The purpose of the article is to single out, conceptually substantiate, and carry out a comprehensive systematization of the range of issues subject to the decision of a forensic veterinary expert in procedural acts (decisions of an investigating judge, court, resolution of an investigator or prosecutor) on the appointment of a forensic veterinary examination (hereinafter - SVE) in cases related to defects in the provision of veterinary care (hereinafter - DNVD), followed by their structural and functional analysis and disclosure praxeological significance as a tool for optimizing expert research and increasing the validity, completeness and evidentiary value of the expert’s conclusion. For the first time, the work defines and conceptually substantiates a systematic range of questions that can be put to the decision of a forensic veterinary expert during the appointment of the SVE by a pre-trial investigation body or a court in criminal proceedings (cases) related to offenses against the life and health of animals committed by a veterinary medicine worker. Formulated questions are based on the integration of the provisions of formal logic, dialectics and system analysis, as well as methods of abstraction, forecasting and modeling, which ensures their methodological accuracy, practical focus and increases the effectiveness of expert research and the evidentiary value of the expert’s conclusion.The proposed selection of questions will help to establish the fact of the presence of the DVD and to record its result, as well as to determine whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between this defect and negative consequences for the animal. The praxeological significance of applying the proposed construction of issues for the solution of forensic expert examination in connection with the Criminal Investigation Department ensures a positive impact on the effectiveness of its conduct and effectiveness, as it optimizes the scope and sequence of expert research, which in general is a scientific basis for providing a well-founded and objective opinion of an expert as a means of proof in court proceedings in the most optimal terms; expands the cognitive capabilities of pre-trial investigation bodies and the court.