發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-13 09:58

  本文選題：寵物　切入點(diǎn)：診療　出處：《法律適用》2013年02期 　論文類(lèi)型：期刊論文

【摘要】：正【案情】原告(上訴人):張玉琴。被告(被上訴人):上海交農(nóng)動(dòng)物醫(yī)療有限公司。2011年6月23日18時(shí)30分左右,原告攜小型寵物犬至被告處求診,主訴小狗嘔吐、腹泄已3天,要求用藥。18時(shí)41分開(kāi)始,被告獸醫(yī)對(duì)小狗進(jìn)行聽(tīng)診、量體溫,并向原告詢問(wèn)情況。當(dāng)獸醫(yī)提出小狗呼吸困難并伴有便血,需要進(jìn)行驗(yàn)血等全面檢查時(shí),原告在了解了所需費(fèi)用后,提出要求注射一劑止吐針劑。獸醫(yī)告知在未確診
[Abstract]:The plaintiff (appellant: Zhang Yuqin). The defendant (appellee: Shanghai Agricultural Animal Medical Co., Ltd.). About 18:30 on June 23rd 2011, the plaintiff came to the defendant with a small pet dog for medical treatment. The plaintiff complained of puppies vomiting and diarrhea for 3 days. Ask for medication. Starting at 18:41, the defendant's veterinarian gives the dog a auscultation, takes body temperature, and asks the plaintiff about the situation. When the vet proposes that the dog has difficulty breathing and is accompanied by bloody stool, he needs to undergo a blood test and other comprehensive examinations. After knowing the cost, the plaintiff asked for an injection of an antiemetic. The veterinarian informed him that the diagnosis had not been made
【作者單位】： 上海市靜安區(qū)人民法院;
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D920.5
，

本文編號(hào)：1605884