VCPR and Telemedicine Rules in South Dakota
South Dakota has no codified veterinarian-client-patient relationship definition anywhere in state law.
The only reference to the term is a disciplinary clause in S.D. Codified Laws § 36-12-22(9), which bars prescribing without 'a valid veterinary client-patient relationship' but never defines what makes one valid, and the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners' entire rule set, ARSD 20:57 chapters 01 through 05, adds no VCPR or telemedicine provision.
That is a confirmed void, not permission — the separate federal VCPR still governs extralabel use regardless of the state's silence.
Verify before you rely on this
At a glance
No codified definition exists. South Dakota's only reference to the term is a disciplinary trigger in S.D. Codified Laws § 36-12-22(9), which bars prescribing, using, or selling a veterinary prescription drug in the absence of a valid veterinary client-patient relationship without ever defining what makes that relationship valid.
Not stated in the sources read. The words telemedicine, telehealth, and electronic do not appear anywhere in S.D. Codified Laws chapter 36-12 or in the Board's complete rule set, ARSD 20:57 chapters 01 through 05.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read, beyond the bare disciplinary clause in § 36-12-22(9) — no teleadvice, teletriage, or emergency carve-out is addressed anywhere in the statute or the Board's rules.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read.
§ 36-12-22 was last amended in 2005 (S.L. 2005, ch. 199, § 39); the Board's ARSD 20:57 rule chapters were most recently amended May 7, 2018 (44 SDR 158) — neither amendment added VCPR or telemedicine language.
The text is silent on modality — No VCPR provision exists.
No codified VCPR definition exists. The only textual reference is the disciplinary trigger at S.D. Codified Laws § 36-12-22(9); the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners' complete rule set, ARSD 20:57 chapters 01 through 05, contains no VCPR or telemedicine provision.
No definition exists to establish anything against
South Dakota's veterinary practice act, chapter 36-12, uses the phrase veterinary client-patient relationship exactly once, and only as a disciplinary trigger: prescribing, using, or selling a veterinary prescription drug in its absence is grounds for license suspension or revocation.
The chapter never defines what a valid relationship requires — there is no physical-examination clause, no premises-visit clause, and no knowledge-of-the-patient standard written into the text at all.
That leaves a practice with a rule it can be disciplined under, but no codified test to build an intake policy against.
A South Dakota manager cannot point to a state-specific establishment standard, because the statute never wrote one.
“The use, prescription, or sale of any veterinary prescription drug in the absence of a valid veterinary client-patient relationship;”
The silence covers telemedicine completely
The gap is not limited to the statute.
The Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners' entire administrative rule set — ARSD 20:57, chapters 01 through 05, covering general provisions, licensure, technicians, continuing education, and livestock assistants — was read in full and contains no VCPR definition and no telemedicine or telehealth provision of any kind.
There is no clause permitting a veterinarian to establish a relationship remotely, and no clause barring it either; the concept is simply not addressed anywhere in the text.
A practice cannot read either an allowance or a prohibition into this silence, and treating the absence as if it authorized an unrestricted telemedicine-only model would be reading permission into a void the board could fill at any time through a case-by-case disciplinary finding under § 36-12-22(9).
The void has not moved, even as the surrounding rules have
The disciplinary clause in § 36-12-22 has not been touched since 2005 (S.L. 2005, ch. 199, § 39), and the Board's ARSD 20:57 rule chapters were most recently amended on May 7, 2018 (44 SDR 158) — a pass that touched licensure and application procedures, not the VCPR question.
Both dates point the same direction: this is a longstanding void rather than a recent legislative gap, and nothing in the sources read signals a pending bill or rulemaking that would close it.
A practice relying on this page should still confirm with the Board directly, since a rule this old could be amended with no advance signal reaching a research pass like this one.
A confirmed void is not the same as permission
It would be a mistake to read this absence as license to build a South Dakota telemedicine program however a practice likes.
Section 36-12-22(9) is a live disciplinary standard: prescribing without a valid VCPR remains grounds for license suspension or revocation, even though the statute never defines what makes the relationship valid, which means the Board retains latitude to find one lacking in a specific case using a standard this research could not locate in the text itself.
The federal VCPR at 21 CFR 530.3(i), described below, is unaffected by South Dakota's silence in either direction and still requires a recent examination or premises visit for any extralabel prescribing or Veterinary Feed Directive.
A practice manager building an intake or telemedicine policy in South Dakota has no state-specific text to build it against and should treat the federal standard, plus direct confirmation from the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, as the operative floor.
There are two VCPRs, and the federal one does not move
What This Page Does — and Doesn’t — Cover
This page describes South Dakota’s own text — No codified VCPR definition exists. The only textual reference is the disciplinary trigger at S.D. Codified Laws § 36-12-22(9); the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners' complete rule set, ARSD 20:57 chapters 01 through 05, contains no VCPR or telemedicine provision. as read for this series, current as of September 2026, with the provision itself last changed § 36-12-22 was last amended in 2005 (S.L. 2005, ch. 199, § 39); the Board's ARSD 20:57 rule chapters were most recently amended May 7, 2018 (44 SDR 158) — neither amendment added VCPR or telemedicine language. It does not cover licensure, scope of practice, or the terms of a specific prescription, and it is not a compliance sign-off for a telemedicine service.
VCPR and telemedicine rules are the fastest-moving area this site covers — nine states changed theirs between 2024 and 2026, and bills are live in others. Confirm the current text with the board before you build an intake policy, a prescribing workflow or a remote-care service on it, and read the federal note above alongside it rather than instead of it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a South Dakota veterinarian establish a VCPR over video?
South Dakota's law does not say.
Chapter 36-12 never defines the veterinarian-client-patient relationship at all — the only reference is a disciplinary clause in § 36-12-22(9) barring prescribing without one — and the Board's complete rule set, ARSD 20:57 chapters 01 through 05, contains no telemedicine provision in either direction.
Nothing in the text permits or bars a video-based relationship.
Confirm directly with the South Dakota Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners before relying on video alone to form one.
What does South Dakota's law say about maintaining a VCPR by telehealth?
Nothing.
No South Dakota statute or board rule addresses whether an already-formed relationship can be maintained through telemedicine, because no South Dakota statute or rule defines the relationship in the first place.
The only textual anchor is § 36-12-22(9)'s bare requirement that a valid relationship exist before prescribing.
That leaves maintenance, like establishment, unaddressed in the sources read.
Ask the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners how it would evaluate a specific telemedicine-based practice.
What can a South Dakota veterinarian do by telehealth without a VCPR?
Not stated in the sources read.
Beyond the bare disciplinary clause in § 36-12-22(9), which addresses prescribing rather than teleadvice or teletriage, South Dakota's statute and the Board's full rule set contain no carve-out language for care given without a relationship.
That silence should not be read as a green light — the disciplinary standard for prescribing without a VCPR still applies, and the Board could evaluate a specific case using a standard outside this text.
Confirm with the Board before treating any animal without an established relationship.
Does South Dakota's law make a practice federally compliant?
No, and South Dakota's void makes this trap sharper, not smaller.
The federal VCPR at 21 CFR 530.3(i) is a separate relationship governing extralabel drug use under AMDUCA and Veterinary Feed Directives, requiring that the veterinarian has recently seen the animal or visited the premises, and the FDA has said it cannot be met solely through telemedicine.
It applies in South Dakota exactly as it does everywhere else, regardless of the state's silence.
Extralabel use is routine, so confirm compliance with both standards, and with the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
When did South Dakota last address its VCPR rule?
It hasn't, in any way that touches the relationship itself.
The disciplinary clause at § 36-12-22(9) has stood unchanged since 2005 (S.L. 2005, ch. 199, § 39), and the Board's ARSD 20:57 rule chapters were most recently amended on May 7, 2018 (44 SDR 158) for licensure and application procedures, not the VCPR question.
No definition has ever been added.
Confirm directly with the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners that nothing has changed since this page's last review.
More South Dakota VCPR & Telemedicine Resources
Sourced from South Dakota’s own statute or board rule (see the citations above). Verified September 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice — confirm current rules with the South Dakota board before relying on them.