How much is your pet worth to you? Should he die, be lost or stolen, what does his untimely departure really cost you?
The Miami Herald reports today that a judge in Broward County, Florida (next door to me) has just awarded an owner $30,000 for the loss of her Rottweiler after a kennel failed to seek appropriate medical attention for the respiratory condition that afflicted him and her other dog during their stay there. $20,000 was the sum specifically awarded for the pet’s “intrinsic” value.
Aside: Animal lawyer Marcy LaHart (an occasional contributor to Dolittler) was the legal counsel for the winning side. I congratulate her.
Here’s some background:
In terms of the real market for pets, your old, arthritic shelter pet is likely to come in at a negative value––in the thousands. That’s what it might cost for someone to take him on, expensive troubles and all, for the rest of his life. In other words, your past-his-prime pet is less than worthless––a liability, even––in the eyes of those who would consider him mere “property” in terms of the law.
Yet among more enlightened legal scholars and animal attorneys out there, the very idea of your pet’s negative monetary value is ridiculous. After all, you have spent thousands on him, year after year, caring for him lovingly as if he were a member of your family on par with your children. The negligence of a veterinarian or the cruelty of a neighbor should not end in nothing just because, in strict financial terms, he belongs as an item on your accountant’s debit column.
This pet has real “intrinsic” value to you. All your expenses and all that sweat equity spent in training, exercising, feeding wonderful foods, learning about his ills, involving yourself fully in his daily care, etc. clearly demonstrate that this pet is worth more to you than the word “pet” would designate. Indeed, he is a companion in every sense of the word. Your friends, your neighbors, your veterinarian, your groomer, even your friendly neighborhood blogger, can all attest to that.
When your pet is “lost” due to the wrongful actions of others, this intrinsic value translates into “loss of companionship.” And you should have the right to seek compensation for this––primarily by way of punishing the wrongdoers and obtaining justice on behalf of your pet. Maybe it’ll mean that fewer animals will suffer the same fate your companion did.
Similarly––and this is critical to me––an owner who has treated his pet like a pet all her life (i.e., a yard-only life, minimal veterinary care, no training, no apparent involvement in her day-to-day care, etc.) does NOT deserve to reap the similar benefits of the owner in the above example.Perhaps, even, he deserves to be counter-sued for a lifetime of his pet's poor treatment.
Though you might argue that any individual animal deserves to be defended on his or her own intrinsic merits, the reality is that a human is the initiator, sufferer and beneficiary of legal action. That’s why, for better or worse, a pet that is not fortunate enough to have been cared for as a companion is not attached to an owner who can claim a loss for the animal’s intrinsic value.
As I’ve explained here often on Dolittler and in a national veterinary publication (Veterinary Practice News), I’m all for judgments like this. “Non-economic damages,” they’re called. Because it goes both ways. If people are willing to spend more on pets because they’re family members––boarding them at expensive kennels, having them professionally groomed, trained and treated to high-quality veterinary care––then owners who take on these responsible practices have plenty of proof of their engagement with their pets’ lives to the tune of true companionship.
Irresponsible owners of marginalized pets? They, too, reap what they sow. I can’t wait for the day when I can take pet owners to task––legally––for doing wrong by their pets.
Judgments like this open up a barrel-ful of wriggly worms, it’s true, but it’s one I prefer be dumped out once and for all––because it reflects the true nature of what pets mean to many of us. Intrinsic value-based awards and the converse, judgments for inadequate care that leads to poor outcomes, are only fair––and just.
Add Comment58 Comments
It's sad that pets are viewed in monetary terms at all.
Similarly, being vegan myself, my husband (meat-but-not-beef eater that he is) often joke that if the "value" of animals were truly represented in monetary terms, every hamburger would have to be a million dollars.
I, too, am thrilled that pets are being recognized for more than their mere monetary "value". I will say that a recent discussion led to me calculating an estimate of the yearly costs of our current dog. Based on that tally, as of next year, her 11th birthday, she will have cost us at least $100,000. I wonder if we could recoup any of that, in a similar kind of suit described above. After all, we spent that money to make sure we have "her" (not another dog, but this one) with us, for as long as possible.
Marjorie May 1st, 2009 11:06:41 AM
My pets are priceless to me and I feel sorry for whoever harms them because I think I would be going to jail. They are my family and I cannot fathom life without them, even though I know that someday it will have to be that way. That said, I'm very happy to see that the judge ruled in favor of this person who obviously loved their dog. Also agree with Marjorie... how sad is it that pets are seen as property. Anyone who has ever "owned" a cat or a stubborn dog knows that's not true. You just learn to coexist together. ;-)
RHz May 1st, 2009 11:15:42 AM
"I feel sorry for whoever harms them because I think I would be going to jail."
RHz...I'm right there with ya'. ;-)
Marjorie May 1st, 2009 11:24:18 AM
Quote:
I can’t wait for the day when I can take pet owners to task––legally––for doing wrong by their pets
.
Funny that you say this today because just yesterday we had a couple of cats come in for neuter and one had a BIG (about 2x the size of a half dollar coin) wound on his neck. The owner said it was the result of a bite from the other cat about TWO WEEKS BEFORE, she felt like the cat didn't need any medical attention whatsoever. On top of this, both cats were completely infested with fleas and the woman refused any flea preventative because she felt that if they weren't on the cat they would be on her and that would be completely unacceptable.
Needless to say if I could have pressed charges for neglect I would have in a heartbeat...
Matthew May 1st, 2009 11:36:48 AM
I've often said that if someone offered me a million dollars for my dog, I wouldn't take it, although I could certainly use the money. But I couldn't live with myself if I did, honestly.
Shasta May 1st, 2009 11:51:19 AM
Heaven is a place, where nothing hurts.
Let me think about that intrinsic value thing a bit.
Evet May 1st, 2009 12:02:01 PM
KUDOS to Marcy LaHart and may she proceed to open a multi-state law office for representing pet owners! $30,000 isn't a "big" judgment but persuading a judge to go against long standing precedents is HUGE and it's a risk for the judge too. Kudos to the judge for having the guts to make the ruling and may it withstand the appeal that is almost certain. Everyone keep those appellate judges in your prayers.
On the flip side, you can just about bet that insurance premiums for vets, groomers, and other animal caretakers will skyrocket well in advance of the legal rulings. That means that we will all be paying more. We gotta do something about the insurance industry too.
PJBoosinger May 1st, 2009 12:39:55 PM
PJB: Yeah, I'm REALLY scared that my insurance premium will jump from $350 to $700. FRIGHTENING. (not)
Dr. Patty Khuly May 1st, 2009 12:42:54 PM
PS: Yeah, that's my annual outlay. Compare that to my friend the obsetrician ($100,000-plus) and I'm not complaining. But, yes, something's got to be done about jury awards and the like. The insurance industry's got to give.
Dr. Patty Khuly May 1st, 2009 12:44:43 PM
My German Shepherd Duke (he is the one that just died of bloat) was sent to obedience training back in June 2006. All I wanted was for Duke to learn the basic commands (sit, stay, lie down, walk on a leash, etc.) Duke was a hand me down from several owners (because he was an escape artist as well as very stubborn) and he had never been properly trained and I felt since he was older that it would be best to have a professional work with him and then I would take over. The trainer lived just into the next state from me. The trainer that I used was recommended by someone I work with. He had also been highlighted in a magazine as a good trainer for service dogs. Unfortunately Duke was abused while there. Duke was very intelligent and for whatever reason he hated being caged. The trainer was trying to train him to use a crate. Duke must have had a really bad experience early in his life with being crated. I don't ever crate my dogs but the trainer felt he had to learn to accept that. I checked in daily and the trainer thought he was doing well but he had "ate through" his most expensive crate and had to use a metal one. The trainer originally thought it would take 4 weeks but after 2 weeks he told me he was ready to go home. I met the trainer half way to pick Duke up. The trainer spent some time with us working on the basic commands and it seemed as though Duke had been trained but he did seem somewhat "depressed". Because Duke was very large and had lots of hair, he looked okay. So I went home with Duke.
After we got home I noticed a big open wound on his neck. It was about the size of a quarter. I called the trainer and he said it was a hot spot. Since I had never dealt with hot spots and didn't know what they looked like, I decided to take Duke to the vet. The vet said it wasn't a hot spot but was a sore created by a shock collar in his opinion and that they either abused the use of it or the collar was too tight and never taken off. I called the trainer and asked if he had used a shock collar and he said they had but he said the sore was not from that. I decided to pursue this legally and as of today I am STILL waiting for resolution on this with the police in the state/county this trainer lives in. I found out from the officer that 3 months after Duke was at this trainer that another dog had died while there and those owners were pursing legal action also. The officer said he would combine our two complaints and would keep me informed. I have sent e-mails to the officer and he continues to tell me that it is still pending. And this is 2 years later. At the very least I would like to see this trainer guilty and recorded somewhere so other people who may consider using him can find out through public records of his history. And fined, big time.
I guess what I am trying to say is my Duke (nor any of my critters) could never have a monetary value to me. He could never be replaced.
Jan May 1st, 2009 02:09:43 PM
I applaud the award and congratulate Marcy LaHart. I also agree with PJB re: the judge who is to be thanked for guts and foresight.
However, as Dr. K's comment indicates, any impact on insurance premiums would likely be minimal. This is borne out by the groundbreaking study on veterinary liability conducted by animal lawyer Christopher Green, which used data from veterinary insurers to calculate likely impact of intrinsic value awards on premiums.
Here is the web address if anyone is interested:
http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/vol10_p163.pdf
See in particular discussion on pages 174 and 244. The document is a little outdated now but I'm sure the principle applies.
And yes, I too would like to see owners who mistreat their animals held legally liable for cruelty. Hopefully this case is a sign that tolerance of negligence and mistreatment of animals -- no matter who does it -- is no longer OK.
Stefani May 1st, 2009 03:16:36 PM
Dr. K, You know I agree but I'll also bet some prices go up based directly on a claim that insurance premiums are going up. You'll need to keep us advised of your rates to debunk the myths I see coming. :) I also suspect that insurance for other care takers, if they carry any, may go up a bit more. And I won't bet that the insurance carriers won't stir the pot and give it their best try. AIG??? Well, they do have to find SOME way to dig themselves out.
PJBoosinger May 1st, 2009 04:19:05 PM
Attorney LaHart, thank you for your courage & perseverance to represent beloved companion animals & their human family. There are not too many of you out there! And kudos to the judge in the case & Dr. K for posting.
Mack, Willie, & Alice
Barbara A. Albright/NH May 1st, 2009 04:28:06 PM
Yes, I want to add: Thanks to Dr. K for posting, and most of all for supporting this decision. I wish more shared your view in this regard. I
Stefani May 1st, 2009 05:24:41 PM
The last thing any of us need at this time is another inflationary spiral. Be it the basic necessities of life or professional overhead costs. But without FIRM and enforced regulations it's all up in the air.
Evet May 1st, 2009 05:51:50 PM
I agree Evet and I'd argue that, without firm enforcement, there's an even bigger economic cost. Those who are harmed and have no suitable remedy get a form of PTSD that usually results in lost work time as well as a host of other losses. But even viewed in just the economic numbers, the cost should be high enough for us all to support "justice". Me, I'd support it just for the sanity it promotes.
PJBoosinger May 1st, 2009 06:18:02 PM
I have pets?....I though I just lived with a lot of smaller loving family members.
value?....can't place on with all the love we share.
Please everyone say a quick prayer, wish, thought for our move this weekend. It's only 1.5 hrs away, but it's a big undertaking with the furry family members since most have never been in the car for more than 10 minutes.
see you all next week when I get cable /internet again :(
LorriM May 1st, 2009 07:14:50 PM
Dr. K
Thanks for having the courage to address the issue of companion animals and their intrinsic value to us, the guardians. Loss of companionship is priceless. .some companions think they are people too!
Fotini May 1st, 2009 07:49:33 PM
Dr. K - Brave stance, dear doctor. :O) However, nothing less than what your readers have come to expect from you.
I will refrain from profession bashing until the AVMA comes out with a statement, or there is more response heard from veterinarians, groomers, trainers, boarders, techs, walkers and sitters.
In my personaly opinion, I hope you'll forgive the language, but it's about DAMN TIME!
Ok, there - I'm all better. :O) While this case is still the exception, not the rule, BIG thanks have to be given (as has been mentioned) to all parties involved. That includes the lawyer, the judge, and the plaintiff in this case. Without the plaintiff to push and the lawyer to believe it was possible, they would never have gotten to the point where a judge could actually make such a monumental ruling.
Dr. K, I also have to say that I agree with you 100% regarding value of a "pet" vs. value of a companion. Of course, how does one begin to quantify one or the other. In legal terms, I mean (I'm sure we all agree on the basics of what makes one or the other). I think that THIS is where the wiggly worms truly reside.
Thanks again for passing on another great piece of news!
Kim May 1st, 2009 08:24:21 PM
Re: "Without the plaintiff to push and the lawyer to believe it was possible . . . "
Hear hear, Kim.
I know several people who have taken legal action over harm to their companion animals, and in each case a) they paid their lawyer by the hour, and b) they had a hard time finding a lawyer who would take the case even on those terms (hour for hour pay). I really hope more lawyers become willing to take such precedent-setting cases. Right now its an uphill battle in most states to even find such a lawyer, even if you are willing to sell everything you own to pay them with no hope of recovering anything more than the satisfaction of a verdict in your favor.
Stefani May 1st, 2009 08:35:37 PM
The Insurance Industry has way to much of the wrong kind of clout and influence. Whats Doc supposed to do moonlight as a pole dancer just to pay increasing malpractice premiums and stay in practice? Negligence truly annoys me because it's always the responsible who end up holding the bag.
Evet May 1st, 2009 08:45:09 PM
Speaking of going above the call of duty Doc how did things work out for lil' Gaston?
Evet May 1st, 2009 08:55:21 PM
The bond we shared with Jerry simply cannot be described with dollars.
tripawds.com May 1st, 2009 09:07:22 PM
"how does one begin to quantify" While valuing pets is somewhat new, the legal system regularly has to deal with valuation. In our legal system, money value is the usual remedy in most cases so, whatever the loss is, a value has to be arrived at. The legal system regularly puts a value on a spouse, a parent, or a child. I would find it difficult to imagine it could be any more difficult for a judge or jury to come to a number for a pet than for a child. And I would expect the same basic structure of argument: lost wages/income, loss of consortium/companionship, actual damages for attempts to save, etc., etc.
"Negligence truly annoys me because it's always the responsible who end up holding the bag." Ditto. I'm inclined to live and let live UNTIL one does something stupid that harms another. We have to say "that's not right" to each other early and often because letting things go allows them to grow into harmful actions and then so much and so many of those it is no longer possible to hold everyone responsible who should be held responsible. We're there but we've got to take a harder line with each other. The term "mere negligence" annoys the crud out of me because it's rarely "mere" anything to the person harmed by it. There's so little accountability these days I sometimes wonder why anyone "plays by the rules" any more.
I don't think "our" doc need worry, as she herself indicated, about insurance premiums; nor any other vets in the foreseeable future. What should those suffering from high insurance premiums do? 1) Form their own self insurance pool (amazing what it does for accountability when you know who else is in your pool); 2) Demand fixed profit margins for insurance companies along with lots and lots of financial disclosure; 3) Get your STUFF together, live up to the professional standards and ethics, expect to get slapped hard if you don't, start slapping your brethren in your profession HARD with "clean it up or get out because I don't want to be associated with you in any way, shape, or form". But I suppose pole dancing and giving up a profession altogether (then you can skip the premiums) is an alternative...
PJBoosinger May 1st, 2009 09:49:07 PM
This has been coming for a long time, and it is past due. I think it is hypocritical for some in our profession to celebrate the human - animal bond when it helps the bottom line and then try to declare that pets are valued like a lawn mower when there is a perceived threat. I really don't think there will be a massive increase in lawsuits and skyrocketing insurance premiums. If you are practicing good medicine and have good communication skills I don't think you have much to worry about. I think the ones who have to worry are the Dr Cheapvets among us, who cut corners and practice sloppy medicine but talk with the silver tongue. They attract many bottom feeder clients who will sue just to get a cash payout if they see an opportunity. Then there will be the informed, good client that unwittingly stumbles into one of these practices and loses a pet due to negligence and finds out the hard way that not all vets are alike (other than just some charge less). A rising tide lifts all boats, and when the bottom half of the pet owning public has more accountability then our profession will prosper, increased lawsuits or not. I am not worried a bit.
Hobson May 1st, 2009 10:01:13 PM
How do you put a price on this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3U0udLH974
Evet May 1st, 2009 10:39:55 PM
Hobson - I really like your opinions and agree with you completely..Can we nominate you to be president of the AVMA? Seriously, your profession could use many more forward thinkers such as yourself. Thank YOU! <p>
Dr. Khuly -Thank YOU for your courage to speak up in support of intrinsic value for our pets. I know it's not a popular position within your profession, but it is encouraging to me that there are vets - such as you and Hobson - that do see the light. <p>
Here is the confusing thing to me. We know that the AVMA is against these types of awards. It seems to me that the easiest way to keep this tide from turning - if you don't want the lawsuits and the subsequent awards that might result - why not change the culture of the regulatory boards to where they actually hold the bad vets accountable? I believe people turn to the courts as a last resort for justice for their pets - and even that is not yet feasible in many cases.<p>
I think I have mentioned the <a href="http://sorryworks.net/> Sorry Works! Coalition </a> here before. Why couldn't this be applied to the veterinary field as well? Accepting responsibility for one's actions, showing remorse, apologizing,and doing the right thing...wouldn't that be great?<p>
<p>Our beloved Stempy. 1997-2005.
Greg - Stempy's Story May 1st, 2009 11:52:10 PM
Evet, How do you not put a price on that? What's the alternative? Admittedly, I'm one of those inclined to hurt someone if they hurt my fur "babies" but then where does that leave the rest of my brood? I'll grant there are alternatives ways of getting one's pound of flesh but I'll decline to list the possibilities as most of them are illegal and those so inclined already know how to accomplish this (and actually, they're additionals rather than alternatives) but they rarely accomplish correction of the bad behavior when a money judgment or threat thereof often does. I do like to think those who get paid back through alternative methods at least suspect it's because of their bad behavior but I suspect they chalk it up to bad luck.
PJBoosinger May 2nd, 2009 12:35:24 AM
Re Hobson's: "They attract many bottom feeder clients who will sue just to get acash payout if they see anopportunity."
Although I generally share your views, and like Greg, truly appreciate them (yes, please take over AVMA) . . .
I think any indiividuals such as those you describe would quickly learn that if they are looking to file lawsuits for quick cash, maybe they ought to go slip on a banana peel in a grocery store or get in an auto accident where it's the other guys fault. The economics of lawsuits against vets are: Plaintiffs must be prepared to spend more money on legal fees than they will ever recover. And that's IF they can find a lawyer to take it at that.
Anyone who is willing to endanger their pets by knowingly taking them to substandard vets simply because they are under the severe illusion that they can then get a lawyer to take a case on contingency and get lots of money is not only shameful (and shouldn't own pets) but also is totally ignorant and will soon get a rude awakening because that scenario AIN'T happening. What will happen is when the pet will be harmed, there will be no recourse (vet board will do nothing or next to nothing and a lawsuit will COST you, you must be prepared to do it for the principle of the thing. Which such an owner would not).
Remember: In Bluestone v. Bergstrom, the plaintiff (Bluestone) was awarded $39k, which included recognition of his dogs unique value. But . . . he spent over $300k to see that case through.
No worries though: the truly loving pet "owners" --not the ones you describe but people who are deeply bonded to their pets -- ARE often willing to drain their savings accounts dry, borrow, do whatever they have to, to bring a case to trial even though they know they can only potentially recover a miniscule fraction of what they will spend to see it through.
It's called LOVE and standing up for your loved ones even when they have gone to the great beyond. The solemn sense of duty and commitment -- and, frankly, often guilt for entrusting the pet to the people who harmed them.
Stefani May 2nd, 2009 09:39:47 AM
Dr. Hobson, LOVE YOU!!!!!!!! And thank you!
Natalie Kramer May 2nd, 2009 11:28:09 AM
Well, I can sympathize with Vets frustrations. If I was a Vet I would want to be proactive with the client. I would get incredibly frustrated with client's who dropped their pet off as if they were dropping the car off for an oil change or the laundry for dry cleaning.
Evet May 2nd, 2009 12:22:09 PM
One legitimate fear that Vets have of potential increased lawsuits (or board complaints) has nothing to do with money. It is the emotional toll it takes on one if you are sued or a complaint is filed with the state board. Most of us are sensitive and contientious and the stress of answering a suit/complaint adds a significant amount to the pile of stress we already live with day to day (see Dr K's earlier blog about Vet suicide). Veterinary Medicine frequently requires us to navigate in grey areas and unfortunately when you are there it is many times impossible to know if you are heading in the right direction until after the fact, and sometimes the results are not good. The smartest and best educated Vets in the world have to do this every day. Most of the time clients will accept the fact that you did the best you could with the information, knowledge, skills and resources you have but some will not. The few that don't can have all kinds of issues: unrealistic expectations, personality conflicts witht he Vet, adverse previous experiences with vets, guilt over their own contribution to the pet's health problem, financial difficulties and some of these folks have varying forms of mental illness, among a multitiude of issues. These are the folks many good Vets fear making their lives miserable if it is easier to sue or file a complaint. Even though the vet will likely win the suit or get the complaint dismissed if they did everything right, the worst damage (emotionally) has already been done. I guess we will have to accept this as "collateral damage" in this issue. My point is please don't think that it is just a pocketbook issue with Veterinarians.
Hobson May 2nd, 2009 12:55:47 PM
Dr. Hobson, I think most of us, pet owners, are in favor of having a system (be it the boards or courts) that is simply fair, impartial, and unbiased both towards vets and pet owners. If the complaint is frivolous or unreasonable, the vet should have the protection of the board and the courts. If the complaint is legitimate, the pet owner should have the same protection. Also, if a complaint is dismissed, pet owners should have the right to a clear and convincing explanation as to the reasons. The way it is now in many states is that legitimate complaints can be dismissed without an explanation or an explanation that makes no sense whatsoever. The system has to be fair and respectful to all involved.
Natalie Kramer May 2nd, 2009 03:07:29 PM
Good point Natalie. i wish there could be a requirement for mediation between the 2 parties before a suit goes to court or complaint is heard by the state board. The mediator would be a neutral party that was well versed in both law and medicine. If an agreement was not reached and the dispute went to the next step, the Vet would face more severe penalties if he/she were truly negligent. If the Vet was not negligent but the plaintiff proceeded to the next step, the the Vet should be able to recover damages from the plaintiff (and the attorney for proceding with a frivolous suit anyway) if the court/board concurred with the mediator.
Hobson May 2nd, 2009 03:49:19 PM
Hobson, don't you think there would be times when mediation would be innapropriate, and it would be very important for the matter to be brought before the board?
If you have someone like your example of a Dr. Cheapvet, who moreover is negligent - for example, allowing unlicensed assistants to induce surgical patients, or even do surgeries (it happens) -- I wouldn't think much of a pet owner/guardian who was willing to reach a settlement that was private -- taking money basically in lieu of reporting such dangerous practices to the board.
I do believe that when we are aware of practices that appear to be systemic or the way things are usually done at a place, and they are dangerous and substandard, regardless of the outcome for our pets we have an obligation to do something. Not just sign some settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause.
Not just in this arena, but in all arenas of life, I am disturbed by people who can just walk away with a handful of money knowing that others are in danger.
Anyway, I agree with both you and Natalie about the need for "fairness" and objectivity, lack of bias, etc. and also would add more transparency.
I don't think lots of lawyers are eager to take frivolous suits about pet harm, whether they be against a vet or against a groomer, etc. The cases are an uphill battle and there is no significant amount of $$ to be won, so I have to trust that most of those cases are getting weeded out by lawyers (not taking them on) before they ever get filed. As for the board, please forgive me if this sounds nasty, but the fact that the process is stressful -- I'm not sure that's a bad thing (its stressful for both sides, BTW -- keeps the wounds open for the complainant). But the may be the only true punishment/deterrent in the whole process, because the boards barely do anything. Unless of course, you are stealing and then chronically using drugs you have diverted. But substandard care -- one can do that for two decades, with few reprecussions.
Stefani May 2nd, 2009 04:23:08 PM
Hobson - sounds good to me - whatever it takes to bring accountability to the profession.
When we filed our complaint in Texas, we were not allowed to see the licensee's response to our complaint. This is the rule for every complaint filed. This means that the licensee can effectively rewrite history and there is nobody to dispute their version of events. The complainant would never know what the licensee submitted.
I am not saying that every licensee who has received a complaint lies in their response to the board, but many do because they know the complainant will never see what they write. That must change.
When we filed our complaint, we certainly thought that we would be allowed to speak to the reviewing vets during the process. Nope. In fact, I was told that if I attempted to contact the reviewing vets during the process, that our complaint would be immediately dismissed.
Our complaint was dismissed anyway.
We knew our bad vet lied in her response to the board. It was the only was they could have dismissed our complaint. Even the great Dr. Carl Osborne from the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine called the Texas Vet Board and told them they were wrong to have dismissed our complaint.
We demanded an explanation for the dismissal and would not take no for an answer. Finally, a year after it was dismissed, one of the reviewing vets wrote us a letter explaining his reasons for the dismissal. He basically blamed us and admonished us. How could this be? Simple. Because the licensee lied in her response and he bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Unfortunately for us, it was not financially feasible to pursue a claim in the courts and without a local expert witness (Dr. Osborne is in Minnesota, we are in Texas - so we could not use him) our case would have been dead in the water anyway. No other local vets that we talked to wanted to get involved.
Thus, here we are, fighting in the only way we know how.
Our beloved Stempy is gone forever, but we will fight until the day we die to bring accountability to this profession.
Greg - Stempy's Story May 2nd, 2009 05:07:21 PM
It's interesting to note, Hobson, that every time one of MY vet friends has been sued, it's been a frivolous case where the owner was ultimately at fault (they refused surgery, they gave two incompatible meds together against medical advice, etc.). They suffered tremendously over the situation. Talk about stress!
Yet in every case, the veterinarian could have made it go away with appropriate communication. I have also been asked to testify against a veterinarian in a surgical mishap. While the guy could have been at fault, I couldn't have said for sure. One thing I DID know was that he handled it all wrong from the start--communication-wise.
Somehow, we veterinarians are going to have to learn from the stupid human tricks of the medical insurance industry and start apologizing when things go wrong. I say this all the time here on Dolittler: I've never been sued and I believe it's because I say I'm sorry--to a fault, perhaps. I explain what I wish I could have done differently and how terrible I feel. I let them know that I'm human...by displaying HUMANITY. No one has ever been anything but gracious in the end (though some were angry for a time). I don't even think I've ever lost one of these clients. Sometimes we get crackpots who freak out and say they want to sue you over a teensy clipper burn or something absolutely minuscule. Even then, acknowledging the problem and talking them down off the ledge is all it takes. Sure, its stressful at the moment but it's one heck of a lot less stressful than getting sued.
I hope this bit of venting doesn't make anyone here feel that I'm minimizing their personal loss. But I'm curious: How many of you feel that your individual cases where your pets were wrongly treated could have turned out much differently if only appropriate communication had taken place?
Dr. Patty Khuly May 2nd, 2009 07:01:59 PM
I think I forgot to thank the plaintiffs in the case too! How could I forget who cared enough to risk $$$ to achieve justice!
Before I forget, Evet, you do have one unique POV, enjoy reading!
Can't help but still be aghast at the thoughts of veterinarians thinking that a client is just waiting to initiate a complaint or suit. As Stef said, you would be better off carrying around that bannana peel. And complaint to the state Board, that is the saddest joke of all!
Sure you may get crackpots that "say the word SUE", but actually go through with it?
I don't take any venting as diminishing a loss, nor personal, just as you see our vents as non-personal. Hobson has delightfully seen this too! We all have remaining pets, we all are exceedingly dependent on the pet-med care system, and we all have had many good experiences too!
To respond to your question Dr. Khuly: Truly , appropriate communication would have made a huge difference
All and any of the above would have worked just fine : Pocket's Story from New Hampshire
Barbara A./NH May 2nd, 2009 10:26:09 PM
Dr. Khuly, communication is absolutely critical when things go wrong. I would, however, venture to suggest that "communication" is perhaps not quite the word to describe the problems in some of the most contentious situations, in which the owners feel adamantly that harm has been done and want a simple acknowledgement of that fact (not money), and in which instead they get the "deny, deny, deny" routine, plus a generous helping of lying. This is what is the most hurtful and unkind. This what adds the salt to the wound of losing the pet. If the vet is not prepared to acknowledge the mistake, no amount of "communication" is going to help. I lost my precious cat of 15 years after the vet failed to see his congestive heart failure on an X-ray he took. When three weeks later I took that same X-ray (and Smokey) to the ER, the ER vet took one look at it and told me that Smokey was in congestive heart failure. The X-ray was three weeks old, so Smokey had gone without treatment for that length of time. He died that night. When I confronted the clinic in which the X-ray was taken, the head vet told me that it is not possible to diagnose congestive heart failure on an X-ray, that X-rays are not the tool for diagnosing this disease even preliminarily. I asked the head vet why then the ER vet had diagnosed it on the same X-ray. No answer. I sent the same X-ray for a "second opinion" out of state. The second opinion confirmed the ER vet's diagnosis. The statement the vet (in whose clinic the diagnosis was missed) made to the vet board was again that X-rays do not show congestive heart failure, and there was no way for his staff to suspect that Smokey had a serious heart disease of any kind (and that's despite the fact that he was over 16 years old, had an enlarged heart, fluid in the chest, made gurgling sounds upon breathing, and was wasting away rapidly). I have had my pets harmed through medical mistakes on other occasions as well, but in those cases, the vets who caused harm were honest and remorseful. It makes a world of difference! I have not pursued the vet who admitted her mistakes. I have not filed with the board or taken her to court. All I asked for was a simple "I am so sorry" and a commitment to learning from the mistakes for the benefit of other patients (I did get that too). I personally believe that the AVMA should have specific language about handling medical mistakes, and I even wrote to them about it (to no avail). I do value and appreciate (and I believe others do to) the individual vets who advocate in favor of being honest. I think honesty could save a lot of grief to all involved.
Natalie Kramer May 2nd, 2009 11:21:28 PM
"How many of you feel that your individual cases where your pets were wrongly treated could have turned out much differently if only appropriate communication had taken place?" I'd agree and I'd say that was true for so many other situations too! I'm with you and thanks for sharing. Just plain interacting with humans is stressful but I'd rather someone was willing to apologize, to a fault and beyond, and explain and share. I find most people are angry at the situation and often I was the one available to be angry "at", especially with legal clients who can't get to the person really making them angry. It is those professionals who are arrogant, snooty, self-justified, etc., etc. against whom I can hold "a mad" for decades.
Hobson, mediation (and all the similar alternatives) are incredibly wonderful in theory but they rarely work in practice and tend to add an additional layer of frustration, as well as time and money costs, for all if mandated. The biggest hurdle is that the mediators need to be well informed in the industry involved (here, vet medicine) so they will likely come from the industry and be distrusted by the other side. Then there's the fact they need to be paid and, if that is funded by the industry, there's that distrust issue again (and it really is difficult for one to remain independent if the least bit pressured by one's "employer"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration My own nickname for mandatory ADR is "The Lawyer's Full Employment Act". And see Shroyer athttp://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/08/17/0655964.pdf
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) became all the rage in legal services in the early 1990's and many contracts have a standard provision for use of AAA but there's also been some big stinks around that too. To me, the biggest issue is that these alternatives are intended to "fix" a problem in an existing system and, to me, the better "fix" is to repair the issues in the existing system. If a vet found themselves completely sideways with a client, my first suggestion would be that they get another vet (or other informed individual) to "mediate" and/or offer to speak with a vet of the client's choice. This form of informal mediation shows a good faith that a vet may not be able to show to the client. We all need to work on our interpersonal skills and none of our professional educations do a very good job of helping with that.
I agree that the vet should be able to recover for frivolous suits but I don't agree that they should be able to get such an award at the board complaint level. Given all that's been said about the problems with the State Boards, do I need to explain that? :)
PJBoosinger May 3rd, 2009 12:10:09 AM
Dr. K, you asked: "How many of you feel that your individual cases where your pets were wrongly treated could have turned out much differently if only appropriate communication had taken place?"
This is a really good question.
I would say if BOTH appropriate communication AND appropriate action had been taken by the vet, I never would have reported him.
You see, for a time, I thought he was taking responsibility. At first, when I came home from my 2-day weekend, and went to pick up Toonces (a recently diagnosed diabetic on insulin who had been admitted as a "Medical Board"), the vet told me -- as I looked at my rigid, seizing, nearly dead cat who had been normal when I dropped him off -- that he believed Toonces must have some brain tumor or seizure disorder and that was why he was in that state. (It is my opinion that this was a deliberate lie, but at the time I believed it). Of course, what he was telling me made no sense, but I was in such a state of shock that I believed him. He agreed to "stabilize" Toonces and call a local neurologist for her opinion. He then called me and told me that the neurologist agreed that Toonces must have some very bad neurological problem like a brain tumor and should be euthanized. He denies, by the way, ever saying that to me. (The neurologist, however, told me he called her that day and said something to the effect of: "We have a cat here who has gotten too much insulin . . . ")
Later that afternoon, when I returned to the hospital, thinking that I had to euthanize my cat for a brain tumor, he called me into a room and told me that he had since discovered the wrong size syringe in the trash and believed that his "vet tech" had given Toonces an overdose -- 30 units. He said he could not talk to this "vet tech" because he was out with the flu. (Turned out, it was his son, who was living in the basement). He offered to pay for treatment at a local ER specialty hospital, although he admitted that it was unlikely they were going to be able to save Toonces.
In his discussion with the ER hospital, he apparently told them Toonces had gotten not one, but TWO overdoses. There records originally reflected this, but later were changed to say that only one overdose had occurred.
During the month of hospitalization, and the months that ensued, I believed that this vet had told me about the overdose as soon as he realized it, and that he was "doing the right thing." I was very angry that the situation occurred in the first place, as he admitted the vet tech was "as well trained as we would like." I blamed the vet, but there were limits on my anger because I thought he was taking responsibility.
After leading me to believe, in phone conversations, that he would assume the costs of caring for Toonces brain damage, he then issued an ultimatum, that he would ONLY pay for the initial hospitalization and limited aftercare (two weeks of a vet tech, who actually almost let Toonces die all over again) -- after that I would be on my own to incur the substantial costs associated with Toonces now precarious health and neuro damage. So, he backed out of taking full financial responsibility. He would ONLY pay the hospital bill if I signed a liability release. I signed it -- but under false pretenses, because I later learned the truth about how this happened to Toonces.
More than two months after the incident, I got a call from a former employee who told me that it wasn't a "vet tech" at all -- it was his son. She also made statements that led me to believe (and this would be logical) vet had known all along that the cause of Toonces problems was an insulin OD given by his son. She claimed to have confronted him during the day about this, and that she believed this was the reason he acknowledged it to me -- because she was going to tell me if he didn't.
I then realized that it was outright negligence that put Toonces life in danger. His son was not adequately trained to care for patients and he knew that. He wasn't a "vet tech" at all.
I then went to have another conversation with the vet, in which I asked him WHO (by name) had given the overdose.
Afther having admitted the overdose for four months, he wrote me a letter the next day -- changing his story entirely -- and saying that he had since learned that Toonces never got an overdose afterall. Of course, it's voluminously documented in the referral hospitals records, matches the neurologists observations -- AND, she says he called her that day and told her as much. Also, his son said in the Board Conference Hearing that the night they found Toonces nearly dead, seizuring, his father said: "You've given the cat an overdose." A
But what did he tell me the day I went to pick up my cat?
That he had a brain tumor or seizure disorder.
In spite of the fact that they documented his blood sugar was 30 whent they found him (and frankly, I think that was probably an inflated number because the truth was too horrible to write down).
There were other things -- disappearing records, proven false statements, etc.
IF THE VET had
1. Called me the minute he found Toonces nearly dead
2. Admitted what happened immediately, and never recanted
3. Accepted full responsibility, including acknowledging that he never should have left his son alone in charge of patients, giving shots and meds with no supervision
4. Acknowledged that his careless and dangerous choice of leaving patients with his son was the cause of my cats injury
5. Accepted full financial responsibility for all future care expenses directly arising from the brain injury and its sequalae (approx 16K over the next two years out of my pocket)
6. Put in writing to me, sincerely, the steps he was going to take to ensure that it NEVER happened again to any other pet at his facility (this is the BIGGIE) -- i.e., hired a licensed tech, ensured appropriate drug protocols and supervisioin, etc.
7. Not told lies and changed his story over and over . . .
I really doubt I would have filed a board complaint against him then. I would have accepted it as a horrible tragedy, but I woulodn't have been so angry. I also wouldn't be warning everyone about him everywhere I can.
Now, if he had done all the above but NOT convinced me that his practices would change to prevent it in the future, I probably still would have reported him to the board. It would have been a more "friendly" process, but I would have HAD to. If he was still leaving patients with unlicensed, unqualified, unsupervised people (relatives or not), then I would have a duty to Toonces and to others to report this to the Board.
It's all in how you handle it. He took a situation where he could have redeemed it, both by continuing to take responsibiity, telling the truth, and by conscientiously changing things and demonstrating why it won't happen again. I wasn't that mad at him when I thought he was taking responsibility.
But when he decided "F_That" or whatever he decided, that was the wrong thing to do. I am now convinced he is unethical to the core, and dangerous.
Stefani -- The Toonces Project
http:/www.thetooncesproject.com
Stefani May 3rd, 2009 10:35:56 AM
Greg and Cindy: Thank you for your email.
I hang on your every word. Thanks for this. I know that understanding your personal experience helps me, personally, get past the tough cases.
So you know, every time I've screwed up communication has helped me and my clients heal. It's not about "getting away with it," it's about learning, collaborating and recovering--together.
I also have to tell you how much I appreciate every client who has listened to me and chosen to believe in my sincerity and accepted my role and my faultiness. I wouldn't be in this profession without their understanding and true compassion for what veterinarians sometimes have to endure, too.
Dr. Patty Khuly May 3rd, 2009 01:56:25 PM
شات كام , شات سعودي
ksacamat May 3rd, 2009 03:05:20 PM
Dr. K
May I add one more piece of advice to you as a client?
Please do not respond to a grieving guardian that your patient died because he/she was 94 years old! This is the answer I got from the board-certified surgeon when my dog died 3 days post release from him. He also added "If it was not for the internist's misdiagnosis, you would never have met me!" This was the telephonic conversation 3 weeks after my dog died--couldn't get him to come to the phone until I started asking for copies of medical records.
Asproolee's Story
Fotini May 3rd, 2009 05:47:19 PM
Communication.....well in theory good communication is key and ideal. But what about the vet who told me:
1. my cat had a diagnosis she didn't have?
2. performed surgery she didn't need?
3. kept her "hostage" at his facility for 2 weeks and refused to release her to me?
4. gave her the wrong mediciation and did not do anything to find out why she was not eating during the 2 weeks he held her captive?
5. Misrepresented himself as a specialist when he is NOT (in my state this is illegal)
Reducing this to "good communication" is actuallyt not characteristic of what happened!
I APPLAUD the plaintiff's and the sweet animal who suffered for this precedent.
Shoul downers who abuse their animals suffer? You betcha! But someone who never took their indoor animal to the vet might not need to. If their animals was not exposed to diseases, other animals, etc there might not be a need for them to go to the vet.
A vet who has nothing to hide has nothing to worry about with malpractice. Even if it jumped from $350 to $700 that is EXTREMELY cheap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Medical doctors pay thousands of dollars for their malpractice. Shouldn't our animals doctors have the same standard of care? I think so!
Me May 4th, 2009 12:31:32 AM
If you've been online for any length of time, chances are you already know you need inbound links if you want your website to be noticed by the search engines.Some search engine specialists don't even recommend submitting your sites manually anymore - just get links, links, and more links.
sara
Fort Lauderdale Real Estate
sara June 18th, 2009 01:50:49 AM
As an Internet marketing strategy, SEO considers how search engines work and what people search for. Optimizing a website primarily involves editing its content and HTML coding to both increase its relevance to specific keywords and to remove barriers to the indexing activities of search engines.
sara
Fort Lauderdale Real Estate
Real June 18th, 2009 01:53:12 AM
الدعم الفني
d3m June 27th, 2009 08:03:46 AM
The only ones ghd hair iron among you who will be really happy ghd mk4 iron are those who will have sought and foundhow to serve. When the fight begins ghd iv dark styler within ghd iv kiss styler himself, a man's worth something ghd hair iron .
GHD Hair Iron September 12th, 2009 04:40:55 AM
Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Amercrombie and Fitch
Abercrombie and Fitch September 16th, 2009 04:45:10 AM
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watch for sale
rolex replica November 10th, 2009 11:50:49 AM
<a href="Patek'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Patek-Philippe/">Patek Philippe replica</a>
<a href="Audemars'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Audemars-Piguet/">Audemars Piguet replica</a>
Yachtmaster (watches) replica November 11th, 2009 12:32:51 PM
“Marriage bridal gown world pictures pictures of wanted to plan a happy surprise, a number of wedding photography studio is the purpose of holding more money ‘Kengren’, they set a ‘trap’ let you keep track of.” Wedding photos has just finished a small selection mother told the journalists, was originally a good original price 7999 yuan Zhao Shuren said that the wedding package, less than 2,000 yuan only to 5999 yuan.
bridal November 25th, 2009 12:50:04 AM
discount Jimmy Choo Handbags
discount Jimmy Choo Handbag November 25th, 2009 12:34:32 PM
Yves Saint Laurent Sandals
cheap YSL Platform
discount Christian Louboutin Sandals
Yves Saint Laurent Sandals November 25th, 2009 11:56:33 PM
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin
Christian Louboutin Boots
fagweg November 26th, 2009 09:03:19 AM
abercrombie and fitch
aaa December 14th, 2009 03:07:29 AM
Buy Kamagra M65 Field Jacket Viagra Cialis
m65 field jacket January 21st, 2010 01:18:04 AM
Add Commment