Veterinary Malpractice

This story was run in my area paper today. Thought some folks might
find it interesting.


When pets die at the vet, grieving owners call lawyers
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

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.

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.



continued at

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...practice_x.htm






Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha

============
http://www.jhedge.com

"Jeanne Hedge" wrote in message
...
This story was run in my area paper today. Thought some folks might
find it interesting.


When pets die at the vet, grieving owners call lawyers
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

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.

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.

continued at

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...practice_x.htm

Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha

============
http://www.jhedge.com

Hmmmmmmm *VERY* interesting! However, at this point I would be will to
*GIVE* thousands of dollars just to have Bandit get better!!!

Hugs,

CatNipped

On 2005-03-17, Jeanne Hedge penned:

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.

Wow. I have mixed feelings about this. Setting the legal precedent that pets
are something more than just property is a good thing, but I hope that vet
fees don't soar in response to overzealous grieving owners who want someone to
blame for bad luck.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-03-17, Jeanne Hedge penned:

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.

Wow. I have mixed feelings about this. Setting the legal precedent that
pets
are something more than just property is a good thing, but I hope that vet
fees don't soar in response to overzealous grieving owners who want
someone to
blame for bad luck.



I'm afraid we would also see vets refusing to treat many animals. This
would be far easier for them than it is for a physician to refuse to treat a
person.

At the very least vets will likely start to insist on getting signed waivers
before treatment limiting their liability and I don't see how that can be a
good thing.

We had a dog that probably dislocated her hip 7 or 8 times in the last few
years of her life. The choices were surgery or to put her down. And our
vet said it always almost made him sick to operate on her as he was quite
fond of her and she was high risk. He didn't want to let her down. If he
had been held to human malpractice standards there is no way he could have
treated her.

Jo

Jo Firey wrote:
I'm afraid we would also see vets refusing to treat many animals.
This
would be far easier for them than it is for a physician to refuse to
treat a
person.

IIRC vets have malpractice ins. now. The difference is, judges are now
awarding pain and suffering and the like.



At the very least vets will likely start to insist on getting signed
waivers
before treatment limiting their liability and I don't see how that
can be a
good thing.

We had a dog that probably dislocated her hip 7 or 8 times in the
last few
years of her life. The choices were surgery or to put her down. And
our
vet said it always almost made him sick to operate on her as he was
quite
fond of her and she was high risk. He didn't want to let her down.
If he
had been held to human malpractice standards there is no way he could
have
treated her.

When your choice is euthanasia or surgery, and you choose surgery, you
are also choosing the risks. That's not an unusual scenario, by any
stretch of the imagination - it takes place in vets all over the US
every day.

I'm glad judges are starting to see animals as more than chattel.
Maybe now we can get stiffer sentances for animal abuse.

-L.

Monique Y. Mudama wrote in message
...
On 2005-03-17, Jeanne Hedge penned:

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.

Wow. I have mixed feelings about this. Setting the legal precedent that
pets
are something more than just property is a good thing, but I hope that vet
fees don't soar in response to overzealous grieving owners who want
someone to
blame for bad luck.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Took the words right out of my mouth, Monique. Yeah, really GROSS
incompetence on the vet's part that caused death or severe injury to a
basically healthy animal should be liable. But.... There aren't enough
lawsuits, already??? Our animals can't tell us about unusual symptoms that
might show us they had a serious disease or injury that might be treated in
the early stages. They simply adjust to them, until the symptom becomes
severe enough to be noticed by us. For example, the first time my regular
vet examined Francesca a few days after I got her, HE missed the fact that
she was pregnant, too. But I certainly wouldn't have taken him to court over
it, since I totally missed it while living with her. Honest mistakes do
happen. And I woulnd't want to see a responsible, good vet be forced to
close his or her practice on account of a lawsuit from a grieving pet owner
who had to have SOMEONE to blame for the death of his or her pet, even if
the most competent and timely care in the world couldn't have saved it.
Doctors whose patients can't talk operate under limitations doctors for
people just don't have to deal with. I'd rather have a vet who could
relax, and concentrate on caring for my cats, rather than have some poor
nervous wreck who can't concentrate on his job for fear of being sued down
to his skivvies by me.

Melissa

Melissa Houle wrote:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote in message
...
On 2005-03-17, Jeanne Hedge penned:

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.

Wow. I have mixed feelings about this. Setting the legal precedent
that pets are something more than just property is a good thing, but
I hope that vet fees don't soar in response to overzealous grieving
owners who want someone to blame for bad luck.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Took the words right out of my mouth, Monique. Yeah, really GROSS
incompetence on the vet's part that caused death or severe injury to a
basically healthy animal should be liable. But.... There aren't
enough lawsuits, already??? Our animals can't tell us about unusual
symptoms that might show us they had a serious disease or injury
that might be treated in the early stages. They simply adjust to
them, until the symptom becomes severe enough to be noticed by us.
For example, the first time my regular vet examined Francesca a few
days after I got her, HE missed the fact that she was pregnant, too.
But I certainly wouldn't have taken him to court over it, since I
totally missed it while living with her. Honest mistakes do happen.
And I woulnd't want to see a responsible, good vet be forced to close
his or her practice on account of a lawsuit from a grieving pet owner
who had to have SOMEONE to blame for the death of his or her pet,
even if the most competent and timely care in the world couldn't have
saved it. Doctors whose patients can't talk operate under
limitations doctors for people just don't have to deal with. I'd
rather have a vet who could relax, and concentrate on caring for my
cats, rather than have some poor nervous wreck who can't concentrate
on his job for fear of being sued down to his skivvies by me.

Melissa

I agree with everything you said. I don't want my vet so afraid of a
lawsuit that he would refuse to treat a pet for fear of reprisals. Having
said that, I think most vets warn pet owners - any time a procedure requires
sedation there is always a risk, especially the older the pet.

Jill

"Melissa Houle" wrote
Took the words right out of my mouth, Monique. Yeah, really GROSS
incompetence on the vet's part that caused death or severe injury to a
basically healthy animal should be liable. But.... There aren't enough
lawsuits, already??? Our animals can't tell us about unusual symptoms
that
might show us they had a serious disease or injury that might be treated
in
the early stages. They simply adjust to them, until the symptom becomes
severe enough to be noticed by us. For example, the first time my regular
vet examined Francesca a few days after I got her, HE missed the fact that
she was pregnant, too. But I certainly wouldn't have taken him to court
over
it, since I totally missed it while living with her. Honest mistakes do
happen. And I woulnd't want to see a responsible, good vet be forced to
close his or her practice on account of a lawsuit from a grieving pet
owner
who had to have SOMEONE to blame for the death of his or her pet, even if
the most competent and timely care in the world couldn't have saved it.
Doctors whose patients can't talk operate under limitations doctors for
people just don't have to deal with. I'd rather have a vet who could
relax, and concentrate on caring for my cats, rather than have some poor
nervous wreck who can't concentrate on his job for fear of being sued down
to his skivvies by me.

True, but I would also like to have actual recourse if my pet suffered under
malpractice. I think the "value of the animal" awards are bullsh*t. What
would a court say the strays I've taken in are worth? Nothing, since I
didn't pay anything for them?
People doctors diagnose, perform surgery, etc with the fear of being sued
for malpractice. If anything, this has caused doctors to treat more
cautiously and request more tests. Yes, this drives up the cost of
medicine, but I guess this is the price we pay for the right to sue.

--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

In article ,
"Melissa Houle" wrote:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote in message
...
On 2005-03-17, Jeanne Hedge penned:

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.

Wow. I have mixed feelings about this. Setting the legal precedent
that
pets
are something more than just property is a good thing, but I hope that
vet
fees don't soar in response to overzealous grieving owners who want
someone to
blame for bad luck.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Took the words right out of my mouth, Monique. Yeah, really GROSS
incompetence on the vet's part that caused death or severe injury to a
basically healthy animal should be liable. But.... There aren't enough
lawsuits, already??? Our animals can't tell us about unusual symptoms
that
might show us they had a serious disease or injury that might be treated
in
the early stages. They simply adjust to them, until the symptom becomes
severe enough to be noticed by us. For example, the first time my
regular
vet examined Francesca a few days after I got her, HE missed the fact
that
she was pregnant, too. But I certainly wouldn't have taken him to court
over
it, since I totally missed it while living with her. Honest mistakes do
happen. And I woulnd't want to see a responsible, good vet be forced to
close his or her practice on account of a lawsuit from a grieving pet
owner
who had to have SOMEONE to blame for the death of his or her pet, even if
the most competent and timely care in the world couldn't have saved it.
Doctors whose patients can't talk operate under limitations doctors for
people just don't have to deal with. I'd rather have a vet who could
relax, and concentrate on caring for my cats, rather than have some poor
nervous wreck who can't concentrate on his job for fear of being sued
down
to his skivvies by me.


Remember there are physicians that have patients that can't talk.
Obviously, pediatricians, especially neonatologists. Emergency
physicians.

If this happens, though, vets may not have the ego issues of human
physicians, and do the thing that statistically prevents more
malpractice than anything else: COMMUNICATE. That certainly includes
telling people if there has been a problem, and taking responsibility
for it if it was an error -- or, if it was unpreventable, try to offer
the patient or family as much information as possible on what happened
and why.

Actually, I've seen vets do many of the things human physicians don't.
Often, a vet will bend to the animal's height, or do other things that
help them be nonthreatening. Sitting down to talk helps greatly. Many
examining rooms have low stools and chairs, and, of course, there are
times where the examiner must use the low stool. I've discussed
interaction with some very fine clinicians, and they consciously sit on
the stool with the patient on the table or in a chair -- having the
patient look down on them rather than the other way around.

Some methods probably aren't going to transfer from vets to physicians.
I'd probably look strangely at an internist that gave me his paw to
sniff. Now, I have nurses here that will offer their butts, which with
humans...no, I don't want to go there...

In article , "jmcquown"
wrote:

I agree with everything you said. I don't want my vet so afraid of a
lawsuit that he would refuse to treat a pet for fear of reprisals.
Having
said that, I think most vets warn pet owners - any time a procedure
requires
sedation there is always a risk, especially the older the pet.


Actually, while waivers are signed, this doesn't always sink in to a lot
of humans, especially having outpatient procedures. One
anesthesiologist cracked up a room of medical people by sniffing "ANYONE
can put a patient to sleep. Getting them to wake up is the challenge."