PDA

View Full Version : Veterinary malpractice


Charlie Wilkes
March 15th 06, 12:38 PM
I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.

http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html

They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:

--------------------------------------------------------------
"The biggest problem with bringing a lawsuit is that, even if you win,
you usually do not recover very much money. In this country, an animal
is viewed as an item of personal property, and most courts limit
recovery to the cost of replacing the companion animal with another
animal. Because of the low potential for a large recovery, most
lawyers are unable or unwilling to take veterinary malpractice cases
on a contingency basis, and it is possible that the pet owner would
invest more money in legal fees than can be recovered.

"On the other hand, courts have recently begun to realize that a
companion animal is unique and cannot simply be replaced. Courts are
beginning to permit owners to recover the "reasonable sentimental
value" of the companion animals to the individual owners, as long as
the sentiment is not "excessive" or "maudlin." This can increase the
potential recovery from a few hundred dollars, to perhaps a few
thousand.

"If you are not able to afford a lawyer, then consider going to small
claims court, where you can represent yourself. In small claims court,
recovery will be limited to "out-of-pocket" expenses. This includes
only the money you lost already as a result of the malpractice, and
does not include loss of your companion animal's sentimental value. In
any lawsuit, you will still be required to secure expert testimony as
to what act of negligence the veterinarian committed."
--------------------------------------------------------------

That last sentence is the kicker. I've been the plaintiff in a couple
of lawsuits. You can't just hand the judge a folder of stuff you
found on the Internet. You have to prove something, according to
specific legal standards, which takes time and money. And the
defendant can call his experts too.

I have been reading the advice to Candace over the past week and
wondering how some of you people ever got out of diapers, assuming you
have.

Charlie

PawsForThought
March 15th 06, 01:54 PM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
> Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
>
> http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
>
> They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
> association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:

There have been some new cases showing that some people did win awards.
Being in the legal field myself, I have found that people who go
through these types of lawsuits (only involving people instead of pets)
find that the process itself can cause much emotional distress, and it
might not be worth pursuing. It can be quite costly as well. Lawsuits
can drag on for a quite a while too. It might be quite difficult to
prove that the vet in this case didn't use an appropriate standard of
care. Here's another side that might be of interest. You can see how
much people have spent on attorney fees and costs incurred.

"The patient had dental surgery, there were complications, and he died.
Now his family members are accusing the doctor of negligence and
claiming that the episode caused them emotional distress.

Duane Flemming is an animal opthamologist and a lawyer and past
president of the American Veterinary Medical Law Association.
By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

It's a typical medical malpractice case - except in this 3-year-old
dispute, the patient was a sheepdog named Lucky.

Barry Silver, the attorney for Lucky's owners, says that when the case
goes to trial this year in Broward County, Fla., he intends to ask
jurors to award hundreds of thousands of dollars to the dog's owners,
Adam Riff and his mother, Ellen.

If Silver is successful, Lucky's case would join a series of recent
court decisions that essentially have treated animals as human under
the law. In a reflection of the special place that pets have come to
hold in Americans' hearts, U.S. courts are bucking centuries of legal
decisions that have defined animals as property.

In recent years, courts in New York, Maryland and Texas have resolved
custody disputes involving pets by deciding what's best for the pet.
Judges in 25 states have administered financial trusts set up in pets'
names.

And as Lucky's case indicates, there has been another turn in animal
law: Courts have begun to take claims of veterinary malpractice
seriously.

Since 1997, courts in Kentucky and California have awarded damages to
pet owners for loss of companionship, emotional distress and other
factors that go beyond the way courts have long assessed animals'
worth: by their market value.

That's the standard the Riffs are challenging in their lawsuit against
the Welleby Veterinary Center in Broward County.

"I loved Lucky like he was my son, my little boy," says Adam Riff, 26,
an Internet marketing salesman.

So for Riff, it was painful to hear an opposing lawyer's argument to a
judge, during an unsuccessful attempt to get the lawsuit dismissed,
that Lucky "had depreciated" in the eight years after Riff had bought
him for $300.

"Like a car," Riff says.

Veterinary malpractice cases have not involved the staggering sums that
can be associated with claims against doctors who treat humans.

The largest judgment in favor of a pet owner has been $39,000, which a
jury in Orange County, Calif., awarded last year to Marc Bluestone.

His mutt, Shane, died of liver failure after a misdiagnosis. In a
verdict that is being appealed by the vet, the jury awarded Bluestone
$30,000 for the dog's "unique value" to his owner, and $9,000 for vet
bills.

Treating pets like humans

Critics of such judgments sound much like those who warn that
multimillion-dollar medical malpractice verdicts for human patients are
driving up the cost of health care.

Richard Cupp, a Pepperdine University law professor, says that if
courts routinely start to award emotional damages to pet owners,
veterinary care will cost more, leading to "more suffering" among pets
because "fewer pets will get sent to the vet."

He also fears the movement to treat pets more like humans under the law
could lead to an avalanche of far-fetched animal rights lawsuits, such
as claims on behalf of beef cattle headed for slaughter or monkeys used
in medical research.

The emergence of veterinary malpractice lawsuits is driven not just by
Americans' deep emotional bonds with their pets but also by advances in
veterinary medicine that have raised expectations that pets will live
longer.

The USA's 64 million pet owners now spend more than $18 billion a year
on pet health care, according to the American Veterinary Medical
Association, which says that the owner of a typical American dog will
spend $11,500 on the animal during its lifetime - half of it on
medical care. Pet hospitals now have specialists such as cardiologists,
neurologists and oncologists.

Steve Wise, a Boston lawyer who has taught animal law at Harvard Law
School, notes that veterinarians who help to foster the attachment
between owner and pet also benefit financially from it.

"For a vet to charge $1,000 to do a procedure on a dog who has a market
value of $10, the only reason anyone would consider paying it is, they
don't care what the market value is," Wise says.

Duane Flemming, a veterinarian, lawyer and past president of the
American Veterinary Medical Law Association, says vets who promote the
emotional bond between owner and pet are hard-pressed to go to court
and claim the animal had little value.

"It's a hypocrisy to say, 'Spend more money on animals because they are
worth more,' and then not be willing to award more when there's a
loss," he says.

Flemming, who practices in Concord, Calif., is an ophthalmologist who
says he once performed eye surgery on a one-legged duck.

"You used to go to the vet and get a bill for $20," he says. "Now you
go ... and you've got an $18,000 bill. If your dog died, the only
possible explanation is that someone did something wrong."

In Houston, Fritz the (late) Persian cat was a patient at an animal
hospital that has so many specialists it has an entire wing for aviary
care.

"They run out with a gurney and put the animal on" it, says Jeffrey
Dorrell, a Houston lawyer who is suing Gulf Coast Veterinary Internists
on Fritz's behalf. "It's almost theater. They deliberately raise
expectations with the magnificence of their facility."

Fritz was diagnosed with pancreatitis and a cancerous mass in late
2002, the lawsuit says. Gulf Coast vets wanted to treat the
pancreatitis first. Two months and many procedures later - including
a failed effort to help Fritz gain weight - the tab topped $7,800,
the lawsuit says. Then Fritz's owner, Jennifer Beegle, was told to take
him home to die.

'Nothing to do' with fee

"The case has nothing to do with what they charged us, although my
father is a retired physician, and I will tell you, you pay more to
have an MRI done for your animal than what would be charged at the very
finest hospital for a human being," she says.

Beegle is seeking a refund of her vet fees. At Gulf Coast, she says, "I
saw grown men sobbing and pulling out three and four credit cards.
Luckily, my parents had a $50,000 limit on their card. That was the
first thing I was asked: What was the limit on my credit card?"

But Beegle, 36, says she would have paid more to save Fritz. She also
says she wishes someone would have told her upfront that Fritz should
have been put to sleep. "If he was not able to be saved, I never would
have put him through this," she says. "I am suing them because he
suffered. He had feelings. They will not profit off my cat's pain."

Gulf Coast's attorney, David Knight, says his clients dispute nearly
all of Beegle's allegations. He says the conversation about the credit
card limit never occurred.

Knight also says the vets who treated Fritz gave "appropriate care
under the circumstances, consistent with the appropriate standards of
care."

Dorrell, who plans to begin taking depositions this month, says he
expects the case to be just as complex as a human malpractice case.

There are other parallels between veterinary malpractice and
malpractice cases involving human patients.

Like doctors who treat people, vets express concern that lawsuits will
drive up the cost of their malpractice insurance. So far, though, the
price of vets' insurance has been stable for a decade, usually at less
than $200 a month.

The parallels have not been lost on Dan Bachi, the lawyer representing
vets Jeffrey Sands and John Willie in the Florida case involving Lucky
the sheepdog.

"If society is at a point where we need to limit damages to people,
should we as a society be awarding money for the loss of pets?" Bachi
asks.

"And where do you draw the line? Is it dogs, cats? Is it horses? Is it
frogs? Is it my pet snake?"

Other big cases

Courts have seriously considered veterinary malpractice cases only in
the past few years. Besides the $39,000 judgment awarded to Bluestone
in Orange County, two decisions stand out:

In 1997, a Kentucky jury awarded $15,000 to the owner of a German
shepherd, Sheba, who bled to death after surgery. The jury was
instructed that the dog could have an intrinsic value beyond its market
value, much like an heirloom.

In 2000, a judge in Costa Mesa, Calif., awarded almost $28,000 in
general and other damages to a woman whose Rottweiler, Lonnie, had to
have its teeth capped after a bungled dental surgery.

Bluestone may hold the record for an award in a vet malpractice case,
but he has spent more than $350,000 taking it to court.

"Any sane attorney would not take veterinary malpractice cases," Silver
says. "You spend a long time and a lot of money, and you get nothing
back." He says he supports animal rights and takes such cases in order
to represent "those who can't speak for themselves."

Bachi says the case is "a significant endeavor financially and
emotionally" for the vets.

So why don't the warring parties in Lucky's case find a way to settle?

"These doctors worked hard to save this animal," Bachi says. "They feel
victimized by this. They feel falsely accused."

The vets want a jury to decide whether their work fell below accepted
standards of care. They say Lucky died from a pre-existing condition
that went undiagnosed.

Adam Riff says he has spent $10,000 on the case. His lawsuit alleges
that Willie was "defensive and indignant" when the Riffs asked him what
went wrong with the anesthesia. Riff says that rather than continue to
treat Lucky - who was in an oxygen tent after the dental surgery -
Willie sent the Riffs and Lucky to an animal emergency center because
it was closing time at Welleby, "and the next day was (Willie's) day
off."

Riff says that "if he had just told us what happened and said, 'I'm
sorry, forgive me, it was an accident,' we wouldn't be doing this."

CatNipped
March 15th 06, 02:46 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
>I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
> Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
>
> http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
>
> They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
> association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "The biggest problem with bringing a lawsuit is that, even if you win,
> you usually do not recover very much money. In this country, an animal
> is viewed as an item of personal property, and most courts limit
> recovery to the cost of replacing the companion animal with another
> animal. Because of the low potential for a large recovery, most

This is changing. Even in relatively backwards Texas (when it comes to
animal rights) juries have awarded very large sums of compensation to pet
owners for the suffering they experienced when losing a pet.

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/

Miami Jones
March 15th 06, 03:15 PM
was the procedure necessary
was it a good call to move fwd with it, in light of the cats health
(im just saying health can be relative to risk)
were the inherent risks explained
did Candace sign a waiver saying, I understand the risks
was the procedure done properly

With people getting surgery, we usually have 2 operators, in case the one is
unable to complete the procedure (and we pay for two to be there)

MJ

"CatNipped" > wrote in message
...
> "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
> > Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
> >
> > http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
> >
> > They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
> > association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > "The biggest problem with bringing a lawsuit is that, even if you win,
> > you usually do not recover very much money. In this country, an animal
> > is viewed as an item of personal property, and most courts limit
> > recovery to the cost of replacing the companion animal with another
> > animal. Because of the low potential for a large recovery, most
>
> This is changing. Even in relatively backwards Texas (when it comes to
> animal rights) juries have awarded very large sums of compensation to pet
> owners for the suffering they experienced when losing a pet.
>
> --
>
> Hugs,
>
> CatNipped
>
> See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
>
>

March 15th 06, 11:09 PM
Charlie Wilkes > wrote:

> In any lawsuit, you will still be required to secure expert testimony as
>to what act of negligence the veterinarian committed."
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>That last sentence is the kicker. I've been the plaintiff in a couple
>of lawsuits. You can't just hand the judge a folder of stuff you
>found on the Internet. You have to prove something, according to
>specific legal standards, which takes time and money. And the
>defendant can call his experts too.
>
>I have been reading the advice to Candace over the past week and
>wondering how some of you people ever got out of diapers, assuming you


Hey at least I did tell her the following...
"The problem with small claims court is that the Vet will give a load
of medical jargon to the judge and will be deemed the expert (unless
you brought a specialist of equal credentials). Since the judge won't
have a clue he/she will probably side with the doctor."

-mhd

Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \)
March 15th 06, 11:12 PM
> wrote in message
...
> Charlie Wilkes > wrote:
>
>> In any lawsuit, you will still be required to secure expert testimony as
>>to what act of negligence the veterinarian committed."
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>That last sentence is the kicker. I've been the plaintiff in a couple
>>of lawsuits. You can't just hand the judge a folder of stuff you
>>found on the Internet. You have to prove something, according to
>>specific legal standards, which takes time and money. And the
>>defendant can call his experts too.
>>
>>I have been reading the advice to Candace over the past week and
>>wondering how some of you people ever got out of diapers, assuming you
>
>
> Hey at least I did tell her the following...
> "The problem with small claims court is that the Vet will give a load
> of medical jargon to the judge and will be deemed the expert (unless
> you brought a specialist of equal credentials). Since the judge won't
> have a clue he/she will probably side with the doctor."
>


People court if you have to she is a pet lover and has the backing and the
time of a TV network she calls to find out if she does not know something.
> -mhd

Charlie Wilkes
March 15th 06, 11:45 PM
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:09:36 -0500,
wrote:

>Charlie Wilkes > wrote:
>
>> In any lawsuit, you will still be required to secure expert testimony as
>>to what act of negligence the veterinarian committed."
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>That last sentence is the kicker. I've been the plaintiff in a couple
>>of lawsuits. You can't just hand the judge a folder of stuff you
>>found on the Internet. You have to prove something, according to
>>specific legal standards, which takes time and money. And the
>>defendant can call his experts too.
>>
>>I have been reading the advice to Candace over the past week and
>>wondering how some of you people ever got out of diapers, assuming you
>
>
>Hey at least I did tell her the following...
>"The problem with small claims court is that the Vet will give a load
>of medical jargon to the judge and will be deemed the expert (unless
>you brought a specialist of equal credentials). Since the judge won't
>have a clue he/she will probably side with the doctor."
>
>-mhd

My comments were specific to Lyn and Phil. They are screaming for
vengeance, serving up glib legal certitudes. But they've got nothing
at stake, whereas Candace does, and vengeance doesn't come cheap --
financially or emotionally.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes
March 15th 06, 11:56 PM
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:15:40 GMT, "Miami Jones"
<[email protected] com> wrote:

>was the procedure necessary
>was it a good call to move fwd with it, in light of the cats health
>(im just saying health can be relative to risk)
>were the inherent risks explained
>did Candace sign a waiver saying, I understand the risks
>was the procedure done properly
>
>With people getting surgery, we usually have 2 operators, in case the one is
>unable to complete the procedure (and we pay for two to be there)
>
>MJ

Yeah, but cats aren't people and money doesn't bring dead cats back to
life.

Let's suppose Candace filed suit, hired a crack lawyer to pitch the
case, ran the vet out of business and into bankruptcy, walked away
with a million bucks, and got invited to appear on "Good Morning
America" to tell her story.

Would she then be happy?

Charlie
>
>"CatNipped" > wrote in message
...
>> "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
>> > Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
>> >
>> > http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
>> >
>> > They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
>> > association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>> > "The biggest problem with bringing a lawsuit is that, even if you win,
>> > you usually do not recover very much money. In this country, an animal
>> > is viewed as an item of personal property, and most courts limit
>> > recovery to the cost of replacing the companion animal with another
>> > animal. Because of the low potential for a large recovery, most
>>
>> This is changing. Even in relatively backwards Texas (when it comes to
>> animal rights) juries have awarded very large sums of compensation to pet
>> owners for the suffering they experienced when losing a pet.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Hugs,
>>
>> CatNipped
>>
>> See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
>>
>>
>

-L.
March 16th 06, 01:26 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
> Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
>
> http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
>
> They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
> association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "The biggest problem with bringing a lawsuit is that, even if you win,
> you usually do not recover very much money. In this country, an animal
> is viewed as an item of personal property, and most courts limit
> recovery to the cost of replacing the companion animal with another
> animal. Because of the low potential for a large recovery, most
> lawyers are unable or unwilling to take veterinary malpractice cases
> on a contingency basis, and it is possible that the pet owner would
> invest more money in legal fees than can be recovered.
>
> "On the other hand, courts have recently begun to realize that a
> companion animal is unique and cannot simply be replaced. Courts are
> beginning to permit owners to recover the "reasonable sentimental
> value" of the companion animals to the individual owners, as long as
> the sentiment is not "excessive" or "maudlin." This can increase the
> potential recovery from a few hundred dollars, to perhaps a few
> thousand.
>
> "If you are not able to afford a lawyer, then consider going to small
> claims court, where you can represent yourself. In small claims court,
> recovery will be limited to "out-of-pocket" expenses. This includes
> only the money you lost already as a result of the malpractice, and
> does not include loss of your companion animal's sentimental value. In
> any lawsuit, you will still be required to secure expert testimony as
> to what act of negligence the veterinarian committed."
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> That last sentence is the kicker.

That sentance is exactly what I posted to Candace yesterday or the day
before. I told her she would need affidavits from other vets stating
the vet in question committed malpractice.

> I've been the plaintiff in a couple
> of lawsuits. You can't just hand the judge a folder of stuff you
> found on the Internet. You have to prove something, according to
> specific legal standards, which takes time and money. And the
> defendant can call his experts too.

Most lawsuits are settled out of court. One does not have to pay
expert witnesses to recover losses.

>
> I have been reading the advice to Candace over the past week and
> wondering how some of you people ever got out of diapers, assuming you
> have.
>

You're such an asshole, Charlie. And yet you still wonder why no woman
wants to sleep with you.

-L.

Miami Jones
March 16th 06, 02:24 AM
The cost of vet care would skyrocket in a matter of one year.

She should take the 1G back, I believe the fella did his best to heal her
buddy, don't you think? sure he did.

However; on the same topic when a professional overcharges the public
lawsuits are inevitable...it's a vaccuum getting filled.
(is why I don't think a cap should be put on any lawsuit)



"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:15:40 GMT, "Miami Jones"
> <[email protected] com> wrote:
>
> >was the procedure necessary
> >was it a good call to move fwd with it, in light of the cats health
> >(im just saying health can be relative to risk)
> >were the inherent risks explained
> >did Candace sign a waiver saying, I understand the risks
> >was the procedure done properly
> >
> >With people getting surgery, we usually have 2 operators, in case the one
is
> >unable to complete the procedure (and we pay for two to be there)
> >
> >MJ
>
> Yeah, but cats aren't people and money doesn't bring dead cats back to
> life.
>
> Let's suppose Candace filed suit, hired a crack lawyer to pitch the
> case, ran the vet out of business and into bankruptcy, walked away
> with a million bucks, and got invited to appear on "Good Morning
> America" to tell her story.
>
> Would she then be happy?
>
> Charlie
> >
> >"CatNipped" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
> >> > Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
> >> >
> >> > They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
> >> > association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:
> >> >
> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > "The biggest problem with bringing a lawsuit is that, even if you
win,
> >> > you usually do not recover very much money. In this country, an
animal
> >> > is viewed as an item of personal property, and most courts limit
> >> > recovery to the cost of replacing the companion animal with another
> >> > animal. Because of the low potential for a large recovery, most
> >>
> >> This is changing. Even in relatively backwards Texas (when it comes to
> >> animal rights) juries have awarded very large sums of compensation to
pet
> >> owners for the suffering they experienced when losing a pet.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Hugs,
> >>
> >> CatNipped
> >>
> >> See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Phil P.
March 16th 06, 02:38 AM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
>
> My comments were specific to Lyn and Phil. They are screaming for
> vengeance, serving up glib legal certitudes. But they've got nothing
> at stake, whereas Candace does, and vengeance doesn't come cheap --
> financially or emotionally.


What are you, a troll in training? You can't understand the principal here
because you just don't have an affinity or a strong bond with animals-
especially cats. I picked up on that during your "bathroom ca"t fiasco.

This is not only about vengeance- its about justice. The vet ****ed up and
Candace's cat paid for it with his life. If it happened to my cat, I
couldn't let him get away with it. I'd go the distance. I didn't tell
Candace anything I wouldn't do myself. I talk it like I walk it.

Phil P.
March 16th 06, 02:41 AM
"-L." > wrote in message
ups.com...


> Most lawsuits are settled out of court. One does not have to pay
> expert witnesses to recover losses.

He'll probably hold out until he actually gets a subpoena to see how far
she's willing to go.

I don't think the vet would like to be known as "the
vet who was sued for killing a cat". Even he won, local people would only
remember he was sued for malpractice. In a small city like Phoenix, that
kind of press could be devastating.

At the very least, I think she should get back all the fees charged after
the cat was given the doxy.

>
> >
> > I have been reading the advice to Candace over the past week and
> > wondering how some of you people ever got out of diapers, assuming you
> > have.
> >
>
> You're such an asshole, Charlie. And yet you still wonder why no woman
> wants to sleep with you.

lol.

Brandy Alexandre
March 16th 06, 02:41 AM
Miami Jones om>
wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:

> The cost of vet care would skyrocket in a matter of one year.
>
> She should take the 1G back, I believe the fella did his best to
> heal her buddy, don't you think? sure he did.
>
> However; on the same topic when a professional overcharges the
> public lawsuits are inevitable...it's a vaccuum getting filled.
> (is why I don't think a cap should be put on any lawsuit)

I mentioned that. The response was soo what, it's all about me.

If anyone wants to see vet care go the way of healthcare, by all means
sue for every little thing. As was mentioned, there was no necropsy
and no diagnosis of the original presenting problem. Scottie could
have been dying anyway and the doxy had nothing to do with it. Yeah,
go ahead and drive up vet prices by making their vet insurance
increase. Drive good vets out of business or into another line of
work, so we get the 20 seconds of HMO-style time and a CEO nixing
expensive diagnostic tools playing the waiting and red tape games,
hoping the patient will die before they have to lay out any money.

--
Brandy Alexandre

--Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

Miami Jones
March 16th 06, 02:45 AM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
> He'll probably hold out until he actually gets a subpoena to see how far
> she's willing to go.

good point, this could also a fleece of sorts

Candace
March 16th 06, 03:53 AM
Miami Jones wrote:
> was the procedure necessary
> was it a good call to move fwd with it, in light of the cats health
> (im just saying health can be relative to risk)
> were the inherent risks explained
> did Candace sign a waiver saying, I understand the risks
> was the procedure done properly
>
> With people getting surgery, we usually have 2 operators, in case the one is
> unable to complete the procedure (and we pay for two to be there)
>
> MJ

It wasn't a procedure, it was just an antibiotic being administered
orally. I never signed any waiver for anything.

Candace

Candace
March 16th 06, 03:55 AM
Miami Jones wrote:
> The cost of vet care would skyrocket in a matter of one year.
>
> She should take the 1G back, I believe the fella did his best to heal her
> buddy, don't you think? sure he did.

His best wasn't very good and he would agree with that.

Candace

Candace
March 16th 06, 04:01 AM
Phil P. wrote:
>
> I don't think the vet would like to be known as "the
> vet who was sued for killing a cat". Even he won, local people would only
> remember he was sued for malpractice. In a small city like Phoenix, that
> kind of press could be devastating.

Oops, gotta correct you on this one. Phoenix is the 5th largest city
in the US. It's a big 'un. Vets are a dime a dozen here. Lucky me,
and lucky Scottie, that I found a quack.

> At the very least, I think she should get back all the fees charged after
> the cat was given the doxy.

That's what I personally think would be fair and that was my suggestion
to the vet. He did not concur.

Candace

Candace
March 16th 06, 04:08 AM
Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>
> If anyone wants to see vet care go the way of healthcare, by all means
> sue for every little thing. As was mentioned, there was no necropsy
> and no diagnosis of the original presenting problem. Scottie could
> have been dying anyway and the doxy had nothing to do with it.

I actually wish that were the case so I wouldn't feel so bad. But I
don't think so because when he came home after his week of
hospitalization, he was no longer lethargic and no longer unwilling to
eat (which were the reasons he went to the vet to begin with). The
poor little cat was starving and wanted desperately to eat. He had 5
days where he was able to eat gruel (after his first steroid injection)
before he began regurgitating again. That's because his stricture was
then developing. It takes a few days for espohagitis to develop into a
stricture. But...my point is, his original symptoms were gone. I
don't think he had anything terminal wrong with him.

Candace

Miami Jones
March 16th 06, 04:24 AM
I also read your reply to Brandy, I think you know what is right. and we
know this will not start a chain reaction of suits against vets. Poor thing,
I got ready to post it, but cancelled the post, I don't want add anything to
this for you, in the way of hurt. but it's got to hurt worse thinking
another vet would not have given the wrong antibiotic. If Im understanding
the bottom line now.

of course I see he is open to talk with, have you plainly asked for you
whole amount back?...besides this...I can see where a punative reward is in
order. This thing didn't need to happen.
Im sorry, as I say, that's got to sting a little, but I would think he would
be VERY willing to give all of your money back Candace.

MJ

"Candace" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Miami Jones wrote:
> > The cost of vet care would skyrocket in a matter of one year.
> >
> > She should take the 1G back, I believe the fella did his best to heal
her
> > buddy, don't you think? sure he did.
>
> His best wasn't very good and he would agree with that.
>
> Candace
>

Candace
March 16th 06, 04:26 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
> Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
>
> http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html

Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday. I feel
like I need to take a few weeks to decide what to do further. There
definitely is an emotional aspect involved and it won't hurt to wait a
few weeks and think about it. I already have the evidence I would need
if I proceed.

I am trying to be logical and rational, though. I posted about this in
alt.med.veterinary under a thread called, "Improper Doxycycline
Administration Kills Cats." If you read that newsgroup, you have
probably read posts by VetinNZ, who seems like a competent, decent guy.
This is what he responded to me:

"Unfortunately it is not common enough knowledge as it takes time for
this
sort of information to trickle through to all members of the
profession. It
has only been recognised as a problem in cats in the past few years
(studies
documenting such cases I have seen are dated later than year 2000) and
although the info has been doing the rounds on the internet and has
been
known about in academic circles it is only more recently that the
average
practitioner has become aware of this. The info has not yet reached the
drug
information leaflet that comes with the drug (atleast not in NZ) and it
is
not mentioned as a possible side effect in many of the 2004 veterinary
pharmacy books around my clinic. It is mentioned in my 2005 UK small
animal
formulary however. It is a shame that this sort of information can not
be
more readily dispersed to the whole profession, especially such an
important
topic as this. I believe the profession lets itself down in not
ensuring
this sort of information reaches all practitioners quickly. Basically
it is
left up to individual practitioners to keep themselves upto date but
this
very much depends upon what sources of info they use. The drug
manufacturers
should be responsible for updating vets as soon as info is available.
Perhaps in the USA this has been the case but not so in NZ. In New
Zealand
we are fortunate to have a doxycycline paste for cats which is much
safer
but for this reason few vets in NZ are aware of the problem with
tablets. I
myself learnt of this problem a few years ago when surfing the
internet but
i have still not seen mention of it in the vet journals that i read. I
know
it will have been mentioned in many but it has not appeared in the ones
I
read regularly. I suppose I can take some blame for not passing the
info I
learnt onto one of the vet journals. I guess that is the problem, no
one has
taken the responsibility for dispersing this sort of info."

and:

"Yep its very difficult to keep up with all the latest info. As far as
doxy
goes you can simply feed it with food rather than having to chase it
with
water. I believer tablets cut in half are a bigger risk as the sharp
edges
will likley slow transit time down the oesophagus and will also put the

unprotected pill surface in contact with the oesophageal mucosa. Dont
be too
hard on your vets for not knowing this as it is relatively recent
proven
info in cats though has been suspected for longer. I think it is the
profession as a whole that is responsible for not having an efficient
system
for distributing this sort of info to all practitioners. I am sorry you
had
to go through this with your own cat. "

So...I don't know. Some say it's common knowledge, he says not, my
(former) vet says not. I do wonder at the lack of response from the
many other vets who post regularly over there. Either they didn't find
the topic interesting, or they didn't know about the problem themselves
and didn't want to comment on it, or...they didn't want to implicate a
fellow vet. The latter is how human docs work very often...they might
think another doc is a major quack but they aren't gonna admit it and
testify against him because they don't want the same thing to happen to
them at another time.

Candace

Brandy Alexandre
March 16th 06, 04:29 AM
Candace > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:

> Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>>
>> If anyone wants to see vet care go the way of healthcare, by all
>> means sue for every little thing. As was mentioned, there was no
>> necropsy and no diagnosis of the original presenting problem.
>> Scottie could have been dying anyway and the doxy had nothing to
>> do with it.
>
> I actually wish that were the case so I wouldn't feel so bad. But
> I don't think so because when he came home after his week of
> hospitalization, he was no longer lethargic and no longer
> unwilling to eat (which were the reasons he went to the vet to
> begin with). The poor little cat was starving and wanted
> desperately to eat. He had 5 days where he was able to eat gruel
> (after his first steroid injection) before he began regurgitating
> again. That's because his stricture was then developing. It
> takes a few days for espohagitis to develop into a stricture.
> But...my point is, his original symptoms were gone. I don't think
> he had anything terminal wrong with him.
>
> Candace
>
>

But you don't *know* that's when the stricture was developing. That's
an assumption. I'm only saying this because civil suits are based on a
preponderance of the evidence, and you haven't got any. I'm not
against you wanting justice if negligence was what cause the tragedy.
I *am* against lawsuits as a form of the grieving process that, even if
lost, will have such a negative impact on vet care. Undoubtedly you
will have cats for the rest of your life. Are you willing to pay so
much more or get substandard care because the "smart" vets bail, just
to seek revenge over a maybe?

--
Brandy Alexandre

--Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

Candace
March 16th 06, 04:34 AM
Miami Jones wrote:
> I also read your reply to Brandy, I think you know what is right. and we
> know this will not start a chain reaction of suits against vets. Poor thing,
> I got ready to post it, but cancelled the post, I don't want add anything to
> this for you, in the way of hurt. but it's got to hurt worse thinking
> another vet would not have given the wrong antibiotic. If Im understanding
> the bottom line now.
>
> of course I see he is open to talk with, have you plainly asked for you
> whole amount back?...besides this...I can see where a punative reward is in
> order. This thing didn't need to happen.
> Im sorry, as I say, that's got to sting a little, but I would think he would
> be VERY willing to give all of your money back Candace.
>
> MJ

Yes, I've asked him and he gave back what he thought was fair...$1K.
Not what I think is fair. And, yes, you are right, Barry, I wonder
very much how things could have been different by going to a different
vet. I actually have 2 vet practices I use, and I called the other one
first the day I noticed Scottie being lethargic and not eating. They,
however, are not real good about fitting you in and said they couldn't
see him until the next day. I had left work early to get him into a
vet and I wanted to do it that day as I didn't want to get in trouble
at work the next day for needing more time off. So, the second
practice I use, the one I went to, is very good about fitting you in no
matter what, and even though they were booked solid, they fit us in. I
was grateful, how ironic. If the first vet had fit me in or if I had
waited until the next day, Scottie might be here right now all happy
and healthy. There were several little instances of "fate" that
occurred during this whole thing where a different outcome could have
easily happened. Apparently, it was in the cards for it to play out
this way but, yes, I do feel worse thinking another vet, my other vet,
might have been more competent.

Candace

Charlie Wilkes
March 16th 06, 05:28 AM
On 15 Mar 2006 17:26:42 -0800, "-L." > wrote:

>
>Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>> I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
>> Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
>>
>> http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
>>
>> They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
>> association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> "The biggest problem with bringing a lawsuit is that, even if you win,
>> you usually do not recover very much money. In this country, an animal
>> is viewed as an item of personal property, and most courts limit
>> recovery to the cost of replacing the companion animal with another
>> animal. Because of the low potential for a large recovery, most
>> lawyers are unable or unwilling to take veterinary malpractice cases
>> on a contingency basis, and it is possible that the pet owner would
>> invest more money in legal fees than can be recovered.
>>
>> "On the other hand, courts have recently begun to realize that a
>> companion animal is unique and cannot simply be replaced. Courts are
>> beginning to permit owners to recover the "reasonable sentimental
>> value" of the companion animals to the individual owners, as long as
>> the sentiment is not "excessive" or "maudlin." This can increase the
>> potential recovery from a few hundred dollars, to perhaps a few
>> thousand.
>>
>> "If you are not able to afford a lawyer, then consider going to small
>> claims court, where you can represent yourself. In small claims court,
>> recovery will be limited to "out-of-pocket" expenses. This includes
>> only the money you lost already as a result of the malpractice, and
>> does not include loss of your companion animal's sentimental value. In
>> any lawsuit, you will still be required to secure expert testimony as
>> to what act of negligence the veterinarian committed."
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> That last sentence is the kicker.
>
>That sentance is exactly what I posted to Candace yesterday or the day
>before. I told her she would need affidavits from other vets stating
>the vet in question committed malpractice.
>
>> I've been the plaintiff in a couple
>> of lawsuits. You can't just hand the judge a folder of stuff you
>> found on the Internet. You have to prove something, according to
>> specific legal standards, which takes time and money. And the
>> defendant can call his experts too.
>
>Most lawsuits are settled out of court. One does not have to pay
>expert witnesses to recover losses.
>
>>
>> I have been reading the advice to Candace over the past week and
>> wondering how some of you people ever got out of diapers, assuming you
>> have.
>>
>
>You're such an asshole, Charlie. And yet you still wonder why no woman
>wants to sleep with you.
>
You are cranky tonight, Lyn. Get someone to clean the poo out of your
diapers and we'll talk some more.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes
March 16th 06, 05:28 AM
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:38:28 GMT, "Phil P." >
wrote:

>
>"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> My comments were specific to Lyn and Phil. They are screaming for
>> vengeance, serving up glib legal certitudes. But they've got nothing
>> at stake, whereas Candace does, and vengeance doesn't come cheap --
>> financially or emotionally.
>
>
>What are you, a troll in training? You can't understand the principal here
>because you just don't have an affinity or a strong bond with animals-
>especially cats. I picked up on that during your "bathroom ca"t fiasco.

This isn't about who loves cats most. It's about how far to go in
pursuing a claim against a veterinarian.
>
>This is not only about vengeance- its about justice.

Do you mean your idea of what constitutes justice, or the reality of
justice as administered under Arizona civil law ca. 2006?

>The vet ****ed up and
>Candace's cat paid for it with his life. If it happened to my cat, I
>couldn't let him get away with it. I'd go the distance. I didn't tell
>Candace anything I wouldn't do myself. I talk it like I walk it.

Maybe, maybe not. Words are all we have to go by here.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes
March 16th 06, 05:28 AM
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:24:05 GMT, "Miami Jones"
om> wrote:

>The cost of vet care would skyrocket in a matter of one year.
>
>She should take the 1G back, I believe the fella did his best to heal her
>buddy, don't you think? sure he did.
>
>However; on the same topic when a professional overcharges the public
>lawsuits are inevitable...it's a vaccuum getting filled.
>(is why I don't think a cap should be put on any lawsuit)
>
Yeah, this is a good point. What happens to costs if veterinary
standards are raised by big payoffs on malpractice suits?

And what model of care would vets have to adopt to protect themselves?

If Scottie had been a human, he would probably be alive today. He'd
have been referred to a specialist whose expertise is focused on a
single, narrow bit of medical science. Esophogeal stricture, eh?
We'll put you in an ambulance and Dr. So-and-so in Los Angeles will
take care of it. That's all he does, so there won't be any mistakes.
It will cost $100k, but a human life is at stake.

That model prevails because accumulated medical knowledge is so vast
that no single individual can know more than a tiny fraction of the
sum.

In a veterinary environment, a single individual often provides
one-stop care for a wide range of conditions, not to mention multiple
species, without having a network of specialists to consult when
complications arise. It's the best care model that remains affordable
to the average pet owner, and it is far from perfect, as Candace and
many others can attest.

Charlie
>
>
>"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:15:40 GMT, "Miami Jones"
>> <[email protected] com> wrote:
>>
>> >was the procedure necessary
>> >was it a good call to move fwd with it, in light of the cats health
>> >(im just saying health can be relative to risk)
>> >were the inherent risks explained
>> >did Candace sign a waiver saying, I understand the risks
>> >was the procedure done properly
>> >
>> >With people getting surgery, we usually have 2 operators, in case the one
>is
>> >unable to complete the procedure (and we pay for two to be there)
>> >
>> >MJ
>>
>> Yeah, but cats aren't people and money doesn't bring dead cats back to
>> life.
>>
>> Let's suppose Candace filed suit, hired a crack lawyer to pitch the
>> case, ran the vet out of business and into bankruptcy, walked away
>> with a million bucks, and got invited to appear on "Good Morning
>> America" to tell her story.
>>
>> Would she then be happy?
>>
>> Charlie
>> >
>> >"CatNipped" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
>> >> > Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
>> >> >
>> >> > They suggest letters to the licensing board and the local vets
>> >> > association. Here's what they say about lawsuits:
>> >> >
>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > "The biggest problem with bringing a lawsuit is that, even if you
>win,
>> >> > you usually do not recover very much money. In this country, an
>animal
>> >> > is viewed as an item of personal property, and most courts limit
>> >> > recovery to the cost of replacing the companion animal with another
>> >> > animal. Because of the low potential for a large recovery, most
>> >>
>> >> This is changing. Even in relatively backwards Texas (when it comes to
>> >> animal rights) juries have awarded very large sums of compensation to
>pet
>> >> owners for the suffering they experienced when losing a pet.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Hugs,
>> >>
>> >> CatNipped
>> >>
>> >> See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Charlie Wilkes
March 16th 06, 05:56 AM
On 15 Mar 2006 20:26:07 -0800, "Candace" > wrote:

>Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>> I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
>> Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
>>
>> http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
>
>Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
>unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
>decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday. I feel

Did he do that without your general release???

>like I need to take a few weeks to decide what to do further. There
>definitely is an emotional aspect involved and it won't hurt to wait a
>few weeks and think about it. I already have the evidence I would need
>if I proceed.

Wise.
>
>I am trying to be logical and rational, though. I posted about this in
>alt.med.veterinary under a thread called, "Improper Doxycycline
>Administration Kills Cats." If you read that newsgroup, you have
>probably read posts by VetinNZ, who seems like a competent, decent guy.
> This is what he responded to me:

[snip]

Yes. His comments tie in with what I've been thinking, Candace. I
just posted some comments on this, and why I think veterinary
"malpractice" is so common.

If you can do something that improves awareness of this issue amongst
vets, you will thereby create a meaningful memorial for Scottie -- one
that makes his death the direct cause of positive action aimed at
sustaining the health of other cats. I would suggest a web site with
links to all the information you found on this particular
complication.
>
>So...I don't know. Some say it's common knowledge, he says not, my
>(former) vet says not. I do wonder at the lack of response from the
>many other vets who post regularly over there. Either they didn't find
>the topic interesting, or they didn't know about the problem themselves
>and didn't want to comment on it, or...they didn't want to implicate a
>fellow vet. The latter is how human docs work very often...they might
>think another doc is a major quack but they aren't gonna admit it and
>testify against him because they don't want the same thing to happen to
>them at another time.
>
That's not surprising, if you think about it, and it's not a thuggish
code of silence. It's an awareness of professional responsibility.

Lyn and Phil -- or myself for that matter -- can spew whatever we
want, and if it's nonsense, so what? But a vet who posts on this
matter is a professional offering an expert opinion. Such an
individual might be subpoenaed and made to depose a statement
elaborating on whatever was posted. Or (more likely perhaps) another
vet, regarding the comments as irresponsible, might forward them to
the attention of the local association. It could start a brou-ha-ha.

Charlie

-L.
March 16th 06, 09:01 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> "-L." > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> > Most lawsuits are settled out of court. One does not have to pay
> > expert witnesses to recover losses.
>
> He'll probably hold out until he actually gets a subpoena to see how far
> she's willing to go.

I doubt it. He already offered 1K. and admitted culpability. I
suspect he'd be willing to negotiate for the amount post-doxy, as you
stated, or minimally, half of the bill. Hiring a lawyer will only cost
him more money.

-L.

-L.
March 16th 06, 09:46 AM
Candace wrote:
>
> Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
> unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
> decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday.

Did he do so with your permission? If you accept it, that may be all
you will ever get.

> I feel
> like I need to take a few weeks to decide what to do further. There
> definitely is an emotional aspect involved and it won't hurt to wait a
> few weeks and think about it.

I agree. There is no hurry to act further. I am still concerned about
the credit, though.

> I already have the evidence I would need
> if I proceed.
>
> I am trying to be logical and rational, though. I posted about this in
> alt.med.veterinary under a thread called, "Improper Doxycycline
> Administration Kills Cats." If you read that newsgroup, you have
> probably read posts by VetinNZ, who seems like a competent, decent guy.
> This is what he responded to me:
>
> "Unfortunately it is not common enough knowledge as it takes time for
> this
> sort of information to trickle through to all members of the
> profession. It
> has only been recognised as a problem in cats in the past few years
> (studies
> documenting such cases I have seen are dated later than year 2000) and
> although the info has been doing the rounds on the internet and has
> been
> known about in academic circles it is only more recently that the
> average
> practitioner has become aware of this. The info has not yet reached the
> drug
> information leaflet that comes with the drug (atleast not in NZ) and it
> is
> not mentioned as a possible side effect in many of the 2004 veterinary
> pharmacy books around my clinic. It is mentioned in my 2005 UK small
> animal
> formulary however. It is a shame that this sort of information can not
> be
> more readily dispersed to the whole profession, especially such an
> important
> topic as this. I believe the profession lets itself down in not
> ensuring
> this sort of information reaches all practitioners quickly. Basically
> it is
> left up to individual practitioners to keep themselves upto date but
> this
> very much depends upon what sources of info they use. The drug
> manufacturers
> should be responsible for updating vets as soon as info is available.
> Perhaps in the USA this has been the case but not so in NZ. In New
> Zealand
> we are fortunate to have a doxycycline paste for cats which is much
> safer
> but for this reason few vets in NZ are aware of the problem with
> tablets. I
> myself learnt of this problem a few years ago when surfing the
> internet but
> i have still not seen mention of it in the vet journals that i read. I
> know
> it will have been mentioned in many but it has not appeared in the ones
> I
> read regularly. I suppose I can take some blame for not passing the
> info I
> learnt onto one of the vet journals. I guess that is the problem, no
> one has
> taken the responsibility for dispersing this sort of info."
>
> and:
>
> "Yep its very difficult to keep up with all the latest info. As far as
> doxy
> goes you can simply feed it with food rather than having to chase it
> with
> water. I believer tablets cut in half are a bigger risk as the sharp
> edges
> will likley slow transit time down the oesophagus and will also put the
>
> unprotected pill surface in contact with the oesophageal mucosa. Dont
> be too
> hard on your vets for not knowing this as it is relatively recent
> proven
> info in cats though has been suspected for longer. I think it is the
> profession as a whole that is responsible for not having an efficient
> system
> for distributing this sort of info to all practitioners. I am sorry you
> had
> to go through this with your own cat. "
>
> So...I don't know. Some say it's common knowledge, he says not, my
> (former) vet says not. I do wonder at the lack of response from the
> many other vets who post regularly over there. Either they didn't find
> the topic interesting, or they didn't know about the problem themselves
> and didn't want to comment on it, or...they didn't want to implicate a
> fellow vet. The latter is how human docs work very often...they might
> think another doc is a major quack but they aren't gonna admit it and
> testify against him because they don't want the same thing to happen to
> them at another time.

Oh hell, thay all cover each other's asses. The part about the info
not being dispersed is bull****. As a scientist (and I consider all
vets, doctors and medical professionals to be scientists), keeping
abreast of current information is *critical* to your profession. There
is simply no excuse for this guy not knowing how to use this drug.

There are a couple points to kjeep in mind. Misprescribing a drug is
always considered malpractice. If the professional isn't 100% sure of
dosage and administration, they should check the formulary. Even as a
vet tech you NEVER administer a drug unless you are 100% sure that it
is the right drug given in the proper manner. I have even questioned
doctor's (vet's) orders that have seemed odd for one reason or another
- that's how ingrained it was to me to be sure what I was doing was the
right thing.

Secondly, he's admitted he is wrong It is only the amount of settlement
that has to be negotiated.

As for filing with the vet board - it's up to you, but in my opinion,
this was a pretty grievous mistake. I think it needs to be documented.
One thing I look for when choosing a vet is whether or not they have
grievances filed against them. These are the sort of mistakes people
need to know about in choosing a vet (prescribing mistakes).

Best of luck to you. I know it's emotionally draining. I'll keep you
in my thoughts.
-L.

Phil P.
March 16th 06, 10:52 AM
"Candace" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> >
> > I don't think the vet would like to be known as "the
> > vet who was sued for killing a cat". Even he won, local people would
only
> > remember he was sued for malpractice. In a small city like Phoenix, that
> > kind of press could be devastating.
>
> Oops, gotta correct you on this one. Phoenix is the 5th largest city
> in the US. It's a big 'un.


To a New Yorker, Phoenix is small. ;)



Vets are a dime a dozen here. Lucky me,
> and lucky Scottie, that I found a quack.

Personally, I think he's a sleaze because he didn't even mention balloon
dilation. To opt for it was your decision- not his. He didn't mention it
probably because he doesn't perform them and another vet would have probably
told you the stricture was caused by improperly administered doxy.


>
> > At the very least, I think she should get back all the fees charged
after
> > the cat was given the doxy.
>
> That's what I personally think would be fair and that was my suggestion
> to the vet. He did not concur.


If you can't get it all back, at least you can make him spend most of it so
he doesn't profit from his incompetence and Scottie's death. You can sue
him without a lawyer, but if you sue him in his personal and corporate
capacity, he must be represented by a lawyer- which should cost him at least
$2-3K. His best case scenario would be breaking even- not to mention the
bad press. If you didn't sign a settlement agreement, I'd go for it. I
think he'll fold- at least if he's smart he will.

Phil

Phil P.
March 16th 06, 10:53 AM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:38:28 GMT, "Phil P." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> My comments were specific to Lyn and Phil. They are screaming for
> >> vengeance, serving up glib legal certitudes. But they've got nothing
> >> at stake, whereas Candace does, and vengeance doesn't come cheap --
> >> financially or emotionally.
> >
> >
> >What are you, a troll in training? You can't understand the principal
here
> >because you just don't have an affinity or a strong bond with animals-
> >especially cats. I picked up on that during your "bathroom ca"t fiasco.
>
> This isn't about who loves cats most. It's about how far to go in
> pursuing a claim against a veterinarian.


Its about taking it to a point that she can live with.


> >
> >This is not only about vengeance- its about justice.
>
> Do you mean your idea of what constitutes justice, or the reality of
> justice as administered under Arizona civil law ca. 2006?


People have different opinions of justice- that's why there are appeal
courts- and if you live in NY, other places that aren't so formal.


>
> >The vet ****ed up and
> >Candace's cat paid for it with his life. If it happened to my cat, I
> >couldn't let him get away with it. I'd go the distance. I didn't tell
> >Candace anything I wouldn't do myself. I talk it like I walk it.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Words are all we have to go by here.


Candace's words are good enough for me.

Phil P.
March 16th 06, 10:54 AM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Candace > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> > Phil P. wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think the vet would like to be known as "the
> >> vet who was sued for killing a cat". Even he won, local people
> >> would only remember he was sued for malpractice. In a small city
> >> like Phoenix, that kind of press could be devastating.
> >
> > Oops, gotta correct you on this one. Phoenix is the 5th largest
> > city in the US. It's a big 'un. Vets are a dime a dozen here.
> > Lucky me, and lucky Scottie, that I found a quack.
> >
> >> At the very least, I think she should get back all the fees
> >> charged after the cat was given the doxy.
> >
> > That's what I personally think would be fair and that was my
> > suggestion to the vet. He did not concur.
> >
> > Candace
> >
> >
>
> Among Phil many errors. How in the world can anyone who's in the real
> world think Phoenix is small by any standard?

I'm a New Yorker, sleaze. Compared to NYC, Phoenix is small. If you
finished high school geography you would know that.

Phil P.
March 16th 06, 11:02 AM
"Candace" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> > I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
> > Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.
> >
> > http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html
>
> Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
> unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
> decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday. I feel
> like I need to take a few weeks to decide what to do further. There
> definitely is an emotional aspect involved and it won't hurt to wait a
> few weeks and think about it. I already have the evidence I would need
> if I proceed.
>
> I am trying to be logical and rational, though. I posted about this in
> alt.med.veterinary under a thread called, "Improper Doxycycline
> Administration Kills Cats." If you read that newsgroup, you have
> probably read posts by VetinNZ, who seems like a competent, decent guy.
> This is what he responded to me:
>
> "Unfortunately it is not common enough knowledge as it takes time for
> this
> sort of information to trickle through to all members of the
> profession. It
> has only been recognised as a problem in cats in the past few years
> (studies
> documenting such cases I have seen are dated later than year 2000)


Must be a young vet or he only reads NZ journals.

Eur Surg Res. 1980;12(4):270-82.
"Esophageal lesions caused by orally administered drugs. An experimental
study in
the cat."

Laryngoscope. 1983 Feb;93(2):184-7.
"Tetracycline induced esophageal ulcers. a clinical and experimental study."

Phil P.
March 16th 06, 11:10 AM
"-L." > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > "-L." > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >
> > > Most lawsuits are settled out of court. One does not have to pay
> > > expert witnesses to recover losses.
> >
> > He'll probably hold out until he actually gets a subpoena to see how far
> > she's willing to go.
>
> I doubt it. He already offered 1K. and admitted culpability. I
> suspect he'd be willing to negotiate for the amount post-doxy, as you
> stated, or minimally, half of the bill. Hiring a lawyer will only cost
> him more money.

It would cost him more to fight and win than it would to settle for the fees
post doxy.

Joe Canuck
March 16th 06, 01:32 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Candace > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>>
>>> Phil P. wrote:
>>>> I don't think the vet would like to be known as "the
>>>> vet who was sued for killing a cat". Even he won, local people
>>>> would only remember he was sued for malpractice. In a small city
>>>> like Phoenix, that kind of press could be devastating.
>>> Oops, gotta correct you on this one. Phoenix is the 5th largest
>>> city in the US. It's a big 'un. Vets are a dime a dozen here.
>>> Lucky me, and lucky Scottie, that I found a quack.
>>>
>>>> At the very least, I think she should get back all the fees
>>>> charged after the cat was given the doxy.
>>> That's what I personally think would be fair and that was my
>>> suggestion to the vet. He did not concur.
>>>
>>> Candace
>>>
>>>
>> Among Phil many errors. How in the world can anyone who's in the real
>> world think Phoenix is small by any standard?
>
> I'm a New Yorker, sleaze. Compared to NYC, Phoenix is small. If you
> finished high school geography you would know that.
>
>
>

Yes, even Canadians know that... NYC ~8 mil, where Phoenix is ~1.5 mil.

Hell yes, NYC is BIG.

Back to school for Brandy!

PawsForThought
March 16th 06, 01:57 PM
Candace wrote:
>
> Yes, I've asked him and he gave back what he thought was fair...$1K.
> Not what I think is fair.

Candace, can I ask how much of the bill this was? Was this the whole
bill?

PawsForThought
March 16th 06, 02:02 PM
-L. wrote:
You're also missing the point that she had a $4000.00 bill she paid to
> a vet who admitted negligence. She can and should recover most of that
> money.
>
> -L.

Ok, now that I've read further and see what Candace paid, I think it's
pretty bad that the vet only is willing to give her back $1,000. IMO,
if he was a standup person, he would have refunded the whole thing,
since obviously he prescribed a drug that had contraindications in cats
that he didn't even know about. How hard would it have been for him to
pick up an animal PDR and read about this drug?

PawsForThought
March 16th 06, 02:07 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "-L." > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> > Most lawsuits are settled out of court. One does not have to pay
> > expert witnesses to recover losses.
>
> He'll probably hold out until he actually gets a subpoena to see how far
> she's willing to go.

We always send a letter before we actually file a lawsuit. Many times
this can bring about a resolution that includes settlement. I would
highly recommend having an attorney send a demand letter first, before
filing any lawsuit. Often this type of letter will have a much greater
impact than if the person were to try settling with the vet herself.
Some attorneys will just charge for the time they put into writing the
letter, usually an hour or so of attorney time, so maybe $150 to $300,
depending upon the attorney's hourly rate.

Lauren

Miami Jones
March 16th 06, 03:28 PM
>"PawsForThought" > wrote in..

>Often this type of letter will have a much greater
> impact than if the person were to try settling with the vet herself.
> Some attorneys will just charge for the time they put into writing the
> letter, usually an hour or so of attorney time, so maybe $150 to $300,
> depending upon the attorney's hourly rate.

true, however, can you imagine the surprise the quack vet would have when
the sherrif's department rolls up outside his practice during business hours
and hands him a thick envelope. then later after the quacks customers
leave...he opens it, and his eyes jump down and see an amount like...

$400,000.00

he's gonna crap a brick

March 16th 06, 04:13 PM
Joe Canuck > wrote:

>Yes, even Canadians know that... NYC ~8 mil, where Phoenix is ~1.5 mil.

To a Canadian 1.5 mil is big. :-)

-mhd

PawsForThought
March 16th 06, 04:19 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > My comments were specific to Lyn and Phil. They are screaming for
> > vengeance, serving up glib legal certitudes. But they've got nothing
> > at stake, whereas Candace does, and vengeance doesn't come cheap --
> > financially or emotionally.
>
>
> What are you, a troll in training? You can't understand the principal here
> because you just don't have an affinity or a strong bond with animals-
> especially cats. I picked up on that during your "bathroom ca"t fiasco.

I must have missed that post. Doesn't sound too good :(

> This is not only about vengeance- its about justice. The vet ****ed up and
> Candace's cat paid for it with his life. If it happened to my cat, I
> couldn't let him get away with it. I'd go the distance. I didn't tell
> Candace anything I wouldn't do myself. I talk it like I walk it.

This reminds me of a person who had boarded her cat at the vet. When
she picked up her cat, the vet had declawed it. I can't remember any
of the details like whether or not she tried to sue though. Phil, in
regards to the antibiotic given to Candace's cat, how well known are
the side effects? Is this a relatively new drug, or something that's
been around for a while, and that most vets would know the side effects?

-L.
March 16th 06, 05:43 PM
Phil P. wrote:
>
> It would cost him more to fight and win than it would to settle for the fees
> post doxy.

Exactly.
-L.

Brandy Alexandre
March 16th 06, 05:57 PM
> wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav:

> Joe Canuck > wrote:
>
>>Yes, even Canadians know that... NYC ~8 mil, where Phoenix is ~1.5
>>mil.
>
> To a Canadian 1.5 mil is big. :-)
>
> -mhd
>

What a lame backpedal. I don't care about comparison's to other big
cities, the point is that Phoenix is by no means a small one. Even
Phil would admit Atlanta is big, but it's not even half the size of
Phoenix, so where ddoes that leave his stupid statement? With all his
other stupid, uneducated statements.

--
Brandy Alexandre

-- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

Phil P.
March 16th 06, 06:51 PM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...

With all his
> other stupid, uneducated statements.

Uneducated??? ROTFLMAO! That's hilarious coming from a high school drop
out!

-L.
March 16th 06, 08:58 PM
Joe Canuck wrote:
> Yes, even Canadians know that... NYC ~8 mil, where Phoenix is ~1.5 mil.

I am wondering if those stats are Phoenix/Scottsdale and surrounding
communities? Phoenix itself does't seem that big to me when I have
visited there.
-L.

Joe Canuck
March 17th 06, 02:41 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> With all his
>> other stupid, uneducated statements.
>
> Uneducated??? ROTFLMAO! That's hilarious coming from a high school drop
> out!
>
>
>

Perhaps she considers her years in porno an 'education'.

Candace
March 17th 06, 03:30 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Candace wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I've asked him and he gave back what he thought was fair...$1K.
> > Not what I think is fair.
>
> Candace, can I ask how much of the bill this was? Was this the whole
> bill?

The whole bill was about $3600, I would have to figure out how much of
it was post-doxy, probably at least $2500 of it, maybe more, I would
think. I'll have to add it up but it depresses me to drag the bills
out so I haven't yet. He was hospitalized for 3-4 days before he got
doxy and he had had regular x-rays and a full blood panel, all
pre-doxy. Post-doxy, he had a barium contrast study, an endoscopy, a
couple of steroid shots, a couple of office visits, some other meds.

Candace

Candace
March 17th 06, 03:33 AM
Phil P. wrote:

> To a New Yorker, Phoenix is small. ;)

Oh, true, I'm not sure I knew you were a New Yorker :)

Candace

Candace
March 17th 06, 03:36 AM
-L. wrote:
> Candace wrote:
> >
> > Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
> > unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
> > decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday.
>
> Did he do so with your permission? If you accept it, that may be all
> you will ever get.

I didn't say he couldn't so I guess it was implied consent. I never
signed any sort of settlement or anything, though, and when we hung up
he was aware that $1K was not an amount I was pleased with.

Candace

Candace
March 17th 06, 03:43 AM
-L. wrote:
> Joe Canuck wrote:
> > Yes, even Canadians know that... NYC ~8 mil, where Phoenix is ~1.5 mil.
>
> I am wondering if those stats are Phoenix/Scottsdale and surrounding
> communities? Phoenix itself does't seem that big to me when I have
> visited there.
> -L.

Phoenix is around 1.5 million, the whole "Valley of the Sun" is
approximately 3 million...that would include Scottsdale, Tempe (home of
Arizona State University), Mesa (the 3rd largest city in AZ itself),
Glendale, and several other smaller cities.

Candace

-L.
March 17th 06, 06:33 AM
Candace wrote:
> -L. wrote:
> > Candace wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
> > > unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
> > > decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday.
> >
> > Did he do so with your permission? If you accept it, that may be all
> > you will ever get.
>
> I didn't say he couldn't so I guess it was implied consent. I never
> signed any sort of settlement or anything, though, and when we hung up
> he was aware that $1K was not an amount I was pleased with.
>

In that case, the longer you wait to do anything else, the less
favorable it is to your case. If you sit on 1K for 6 months and then
try to collect more, you will be SOL. I would send him a letter
telling him that you received the 1K credit but you do not feel that 1K
is enough compensation - as you stated in your phone conversation on
whatever date - and never agreed to accept it as compensation. State
the amount you are seeking, and justify why (post-doxy). See what he
does. He's trying to limit his losses and knows if he pays you that
now, you have little ground to stand on if you try to get more later.

-L.

Miami Jones
March 17th 06, 10:21 AM
"-L." > wrote in message

> telling him that you received the 1K credit but you do not feel that 1K
> is enough compensation - as you stated in your phone conversation on

that's right Lyn, pussy foot around with it.

call him on the phone?
he'd have to drive me to the damn bank!
get real!

i want my ****in money back goddammit!
you killed my ****ing cat!

if he still refuses, take part of the 1k she got back and dun him for
$400,000 dollars. call it, punative damages.
[i'd spend 400 to recover the balance,(at a minimum)]

all this nice polite crap does not work
I thought the 1G was the whole amt

lookin at it now the 1G was an insult. it was also an admission on his part.

Charlie Wilkes
March 17th 06, 11:01 AM
On 16 Mar 2006 19:36:20 -0800, "Candace" > wrote:

>-L. wrote:
>> Candace wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
>> > unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
>> > decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday.
>>
>> Did he do so with your permission? If you accept it, that may be all
>> you will ever get.
>
>I didn't say he couldn't so I guess it was implied consent. I never
>signed any sort of settlement or anything, though, and when we hung up
>he was aware that $1K was not an amount I was pleased with.
>
>Candace

I quite sure the onus is on him to get a general release, Candace.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes
March 17th 06, 11:11 AM
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:21:33 GMT, "Miami Jones"
om> wrote:

>
>"-L." > wrote in message
>
>> telling him that you received the 1K credit but you do not feel that 1K
>> is enough compensation - as you stated in your phone conversation on
>
>that's right Lyn, pussy foot around with it.
>
>call him on the phone?
>he'd have to drive me to the damn bank!
>get real!
>
>i want my ****in money back goddammit!
>you killed my ****ing cat!
>
>if he still refuses, take part of the 1k she got back and dun him for
>$400,000 dollars. call it, punative damages.
>[i'd spend 400 to recover the balance,(at a minimum)]
>
>all this nice polite crap does not work

It depends on how a person wants to spend their time. It's $1,000 for
a few phone calls. The next installment might not come so easily.

There are people in this group who would love nothing better than to
make an obsession out of a small-time lawsuit, especially if they
thought they could really **** up someone's life out of the deal. I
don't think Candace is like that.

Charlie

>I thought the 1G was the whole amt
>
>lookin at it now the 1G was an insult. it was also an admission on his part.
>

IBen Getiner
March 17th 06, 11:12 AM
-L. wrote:

> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> > My comments were specific to Lyn and Phil.
>
> If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see what a fool you just made
> of yourself. That's ok. We know reading comprehension isn't your
> forte.
>
> >They are screaming for
> > vengeance, serving up glib legal certitudes. But they've got nothing
> > at stake, whereas Candace does, and vengeance doesn't come cheap --
> > financially or emotionally.
>
> You're also missing the point that she had a $4000.00 bill she paid to
> a vet who admitted negligence. She can and should recover most of that
> money.
>
> -L.

I say leave it lay. As beloved as our pets are, they are not people.
And they will never be recognized as such. Can you imagine coming
before a judge (even a whack-o liberal one) with the kind of krap that
you are laying down here...!? We have better things to do with our
court system (like convicting our inferior african-American brothers of
whatever we can find so we can place them where they really belong).
Where will it end with people like you? Next, you'll want a full
homicide investigation when a cat is found dead on the side of the
road!



IBen Getiner

PawsForThought
March 17th 06, 01:51 PM
Candace wrote:
> -L. wrote:
> > Candace wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
> > > unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
> > > decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday.
> >
> > Did he do so with your permission? If you accept it, that may be all
> > you will ever get.
>
> I didn't say he couldn't so I guess it was implied consent. I never
> signed any sort of settlement or anything, though, and when we hung up
> he was aware that $1K was not an amount I was pleased with.
>
> Candace

As long as he's not requiring you to sign anything, then you should be
fine. I would recommend against signing anything with this vet unless,
or until, you are fully satisfied.

PawsForThought
March 17th 06, 01:51 PM
Candace wrote:
> PawsForThought wrote:
> > Candace wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I've asked him and he gave back what he thought was fair...$1K.
> > > Not what I think is fair.
> >
> > Candace, can I ask how much of the bill this was? Was this the whole
> > bill?
>
> The whole bill was about $3600, I would have to figure out how much of
> it was post-doxy, probably at least $2500 of it, maybe more, I would
> think. I'll have to add it up but it depresses me to drag the bills
> out so I haven't yet. He was hospitalized for 3-4 days before he got
> doxy and he had had regular x-rays and a full blood panel, all
> pre-doxy. Post-doxy, he had a barium contrast study, an endoscopy, a
> couple of steroid shots, a couple of office visits, some other meds.
>
> Candace

I'm so sorry you're having to go through this :( I hope things work
out for you, whatever you decide. I think just posting here has
educated a lot of people on this drug. I never would have known about
it if I hadn't read your posts.

Hang in there,
Lauren

Phil P.
March 17th 06, 03:58 PM
"Candace" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
>
> > To a New Yorker, Phoenix is small. ;)
>
> Oh, true, I'm not sure I knew you were a New Yorker :)

Yep- born and bred in the Bronx. I live in Jersey now. No matter where a
New
Yorker lives, they always consider themselves New Yorkers! ;)

Phil P.
March 17th 06, 03:59 PM
"-L." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Joe Canuck wrote:
> > Yes, even Canadians know that... NYC ~8 mil, where Phoenix is ~1.5 mil.
>
> I am wondering if those stats are Phoenix/Scottsdale and surrounding
> communities? Phoenix itself does't seem that big to me when I have
> visited there.
> -L.


That was my impression, also.

Actually the Bronx alone is 42 square miles, Queens is almost 3x the size of
the Bronx- over 100 square miles- Brooklyn is also huge. Manhattan itself is
about 30 sq. miles.

Phil P.
March 17th 06, 04:00 PM
"PawsForThought" > wrote in message

Phil, in
> regards to the antibiotic given to Candace's cat, how well known are
> the side effects? Is this a relatively new drug, or something that's
> been around for a while, and that most vets would know the side effects?


Doxy-induced esophageal strictures have been documented in veterinary and
human medical journals for at least 26 years. The warning is also published
in veterinary rrug handbooks.

I mentioned this situation to two vets- I didn't even get a chance to go
into
the details- both instantly thought it was malpractice. That's how
well-known doxy-induced esophageal strictures are.

Phil P.
March 17th 06, 04:00 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...

> It depends on how a person wants to spend their time. It's $1,000 for
> a few phone calls. The next installment might not come so easily.
>
> There are people in this group who would love nothing better than to
> make an obsession out of a small-time lawsuit, especially if they
> thought they could really **** up someone's life out of the deal. I
> don't think Candace is like that.

Zoom- right over! The principal escapes your lighten-quick perception. Its
not only about the money or ****ing up someone's life- its about a cat who
suffered and died needlessly and a vet whose trying to sleaze out it
cheaply.

Personally, I rather **** up his life than see him **** up any more cats'
and dogs' lives- but that's me.

Phil P.
March 17th 06, 04:04 PM
"-L." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Joe Canuck wrote:
> > Yes, even Canadians know that... NYC ~8 mil, where Phoenix is ~1.5 mil.
>
> I am wondering if those stats are Phoenix/Scottsdale and surrounding
> communities? Phoenix itself does't seem that big to me when I have
> visited there.
> -L.


Actually the Bronx alone is 42 square miles, Queens is almost 3x the size of
the Bronx- over 100 square miles- Brooklyn is also huge. Manhattan itself is
about 30 sq. miles.

Miami Jones
March 17th 06, 04:55 PM
well you're right about the suit, but the idea is that dude should give her
money back.

i've been thinking about it all morning, I think he is less of a man for not
stepping up.

"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:21:33 GMT, "Miami Jones"
> om> wrote:
>
> >
> >"-L." > wrote in message
> >
> >> telling him that you received the 1K credit but you do not feel that 1K
> >> is enough compensation - as you stated in your phone conversation on
> >
> >that's right Lyn, pussy foot around with it.
> >
> >call him on the phone?
> >he'd have to drive me to the damn bank!
> >get real!
> >
> >i want my ****in money back goddammit!
> >you killed my ****ing cat!
> >
> >if he still refuses, take part of the 1k she got back and dun him for
> >$400,000 dollars. call it, punative damages.
> >[i'd spend 400 to recover the balance,(at a minimum)]
> >
> >all this nice polite crap does not work
>
> It depends on how a person wants to spend their time. It's $1,000 for
> a few phone calls. The next installment might not come so easily.
>
> There are people in this group who would love nothing better than to
> make an obsession out of a small-time lawsuit, especially if they
> thought they could really **** up someone's life out of the deal. I
> don't think Candace is like that.
>
> Charlie
>
> >I thought the 1G was the whole amt
> >
> >lookin at it now the 1G was an insult. it was also an admission on his
part.
> >
>

-L.
March 17th 06, 05:20 PM
Miami Jones wrote:
> "-L." > wrote in message
>
> > telling him that you received the 1K credit but you do not feel that 1K
> > is enough compensation - as you stated in your phone conversation on
>
> that's right Lyn, pussy foot around with it.
>
> call him on the phone?
> he'd have to drive me to the damn bank!
> get real!

Bar, hon. Read again. I said write him a letter. Everything has to
be documented on paper.

>
> i want my ****in money back goddammit!
> you killed my ****ing cat!
>
> if he still refuses, take part of the 1k she got back and dun him for
> $400,000 dollars. call it, punative damages.
> [i'd spend 400 to recover the balance,(at a minimum)]
>
> all this nice polite crap does not work
> I thought the 1G was the whole amt
>
> lookin at it now the 1G was an insult. it was also an admission on his part.

Of course 1"G" is an insult. He threw it at her to shut her
up....that's why he hurried up and did the credit.

-L.

Miami Jones
March 17th 06, 06:39 PM
yah but, i read what you wrote LYN!
lol

I think the more time that passes, the less effectual candace showing her
tail will be. but showing your tail does work, but timing is everything. You
show it too soon...and you get no. You show it too late...you get no.

but if at just the right time, a few days after what he has done sinks
in...you fall in while his practice is busy...make a scene...demand payment
right then.

for example. I had a fella who owed me money, right much money really, over
10G. all the attorneys sat down, got the pleasantries out the way..we came
to an agreement.

I say..well let's have it!

everyone in the room look horribly shocked. they say..
well...let's wait till...I interrupt them...here...I say...
draw up the contingency..I want my money today.

I eyeballed the man who owed me money, and said, you don't have a problem
paying me today do you?...what could he say..He says no...I say well you
write the check, Ill sign the paper your attorney writes.

it took all of 20 mins...to finalize my payment, I was at the bank before
they got home.

I don't believe in all these hold ups, and sandbagging etc..
I know sometimes it is a standard courtesy... to do things a certain way,
but... what was standard about what was done to Candace.

We better put this thing away, I feel like we might be wringing the nose so
to say, and that just makes blood.

Forcing wrath only brings strife.

"-L." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Miami Jones wrote:
> > "-L." > wrote in message
> >
> > > telling him that you received the 1K credit but you do not feel that
1K
> > > is enough compensation - as you stated in your phone conversation on
> >
> > that's right Lyn, pussy foot around with it.
> >
> > call him on the phone?
> > he'd have to drive me to the damn bank!
> > get real!
>
> Bar, hon. Read again. I said write him a letter. Everything has to
> be documented on paper.
>
> >
> > i want my ****in money back goddammit!
> > you killed my ****ing cat!
> >
> > if he still refuses, take part of the 1k she got back and dun him for
> > $400,000 dollars. call it, punative damages.
> > [i'd spend 400 to recover the balance,(at a minimum)]
> >
> > all this nice polite crap does not work
> > I thought the 1G was the whole amt
> >
> > lookin at it now the 1G was an insult. it was also an admission on his
part.
>
> Of course 1"G" is an insult. He threw it at her to shut her
> up....that's why he hurried up and did the credit.
>
> -L.
>