In Williamson v. Prida (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1417, the court held that expert testimony is required in veterinary malpractice cases because veterinarians are licensed health care providers and the statute of limitations applicable to malpractice actions had been applied in the veterinary context. ( Id. at p. 1425.) The court further explained: "'The gravamen of a veterinary malpractice action is that in providing veterinary care, the veterinarian failed to use such reasonable skill, diligence, and attention as might ordinarily have been expected of careful, skillful, and trustworthy persons in the profession. The courts have generally recognized that for the owner of an animal to prevail in such an action, he or she must prove the relevant recognized standard of care exercised by other veterinarians, the defendant veterinarian's departure from that standard when treating the animal, and some injury to the owner proximately caused by that departure.'" (Ibid.)