Veterinary malpractice

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. =^.^=

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

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

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

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:24:05 GMT, "Miami Jones"
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii@iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. com 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"
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii@iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .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/

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

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.

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.

"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

"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.