We’ve all heard loads of scary stories from our cousins on the human medical side of the fence but few vets have yet to gain firsthand knowledge of the deposition table drama that comes with a malpractice law suit. And thank God for that! Or maybe not…depends how you see it…’cause maybe it’s different on the client side of the fence? (I’m sure you’ll tell me in your comments.)
I have a vet colleague currently experiencing a major legal drama after the death of a dog. And while the circumstances surrounding the situation are common enough—an angry owner looking for retribution after a terrible loss, pitted against a professional defending (in this case) her impeccably high-quality standards—the ensuing battle is not. She’s stressed out over the legal expense, the time lost from work, the personal insinuations and the emotional hardship of reliving the client’s anger and loss with each interaction.
Even if a practitioner did no wrong, the legal process can be endless. Just ask any obstetrician you know. I don’t know one who hasn’t been sued more than once. And why? Because they have a job where life, death, strong emotion and the vagaries of chance hang in a delicate balance. And that’s the precarious position veterinarians are in, too.
But we vets are not used to being hauled in front of lawyers and judges to defend the way we do our jobs—not yet, anyway. Increasingly, though, we’re forced to practice medicine as if we might be in that position with each and every case.
In some ways that’s good. It makes us careful in our record-keeping, more willing to consider diagnostics before treatment, and conscientiously detailed when securing consent from our clients. In other ways, it’s kind of depressing.
And that’s because we have to practice more defensively. This finds us thinking about clients in an different way, adhering to hard-and-fast protocols with less regard to our patients’ needs, and generally driving the cost of pet healthcare through the roof. (Not to mention the serious stress that brings and the disillusionment with our jobs that can develop when anything gets “legal.”)
I was thinking about this because today I read a little bulletin I get about every three months or so. It details the individual legal cases presided over by our most popular malpractice insurance carrier. Vets in legal hot water (and their stories) get listed here as both cautionary tales and (perhaps unwittingly) salacious industry gossip.
I imagine it serves as much for voyeuristic horror-story entertainment as it does to teach us how we could have handled these real-life situations better. The cynical me says the bulletin is less of a service for vets than it is a self-serving tool for the insurance industry; I’m sure it more than pays for itself in reduced claims (by virtue of the paranoia it induces among vets like me).
The stories are frightening:
Vet A’s client loses a fingertip to the jaws of his own pooch (while in the vet hospital) and sues for oodles in lost work-time, medical bills and the emotional hardship of having lost a finger. Presumably, the tech was not able to secure the dog properly or the muzzle was too loose or some other such craziness. (And now you know why I won’t let owners hold their own pets or get near a pet’s mouth during the exam.) The insurance company was out about $17,000 or so after that fiasco.
Vet B’s client got euthanasia solution in her eye (when the syringe malfunctioned and solution sprayed all over the room) and sued for the medical treatment she subsequently received and the potential [currently unknown] horrors that might befall her as a result. I think they actually settled for about two grand (though I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had that stuff in my eyes and mouth and never batted an eyelash over it).
Vet C’s surgical case chewed out its abdominal stitches at home and died after chomping on his own intestines for a while. This happens—rarely—but dogs are not exactly savvy about handling their own maladies and misfortunes. In question: Did the vet send home an E-collar? (Probably.) Were the sutures not “tied” properly? (How can you tell now?) Was the possibility of a dog’s making a meal of his innards ever explained to the [justifiably horrified] owner? (As if any vet could ever run through every known or unknown disaster scenario in exact detail.)
Vet D’s client sued after the geriatric cat he was treating for severe arthritic pain went into renal failure, potentially because he received a three-dose regimen of Metacam. Was the Metacam the cause? Was it normal degeneration? It doesn’t even matter.
The vet lost because he hadn’t explained that the Metacam, given orally, was not approved for use in cats (though most drugs we give cats are not approved for them and though most vets use Metacam in this way). It leaves me wondering…do I mention the labeling issue to every client? Do I send home a package insert on my every Rimadyl case? I usually do…but sometimes I’m so busy…will I be next?
At some point, common sense should dictate more than law. But there are plenty of precedents out there that defy reason. So every vet needs to be extra careful about everything they say and do. For better or worse.
Sure, I see your side of the coin, too: There are gaggles of low quality providers out there in serious need of a lawsuit or, better yet, a license yanking. But so far, most cases tend to be reserved for big-money clients who can afford to sue in spite of low payouts. In turn, they tend to be suing their big-money vets who are more likely to employ more careful policies and procedures. An odd catch-22. But I guess this is how it started in the human medical profession, too.
Most lawsuits never get anywhere near these with respect to their level of legal activity. They typically get dismissed for their frivolousness or due to the inherent difficulty in proving wrongdoing. But if Drs. A through D’s are exemplary of the scenarios that go far enough to cause months (even years) of pain and stress to a vet, where are the truly horrific malpractice cases?—OK, so the end result of these cases is bad…really bad. Yet they all could have happened to ME. Unexpected things happen unexpectedly—especially when you’re dealing with animals.
It’s a new world out there and, sooner or later, it could be us behind the big desk in some lawyer’s corner office. For my part, I’m reading the malpractice bulletin religiously. Its take-home message is always about communicating well with clients. So I figure that if I can just manage to take the time to explain, re-explain and explain again—and meticulously adhere to our careful policies and procedures—I’ll probably stay safe. That is, unless some angry, grieving client wants my license on a platter just because I couldn’t save their unsavable pet. Unfortunately, as my colleague is learning, that’s always a possibility.
Add Comment19 Comments
"Do I send home a package insert on my every Rimadyl case?"
What I don't get is why each and every pet owner doesn't pump their vet for information about every drug administered. Of course, if we all did that your life would be made a lot harder and you wouldn't have time to see every patient, but I certainly do it. And then I go home and search the web for more information. (I was fascinated to find out the uric acid medicine given to my last cockatiel when she had kidney failure was the same as my dad takes for his gout!) I do the same for my pet as I do for myself.
Pet owners have the responsibility to make sure our pets are getting the best care we can afford, and part of that is critically viewing every treatment they undergo. I'm not saying that uncritical owners "deserve" poor treatment, but if we're cautious we can hopefully prevent some of the problems that crop up.
zandperl April 1st, 2007 12:55:00 PM
I'm sorry to hear that your colleague is going through that. I don't understand people like make cases like that as money isn't going to bring the clients pet back.
On the flip side, I have known vets that should have never been allowed to go school for vet medicine never mind practice it.
We live in a sue happy society and it happens everywhere unfortunately.
Not to down play your post but I was an inncoent by-stander to a situation a few months ago at Pet Smart.
A women purchased a few cases of canned dog food and brought them out to her car. When she was finished loading up her car, she asked me if I wanted to take her cart as she wouldn't be needing it anymore. I told her I'd take it and thanked her for offering.
As I brought my stuff up to register, I noticed the woman from the parking lot was back in the store and was tearing into the cashier that I see every Sunday. I thought it was strange but got in line anyway and waited for this women to finish complaining about whatever her issue was.
When it came to be my turn in line, the cashier asked "Did you hear what that woman was saying?" I told her no and she proceeded to tell me that the woman was threatening to sue Pet Smart because of they way they groomed her dog which I found odd. I was then told that this particular maltese had to be shaved as the dog was nothing more than a walking, matted mess. The mats were almost to the point of actually tearing the skin so the the girls that do the grooming shaved the dog down as they saw what was happening and feared what health problems would occur if they did nothing.
I asked if this owner had been contacted prior to her pet being shaved and she told me yes. I then asked if the woman was aware of the problems that could happen if she didn'tdo anything and again I was told yes. The woman stated that the breeder never told her that her dog needed regular grooming so because of that, she was going to sue Pet Smart for the "bad" grooming job and if she couldn't get anywhere with that, she was going to go after the breeder.
The conversation was cut short at that point as there were people coming to get in line behind me. I've seen this cashier since then and she hasn't said anymore about it, so I have no clue if the woman followed through with her threat or not.
I'm not going to defend bad dog breeders. We have a really bad maltese breeder a few miles from me who has been shut down countless times by the state. They pay the fines and give their long list of excuses of why their dogs are half dead, then they are back in business a few weeks later. I'm also not going to say that all maltese breeders are as terrible as the ones I mentioned above, but I have to wonder in this case who was really at fault.
A responsible breeder would be able to clearly tell that this woman was not able to maintain her pets coat as it should be. She walked with cane and had a hard time getting around. Not to sound rude or mean, but a maltese's coat needs constant, regular grooming. If a person is not able to bend over or comb and brush the dog as it would need, they should suggested a breed of dog that didn't require so much work. Perferably short-haired so all the woman would have to worry about at the groomers was that her pet had a bath, nails trimmed and a good ear cleaning if necessary.
Should the groomers had the owner come in so they could show her what was going on face to face? Yeah, as atleast then if the woman disagreed she could have left and brought her dog elsewhere, where they may have called the owner on her lack of maintaining her pet.
Does this woman have the right to sue somebody that was preventing her animal from becoming injured and or ill? Apparently so, but she was the owner should be held accountable for her own actions as well. Don't buy a high maintance breed of dog if you cannot do the work.
Stacy April 1st, 2007 01:11:00 PM
Stacy: You make the fine point that many of my colleagues make: If only pet owners could be sued for relinquishing their basic care responsibilities then perhaps we'd be on an even keel. Come on? Isn't it obvious when your pet has matted fur? In fact, the case I refer to hinges on the owner's irresponsible treatment. But a vet counter-suit for owners' negligence? That's unheard of! If vets can be sued for doing things wrong then owners should be sued when they refuse treatment! It's only fair.
Dr. Patty Khuly April 1st, 2007 01:25:00 PM
Not to sound like I'm sucking up, but I totally agree. A currently know of a few pet owners who should be sued for what they are doing ( or not doing) for their animals.
I also think dog breeding needs be knocked out of the hobby catagory. Make these these people responsible for everything they do or don't do. They to should have to carry insurance, ect. It's because of this "hobby" deal that situations like the one I mentioned happens in the first place.
Stacy April 1st, 2007 01:40:00 PM
Vets do need to become a little more careful about dispensing meds - I work for a pharmaceutical company and I am absolutely appalled at MY industry's neglect of the vets. There should be established reps to which a vet can direct questions, obtain education, and yes, even more samples like the human Docs get. My vet gets very little. But, I did feel it necessary to lecture him that he should routinely inform me of AT LEAST the big known side effects to look out for. Our society is changing, most people are starting to understand that there are always side effects - my vet used to neglect telling his clients certain things for fear that they would just refuse to use the prescribed medicine out of fear. But to protect himself, and to give a heads up warning of the signs to look for, every drug dispensed needs to be discussed, better yet, the package insert should be copied or summarized and supplied. Most vets don't send us running to the pharmacist, who would be a back-up to provide that information for us humans.
Susan Jeffrey April 1st, 2007 02:11:00 PM
I am not sure about the details of these cases as I am on the surgical side of medicine for humans.
Unfortunately you will see an increase in lawsuits brought against vets as lawyers see them as a knew population of cases to go after.
Good luck!
Domenico Savatta, M.D. April 1st, 2007 02:51:00 PM
Scary stuff....
Vet A: serves the idiot right. You wanna hold your dog, expect that he will not be happy during a painful procedure. That would be me, because I'd be holding my boyl, but if it went wrong, I am grown-up enough to know that it's my fault.
Vet B: shit happens. Not exactly like the vet chose to have a malfunctioning syringe. Not pleasant, especially with a euthanase. That is one case where every vet would like it all to go smoothly but still....if you guys use euthapent like local vets do.....you could pretty much batch in the stuff without it hurting.
Vet C: and while poor dog was chowing out his stitches and then his intestines, where was the loving and caring owner? Stitches itch. Very much. As an informed human patient, I've scratched a couple of mine out before. What did the owner THINK his dog was going to do? And how many hours of ignoring the dog did it take before he got as far as his intestines?
Vet D: maybe. As a wildlife rehabber, we use Metacam off label all the time. Because it is often the best that is available. I have used it on my own cat, knowing it was off-label, but also knowing that it was giving her pain relief that was otherwise unavailable. Maybe this vet could be liable. But, maybe the owner should be counter-sued for not caring enough about his cat to bother reading up on the meds he was allowing his cat to have.
My big guy was on Rimadyl for a year, until he was euthanased earlier this week. No, my vet didn't give me a package insert - she gets the stuff in very large bottles, and dispenses it 30 at a time. But she cautioned me about it, and asked me to go read up on the net. Which I did. Rimadyl gave my boy an almost pain-free year, even if, from the looks of it, it was liver failure that he died of.
A YEAR, versus such bad arthritis that he would have been euthanased a year ago? Worth it.
I would hate to see American vet medicine going the way of human health care. Especially seeing as we mostly depend on the research and drugs coming from the US. There are times where anger with a health care provider is justified, and maybe, where legal recompse should be sought.
But as a non-American, involved in the animal-care industry, reading the above examples just makes me wonder when Americans are going to grow up and take responsibility for life. It happens, guys, like it or not. And although there are some instances of incompetence that deserve legal action, there needs to be some differentiation between those and ....life.
jcat April 1st, 2007 05:20:00 PM
IMHO-
Maybe I am spoiled because I live in a fairly rural area, and I have the luxury of having the same vet for years. But because of that, I've developed a relationship with her.
I trust her judgement, and I trust our relationship well enough that if I disagree with her, I will tell her. She knows I do the best for my dogs, and I know she does her best for them too. I also accept the fact that she isn't perfect....who is? I know that if she did something that negatively affected my dog, it would not have been due to neglect, and it probably wouldn't have been preventable.
Sometimes, people need to just realize that shit happens. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, numerous things go wrong and screw up life. People need to quit looking to blame someone everytime things go bad.
I can't imagine suing my vet. If I didn't trust her enough to know that regardless of the outcome, she did her best, I wouldn't go to her. It all comes down to trust.
Agadore's momma April 1st, 2007 11:43:00 PM
Although I don't work the med-mal side myself, I do work in a firm which is well know for medical malpractice defense (especially of obstetricians). I second the opinion of the above surgeon; vet malpractice suits will increase in cost and frequency as people begin to see pets more as part of the family. It may now be that only rich disgruntled clients can sue, however, once there's an established market for this sort of thing you will get more attorneys willing to work on commission...that means everybody and their brother can at least initiate a lawsuit. However, the flip side of this is that it will force recognition of pets as something beyond the mere possessions they are currently classified as. In this way, it will become possible to criminally prosecute those owners who do not take excellent care of their "babies". Mind you, this is all speculation, but legislation and the legal framework does seem to be tending in this direction.
Becky April 2nd, 2007 08:52:00 AM
Becky - that's a good point you make. In SA the only people who can sue for even the most horrific neglect are the NSPCA, and they are so overworked and underfunded that most of the time they just can't do it.
If getting lawyers involved in the pet field might expand the number of people who can pursue animal rights, maybe there will actually be a good side to it.
jcat April 2nd, 2007 03:09:00 PM
"An odd catch-22. But I guess this is how it started in the human medical profession, too."
YOU MEAN, LIKE, PET RCVS THE USUAL ROUNDs OF REPETITIVE VACCINES VETS PROFIT FROM (W/0 ADEQUATE DURATION OF IMMUNITY STUDIES NOT THAT THEY TELL THE AVG FRIVOLOUS OWNER THAT), SELLS PETOWNER SOME CRAP PETFOOD, PET DEVELOPS AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, VETS INJECT STEROIDS, THEN SELL SPECIAL DIETS FOR THE AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES CAUSED BY THE VACCINES, CRAP FOOD AND TREATMENT OF THE DISEASES CAUSED BY THE VACCINES AND CRAP FOOD? SOMETHING LIKE THAT CATCH 22??? OH AND DONT' FORGET IF YOU WANT TO BUILD HEALTH IN YOUR PET THROUGH GOOD NUTRITION - GOOD LUCK GETTING A HINT FROM A VET!
"Most lawsuits never get anywhere near these with respect to their level of legal activity. They typically get dismissed for their frivolousness or due to the inherent difficulty in proving wrongdoing. " WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE % OF THESE FRIVOLOUS AND UNPROVEABLE LAWSUITS BROUGHT BY INDIVUDALS AGAINST THE BIG$$$ AVMA? ANYTHING LIKE THE % OF DISEASES CAUSED BY VACCINES, CRAP FOOD AND TREATMENT OF DISEASES CAUSED BY VACCINES AND CRAP FOOD?
"Unexpected things happen unexpectedly—especially when you’re dealing with animals." WELL, I FOR ONE WILL NEVER GO TO A VET WITHOUT EXPECTING THIS AND PROTECTING MYSELF WITH INFORMATION TO PROTECT MY PET. TO BUILD HEALTH AND PROTECT HEALTH I GO ELSEWHERE - NOT TO VETS. THEY'RE PITIFUL. THEY'RE DISGUSTING. AND SO WILL A LOT OF PETOWNERS WHO ARE NOW READY TO BE LOOKING FOR THE FACTS. AND THE FACTS ARE OUT THERE EASY TO BE HAD. AND I'M WORKING TO SEE THAT THEY ARE KNOWN.
YOU CAN PROTECT YOUR SORRY BEHINDS BY CHANGING AND PUTTING ANIMAL'S WELLBEING ABOVE PROFITS FROM THE PETFOOD AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. GO STUDY NUTRITION FOR STARTERS. WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS.
4lgdfriend April 2nd, 2007 08:18:00 PM
4lgdfriend- If you have issues with your vet, you need to take them up with your vet.
As for the "crap food" you keep refering to, why don't you look into all those companies that are making that "crap food" that claim they know everything there is to be known about pet nutrition and the FDA since they are the ones that allow all the poisonous crap to come over US borders and never inspect it. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/petfoods.htm#consumer
Stacy April 2nd, 2007 10:26:00 PM
Shame on you, 4lgdfriend...find some other place to rant. We like to keep things peaceful around here - as I'm sure Dr. Khuly does, seeing as how this is her personal blog and whatnot.
anna April 2nd, 2007 11:48:00 PM
4ldgfriend: It's all fair game in terms of your opinion but tone down the volume next time--my ears are still ringing. I wonder about your past experiences and I'm sorry if you've dealt with the relatively small percentage of uncaring, unprofessional, poorly educated, abusive opportunists out there. We have as many among our ranks as in any other profession--no more and no less. For those, I apologize, but don't cast us all in the same light. Some of us try hard, are open to new information and opinions and care a great deal about our clients and their pets--and not because we see you/them as a source of income. if so, we might have gone into law or corporate vet medicine.
Dr. Patty Khuly April 3rd, 2007 09:12:00 AM
Oops--that sounded bad. Neither corporate vet medicine nor law are bastions for the greedy as I painted it back there. My point was that we could have chosen other avenues if money was that important to us.
Dr. Patty Khuly April 3rd, 2007 06:53:00 PM
Dr. Khuly,
A very tactful (and truthful) response to the previous rant. I read much anger in between those lines and wonder where that's coming from. I remind everyone that vets are trained - we learn from others. Our beliefs (in food and vaccines, for example) and practices did not materialize out of thin air, but are rather based on scientific evidence, something poorly understood by some of your readers it would seem. Regarding vaccines, there are plenty of vets out there now who have changed their protocols based on recent evidence that immunity conferred may be for very long periods of time. Vets, like everyone else, need to remain open-minded and question themselves and their practices all the time. It's cliché but it's what makes us better.
For now, I still treat abscesses by draining and antibiotics. I hope this doesn't make me a loser.
TorontoVet April 3rd, 2007 11:50:00 PM
If so, I must be a loser, too. Thanks for weighing in. (BTW, I tried to post on your blog the other day on the topic of Don Cesar and your read on him--I agree with his premises but often disagree with his tactics--but I had trouble reviewing my reply. Hope you got it anyway.)
Dr. Patty Khuly April 4th, 2007 10:05:00 AM
Oh, I'm a bit late on this, but...
I have an MD who prints all his prescriptions out via computer. When a prescription is printed, an information/warning page is also printed. For every prescription he hands out, there's an additional paper outlining the name of the drug, the purpose, the potential side-effects, etc. I think this sort of setup would be fairly easy to implement and setup in vet's offices, and it's probably good idea. That way you wouldn't need to worry about package inserts - all important info would be automatically given to the client.
Leigh-Ann April 6th, 2007 04:25:00 AM
Leigh-Ann: It's very easy to do. Our program automatically allows for warnings and tips whenever a certain invoice item appears. For example, all surgeries can have recommendations for suture care (although I do a lot of subcutaneous sutures that don't need special care). It's a great feature most vet programs offer. You're right--there's no excuse for basic communication in most cases.
Dr. Patty Khuly April 6th, 2007 09:33:00 AM
Add Commment