendered