|
|
|
|
|
by Marcy LaHart, J.D.
By sheer coincidence, I had my twice yearly dental cleaning on Tuesday-the same day that I took my 12 year old cat to the vet to have his teeth cleaned. The bill for my cleaning was $115.00. Karma’s was $598.01. This is not really a fair comparison because, unlike me, who white knuckled it through the scraping and polishing, Karma had to be anesthetized. For Karma there was pre –surgery blood work, an electrocardiogram, cardiac monitoring, and pain control. And he had goopy ears-my vet determined the nature of the goop and cleaned them- as service that Vicki, my dental hygienist, did not undertake in regards to my own ears. And to be fair, Karma’s teeth were much worse than mine-I brush and floss-he refuses.
While many of my friends and family would be aghast that I shelled out almost $600.00 to have my cat’s teeth cleaned on the not so lucrative salary of a public interest lawyer, let me be clear that I do not begrudge the animal hospital a penny. Karma is a fine little pussy cat that has been a part of my life for a long time, I would not want any corners cut that would jeopardize his well being. But I find it incredibly hypocritical that when I am in the unenviable position of taking on a veterinarian for malpractice, which occurs far more often than I wish, the lawyers for those same veterinarians that collect $600 for a kitty dental, or $3,000 for a hip replacement will argue that “like it or not your honor, animals are property under the law and even if my client was negligent, poor Mrs. Jones is only entitled to the fair market value of Boots.” Vets charge like our pets are “members of the family” but when their own negligence causes their non-human patient’s death, they insist that your beloved companion should be valued like a sofa or toaster oven and that the grieving pet owner should be entitled to replacement value only.
Karma is a rather unremarkable looking solid black cat. Sadly, thousands of similarly unremarkable looking black cats await new homes in shelters nationwide. The average adoption fee for an adult neutered domestic shorthair cat is about $65.00. Obviously it would have been much more cost effective to replace Karma with a new cat than to have his teeth cleaned. But of course I did not even consider that option, because Karma is a unique individual with a personality of his own. There will never be another cat quite like Karma, a once feral kitten flushed out from under an abandoned house by my husky, and who now sleeps on my chest most nights. My emotional attachment to Karma motivates me to provide whatever veterinary care he needs at a price far in excess of his “fair market value.”
Veterinarian associations and their insurers are vehemently opposed to any legislation that would explicitly allow a pet owner to collect more than the fair market value of a negligently killed companion animal. When the topic is considered, they rhetorically spout a parade of future horribles that paralyzes even the most well intentioned and animal friendly of law makers. They claim malpractice premiums will soar, which of course vets must pass on to their clients, thereby pricing the average Joe right out of pet ownership. According to the veterinary medical associations’ lobbyists, vets will have to do all sorts of currently unneeded diagnostic tests just to cover their asses, and the courthouse steps will be clogged with greedy attorneys anxious to file frivolous suits on behalf of supposedly grieving pet owners. It will be the end of the world as we know it.
For a little reality in response to “the sky is gonna fall” scenario, I would point to the well measured work of a Harvard Law School graduate named Christopher Green, who has carefully scrutinized the veterinary community’s repeated assertion that valuing pets as more than a sofa will cause insurance premiums to “skyrocket.”
According to Green, while companion animal veterinarians’ average salaries have doubled in the last 10 years to a healthy $107,071 (putting them in the top 5% of U.S. wage earners), the majority still only pay a paltry $191 for their malpractice insurance! BY dividing this liability coverage cost among the average number of clients per veterinarian (1755 according to the AAHA), Green points out that each pet owning household is currently paying only 11¢ per year for their share of veterinary malpractice insurance ($191 annual premium ÷ 1755 clients per veterinarian = 11¢ per client). Even if a veterinarian purchases the maximum $1 million/$3 million coverage for a cost of $246, that still comes out to only 14¢ per client––mere pennies per pet owner each year. Notably, in flat dollars this level of malpractice insurance costs only $4 more than it did in 1989. Adjusting for inflation, Green concludes that veterinarians are actually paying 39% LESS for these malpractice policies than they were 19 years ago. This price decrease was verified by the country’s largest veterinary liability insurer the AVMA-PLIT.
Veterinary malpractice premiums are cheap because the handful of awards in veterinary malpractice cases have been nowhere near the available policy liability limits, and therefore insurance companies have little or no risk when issuing policies, no matter how incompetent their insured. The largest verdict in a veterinary malpractice case ever was $39,000; most are only a small fraction of that.
ABD Insurance and the California VMA calculated exactly how much they would have to increase veterinary liability premiums if emotional damages for companion animal loss were allowed, and capped at $25,000. The results published in DVM Magazine found that each veterinarian’s annual premiums would just about double, rising by $212. Dividing the predicted price increase by the average number of clients per veterinarian, each pet owner’s annual veterinary costs would increase by less than 13¢, going from less that 12¢ a year to almost a whole quarter a year. This 13¢ rise in the cost of annual veterinary care is hardly enough to price anyone out of pet ownership.
Unfortunately, regardless of the truth, groups like the FVMA and AVMA have powerful lobbyists that have made the “premiums will skyrocket” rhetoric their mantra, and our legislators fall for it hook line and sinker. Holding veterinarians accountable for their mistakes, not matter how egregious the circumstances, is as popular a notion as making nun-beating an Olympic event.
Veterinarians make their living only because of the emotional attachment that exists between a companion animal and his or her guardian. But for that bond, people would go get a new cat or dog rather than pay for a dental or a hip replacement or even an annual wellness exam with vaccines. Seems to me if you are going to make a living off that bond you’ve got a lot of damn nerve to turn around and trivialize it the moment something goes wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Also, I've never heard of a dental cleaning being around $600. My dog's was less than $100.
I am deeply grateful and certainly pleasantly surprised to see this post. Every word of it is spot on, and also thank you for quoting Green's amazing, ground-breaking paper.
Last summer, I testified in support of legislation that was proposed in my neighboring city, The District of Columbia, that would have permitted an owner to recover modest and limited (CAPPED) amounts of non-economic damages in VERY limited cases where PROVEN (in a court of law) veterinary negligence causes the DEATH of a pet (capped at $2,000 and ONLY recoverable when a pet dies; it would NOT have been recoverable in a case like what happened to my cat, who survived by was left drastically brain damaged by an insulin overdose, and the expenses his care cost me in the last two years of his life were approximately $16,000, mostly due to the brain damage). The legislation also would have allowed the recovery of a maximum of $7,500 in cases where a vet deliberately, maliciously kills an animal (NOT euthanasia -- for example, when a vet gets pissed off at a crying patient and beats him to death. Those rare, rare instances that happen a few times a decade, but stunningly, they do happen).
Needless to say, the owner of the city's largest animal hospital and a representative of the DCVMA fought this provision using all the very lame arguments you cite. The hospital owner said his insurance costs would go up and he'd have to pass it on to clients. They managed to lobby this out of the legislation.
I believe his concern about his client's wallets was entirely feigned, since I found a blog he runs online where he talked fondly about the "gravy train" vets enjoy in marked up prescriptions, bragging that he marked up Rx's 100% and added a $5.00 RX fee until the competition got so stiff he had to cut his markup in half. Sounds like a guy who is focused on INCREASING costs to his clients, not decreasing them. He has a product now, the stated goal of which is "marketing" and focuses on revenue generation. I've never read anything he has ever written on quality of care. In 2001 he was found to have 8 unlicensed vets practising at his hospital. The board found out about it but he was never fined nor disciplined in any way for it. Moreover -- as he admitted, he pays a few hundred a year for more than $1 million of coverage. What does he have to fear? Are his vets PROVABLY beating patients to death? If they aren't, the higher category of fines proposed in this law would never have affected him. Are they killing animals through negligence that will be proven in a court? Well, first of all those cases are rare because most clients won't bring them even when that happens, for emotional or financial reasons. But even if they do, we are only talking about $2,000 maximum recovery. If he can't absorb that every 5 years or so given his multi-millions in revenue a year (the most expensive and profitable hospital in DC) . . . then poor him. But he CAN afford it.
They just FIGHT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY whatsoever. And win, over and over. Calling our pets worthless because they were adopted from a shelter and telling us that our pet has "no market value." Well, my pets are all "worthless" rescues who have big market value, because of the money I put into vets pockets due to my love of them.
That large award you talk about - -- $39k in the Bluestone v. Bergstrom case? Well, according to press reports, it cost the Bluestone $300,000 to prosecute that case to closure.
When I reported the vet who left my cat with his untrained, unlicensed, unqualified son, who gave my cat a 10x overdose of insulin, the vet board fined him only $250. Something is wrong with that. And like most decisions, it is so measely that it has NO deterrent value, which is what I and other owners care the most about.
Good vets must stand up for quality. And hold bad vets accountable, not cast their lots with scoundrels and stand with them in arguing for un-accountability.
Many devoted owners pay more out of pocket for their pets health than they do for their own -- after all, most of us have insurance coverage, but not for our pets. Is it not JUST for us to be able to expect some kind of enforced QUALITY standards and accountability when things go wrong due to negligence? And am I crazy to expect that the GOOD vets should step forward and stand up for that very thing?
It's going to get harder for vets to do this thing you describe -- make money off the love we have for our pets, and then call them worthless property when their malpratice kills or injures them. NOT because the law is catching up -- it's not, the vet anti-pet lobby is as strong as ever. BUT because there is a growing national coalition of us consumers out here who are making lots of noise now and are going to get noisier, smarter, and reach more fellow consumers on this issue until things change and we see that we can hang it up because the vets themselves have actually decided to stand up for accountability and quality, rather than fight it.
Accountability DOESN'T involve devaluing the life lost due to your actions.
This has been my pet-lovers/owners mantra, in part, for the last 18+ months, to raise public awareness of the dual-sided advantage of the veterinarian in providing medical care!!
Fortunately at least 7 states have recognized this issue and are proposing legislation to change the "non-economic damages" to represent the unique emotional attachment people have for their pets. Colorado has a great statute proposed that I posted in part on a previous blog-- that addresses deliberate and/or negligence on the part of the veterinarian.
My own experience is a classic and "perfect" example or a pre-planned, horrific, end-of-life veterinary SCAM with an elderly dog and her emotional, grieving "weakened" owner/long standing client. Client places trust and follows instructions of 'new veterinarian' employed at Edgefield VH of Hampstead, NH to go to "particular" referral clinic "Dover Veterinary Hospital, Dover, NH. Owner is deceived into prolonging dog's hopeless situation for an entire week (unbeknownst---for the benefit of vet tech students of Great Bay Community College of Stratham --formerly NHTCC) headed by Peg MacGregor, DVM , while John MacGregor, DVM,DACVIM takes on responsibility of Scottie "Pocket's" case. To top it off, other clinic employed Cathy Gajewski, DVM breaks euthanasia state statute and controlled substance act of NH , (because clinic is unlicensed for DEA schedule 11 drugs) and administers potassium chloride to 'euthanize' pet in front of owner (me).
Client now owes bill just shy of $3000, has paid $2400, and approximately $700 to original scammer clinic. What was Pocket worth? To me, she was priceless. In legal terms, she was "depreciated" to 0$ . What is the price I pay to live with the sight, feeling, and knowledge that my dog was cruelly used, tortured, and murdered, while I helplessly did nothing? What is the price of the torment and guilt I carry? What is the price of knowing that the little Pomeranian that was "euthanized" on Sunday (owners not present) was also brutally tortured? What is the price to know that Dover Veterinary Hospital has broken the law for years and NO ONE CARES??
So, I can hire an attorney, if one can be found, to recapture $2400--- BIG DEAL!! It would be worth more to do it (to me)---simply to put an end to this cruel abuse.
Where are the good, ethical veterinarian voices, the humane society members, the legislators, the NH Board of VM, the Attorney General's Office, the media, in this wonderful state of New Hampshire, that has been my home since 1st grade??? DEAD SILENT-- You can only imagine the wide circle of SCAM and deception.
It has changed my life forever. For any new reader's ---details "Pocket's Story from NH"
http://walnut-hill.bravehost.com
And not to mislead the readers, that I might consider $3000 a paltry sum,far from it; it represents MANY weeks of my "net" pay and certainly a more than adequate sum that "should" have guaranteed a peaceful and humane death of my Pocket.
It is a paltry sum to sell one's integrity for, and in taking in the big picture---hardly a sum to fight for recovery for the tremendous harm inflicted to my pet and to myself and family.My deepest hope is that this cruel, unethical, inexcusable veterinary behavior will permanently end.
I did forget to ask a few legitimate questions regarding veterinary malpractice insurance policy. Are there any typical "exclusions" or situations not covered?? Would simple fraud and violation of state and federal laws allow insurance payment to either legal representation of the insured or payment of a possible judgment??
How would a liason with a state-sponsored OR private college affect a malpractice insurance policy?
Do licensed vet techs carry insurance also, or is there an umbrella policy by the clinic or veterinarian?
My cat was killed I believe due to negligence at a veterinary emergency speciliast. He had fluid taken from his abdomen. She stated she had nicked his spleen during the procedure and had put a bandage on to stop bleeding. He went into to trauma on the way home, he was literally dying and had to be euthanized at my own vet who was around the corner.
I'm not sure if I can make a complaint at a Veterinary Medical board for medical negligence. Does anyone have any idea what avenues I can pursue to make a complaint other than with a state licensing board, which I also plan to do?
I don't wish to pursue a legal action or lawsuit. But I want to make sure a complaint or complaints is made against this Veterinarian and the hospital.
Thank You for any help/advice.
Re: your options for pursuing a complaint against a vet.
The most appropriate audience for your complaint is the veterinary board. If I were you, I would emphasize the fact that the vet released your cat when he clearly was not yet stable, and knowing something had gone wrong during the surgery. Based on your account, it sounds like continued monitoring was called for, not release. Without more info, I can't say for sure, but I can tell you that many vet boards have disciplined vets for releasing animals too soon after surgery when they needed monitoring due to special circumstances.
The veterinary medical board is basically the same thing as the state licensing authority. If you need more info about getting in touch with your specific state board, you can contact me via the website that links to my name on this post. Info on how to get in touch with me can be found there.
My oldest kitty, Millie, is 20! She has been in the care of the same vet for half of her life. She has had some somewhat serious issues as of late and i am in a tight financial depression right now, as most of us are...
i had called my vet to see if they could see her and bill me...i was told that the dr's would call me to discuss financial arrangements...STILL WAITING!!!! 7 days later!!!!
i have paid thousands and thousands of dollars to them...for over 12 years...
They Care????
They did some dental work on her last year...cleaning and treating an abcessed tooth...i was later told that due to her extremely aggressive behavior she had received "numerous" sedative injections...no wonder she could hardly walk for 3 days!!!!!!!! i don't remember what they charged me!! i had to pay for the injections because they had issues with her behavior???!?!?!?
i don't normally add my stories to these computer forums...i am just so frustrated and disillusioned with the veterinary field right now!
i have many more stories to express....i will leave it at that!
I have to say this is when the owner tells us how much the pet is worth to them. On a daily basis I hear 'it's not the money doc we love Sparky to death, but...." And then the owner declines much needed diagnostics or even treatment. Of course I am not talking about obvious cases of negligence or malpractice on the part of the vet, but the same person who declines tests or treatment is the same person who will sue because you did not diagnose or save their pet. In animal medicine we have to get consent from the owner for EVERYTHING we do. The owner can decline any number of tests, usually citing financial reasons, and then if the pet should die it is suddenly priceless. You can't have it both ways. If the pet was not treated as priceless in life, the owner should not be allowed to claim that it was when it is dead.
And BTW $100K salary is only enjoyed by vets working in larger urban areas and/or working for a corporation--there are plenty of rural vets 'in the trenches' that would think they died and went to heaven if they made that much money.