Peterson Smith Equine Hospital, an Ocala, Florida veterinary practice, is defending two negligence lawsuits filed in 2025 in Marion County’s Fifth Judicial Circuit Court. One case alleges the hospital performed a banned pin-firing procedure on a Thoroughbred colt and ruined his racing eligibility; the other alleges two of its veterinarians failed to properly care for a horse named Marlin. Both actions seek damages in excess of $50,000, and both remain open.
The Pin-Firing Case Over a Colt Named Rude Procedure
On October 6, 2025, Linda B. Roach and Robert Fetkin, operating through Small Batch Thoroughbreds, LLC, sued Peterson Smith Equine Hospital and veterinarian Raymond D. Rood. The case number is 422025CA002252CAAXMX, and it is classified as a professional negligence action.1Unicourt. Fetkin, Robert Et Al vs Peterson Smith Equine Hospital Et Al
The horse at the center of the suit is a 2023 chestnut colt named Rude Procedure, sired by 2020 Kentucky Derby winner Authentic. According to the complaint, Peterson Smith performed a pin-firing procedure on the colt in the fall of 2024. Pin firing applies a hot instrument to a horse’s legs with the goal of promoting healing; the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority banned it under rules that took effect in mid-2024.2Ocala News. Thoroughbred Owner Claims Ocala Vet Ruined Horses Value With Prohibited Pin Firing Procedure
The plaintiffs argue the hospital failed to exercise reasonable care and failed to follow the governing rules of Thoroughbred racing by performing a procedure that was already prohibited. Because HISA-covered tracks include most major U.S. racetracks, they say the colt was effectively cut off from the racing career he was being prepared for. The colt has shown ability at venues outside HISA’s reach, finishing third in the Victoria Stakes at Woodbine in Ontario on July 12, 2025, in a race carrying a $125,000 purse.3Blood-Horse. At a Glance Look at Woodbines Summer Stakes
Small Batch Thoroughbreds seeks damages in excess of $50,000, to be proven at trial. The complaint identifies the losses as the colt’s fair market value at public auction, sale expenses tied to Ocala Breeders’ Sales, training and veterinary costs already incurred, equine insurance premiums and Breeders’ Cup nomination fees, and continued training and maintenance. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Steven Ellison.1Unicourt. Fetkin, Robert Et Al vs Peterson Smith Equine Hospital Et Al
Why the HISA Pin-Firing Rule Matters to the Claim
HISA Rule 2271 bans pin firing and freeze firing of the shins outright. For horses from the 2023 foal crop onward, the rule reaches further: any horse pin-fired on any structure of its body is ineligible to participate in a covered horserace or a timed and reported workout.4HISA Trainer Handbook. HISA Trainer Handbook – Section: Rule 2271 Prohibited Practices HISA issued additional guidance in July 2024 confirming the prohibition applies to all parts of a horse’s body.2Ocala News. Thoroughbred Owner Claims Ocala Vet Ruined Horses Value With Prohibited Pin Firing Procedure
Rude Procedure is a 2023 foal, so he falls squarely within the eligibility ban. The complaint places the procedure in the fall of 2024, months after HISA’s July guidance. The plaintiffs’ theory rests on that sequence: an Ocala equine hospital, they argue, should have known the rule and refused the treatment.
The Wallraf Negligence Case
Several months earlier, on January 5, 2025, horse owner Madison Wallraf of Marion County sued veterinarians Marcos Perez and Caitlyn Henderson along with Peterson Smith Equine Hospital, LLC in the same court. Judge Steven G. Rogers was assigned to the case.5Trellis Law. Madison Wallraf vs Marcos Perez Et Al
Wallraf’s complaint alleges that her horse, Marlin, was under the care and control of the defendants and that the veterinarians failed to provide the level of care expected of equine professionals in their community. The action is a general negligence tort claim seeking damages exceeding $50,000. The public complaint does not detail Marlin’s injury or the treatment at issue, but it asserts that Perez and Henderson held themselves out as experts in the examination and treatment of horses.6Trellis Law. Wallraf v. Perez Et Al – Complaint for Damages
Wallraf is represented by Ian Pollack Singer of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, based in Fort Lauderdale. Perez is listed on Peterson Smith’s staff as an associate surgeon; Henderson is listed as a resident.7Peterson Smith Equine Hospital. Our Veterinarians
What the Owners Have to Prove, and What They Can Recover
Both suits are framed as negligence claims. In the veterinary context, that means proving the veterinarians agreed to treat the horse, that their care fell below the standard practiced by comparable professionals in the area, that the substandard care caused harm to the animal, and that the owner suffered a real financial loss. Expert testimony from another veterinarian is typically needed to establish what the standard of care should have been.
Florida law treats animals as personal property, which shapes what a horse owner can collect. Emotional distress damages are generally unavailable absent intentional or extreme misconduct. Recovery centers instead on the horse’s market value, the cost of additional medical care, and economic losses such as lost purses or diminished breeding value. For a Thoroughbred being pointed at competitive racing, those numbers can climb quickly when bloodlines are strong or the horse has already shown ability on the track.
Where the Cases Stand
In the pin-firing case, the court had issued a case management order and summons had been served on the defendants as of October 2025. Both cases remain pending as of late 2025, and neither the hospital nor the named veterinarians has made a public statement about the allegations.1Unicourt. Fetkin, Robert Et Al vs Peterson Smith Equine Hospital Et Al