What Can a Vet Tech Do in Mississippi?

Mississippi's Act defines a certified technician's work in its definitions section rather than a dedicated scope-of-practice provision. § 73-39-53(t) describes "practice of veterinary technology" as patient care or other services requiring a technical understanding of veterinary medicine, performed on a veterinarian's written or oral instruction, and it excludes diagnosing, prognosing, performing surgery, or prescribing drugs, medicine or appliances.

That is a general delegation clause with a short reserved-acts list, not a task-by-task grant — it says a technician works on instruction and names four things a technician does not do, without naming what the instructed work itself may include. § 73-39-63, the Act's certification section, adds nothing to this definition; it governs eligibility and discipline only.

Mississippi's Act defines two supervision tiers as general terms in its definitions section, not as an unlicensed-employee exemption clause. "Direct supervision" means a licensed veterinarian is readily available on the premises where the patient is being treated; "indirect supervision" means the veterinarian has given written or oral treatment instructions and is readily available by telephone or other communication.

Those same terms also appear inside § 73-39-61's licensure-exemption clauses for students and other licensed professionals assisting a veterinarian.

Neither the definitions nor § 73-39-61 specifies which tier applies to a certified technician performing which task — a technician or practice manager has the two tiers' meanings, but not a task-by-tier assignment.

Mississippi's reserved-acts list sits inside the technician-practice definition rather than a separate construction clause. § 73-39-53(t) excludes diagnosing, prognosing, performing surgery and prescribing drugs, medicine or appliances from "practice of veterinary technology," and § 73-39-61(n) repeats the same four exclusions for "any certified veterinary technician or other employee of a licensed veterinarian," adding that the supervising veterinarian is responsible for that employee's performance.

Between the two clauses, the four reserved acts are the only tasks the Act names as barred to a technician or other employee; no other specific task, including the eleven on this page, is named as reserved or delegable.

§ 73-39-61 lists who does not need a veterinary license at all — a licensure exemption, not a task list for certified technicians or practice-employed assistants.

It names veterinary-technology students working under a veterinarian's direct supervision, members of other regulated professions assisting under direct or indirect supervision and control, an animal owner's own regular employees, and, per (n), any certified technician or other employee performing duties other than diagnosis, prognosis, prescription or surgery under the veterinarian's direction.

Separately, the board has rulemaking power over technician and nonlicensed-person duties, but the sources read do not show it has used that power to write a task list: the only rules document on file, a 2013 scan, sets continuing-education hours and an unrelated livestock rule.

A practice manager building a delegation policy for unlicensed staff has the reserved-acts exclusion, but no task-by-task Mississippi rule to point to.

Mississippi's definitions section makes the title definitional under current law: a "veterinary technician" is, by definition, a person certified by the board, and a "certified veterinary technician" is a veterinary technician certified by the board.

The sources read contain no sentence making it unlawful, under current law, for an uncertified person to call themselves a veterinary technician, and no title-misuse penalty tied to § 73-39-63 or elsewhere in the current Act.

A committee substitute for House Bill 514, filed in the Mississippi Legislature's 2026 Regular Session, would add a restriction barring an uncredentialed person from using the titles "veterinary technologist," "veterinary technician," "vet tech" or the abbreviation "CVT," and a misdemeanor penalty for violating it.

No source read confirms whether that bill was enacted, so its status here is pending, not current law.

The veterinary-technology practice section was added by Laws 2005, Ch. 421, § 7, effective July 1, 2005, then reenacted and amended by Laws 2008, Ch. 447, § 7 — the version currently in force in the sources read.

The only board-rules document on file is a 2013 scan, which sets the ten-hour continuing-education requirement.

A committee substitute for House Bill 514 (2026 Regular Session) is on file and would amend §§ 73-39-53, 73-39-57, 73-39-63 and 73-39-91 — adding title-use restrictions and a penalty, and adding a technician seat to the board — but no source read establishes whether it passed.

A technician or practice manager relying on this page should confirm both the rules document's age and the bill's status with the board directly.