Update

Here's the point: you are observing this from afar.

Who really knows WHAT this vet's intentions truly were?

And isn't the OP just damn LUCKY that it worked out this way?

Can you even begin to visualize the possible suffering this cat ALMOST went
through at the hands of the irresponsible people it ended up with? Isn't
this cat just damn LUCKY that the humane society was responsible enough to
check for a microchip?

This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like selling
animals to laboratories or pit bull owners. You just don't know. This
"comedy" of errors has laid open his best laid plans to lots of speculation.
He's busted!

Moreover, how would you like to be in the OPs shoes? Put a child in the
place of a pet, it you need to, because that's the attachment a lot of us
have to our pets.

I just can't imagine a vet making decisions for a long-term client after
"not being able to contact them". That's RIDICULOUS in the extreme. She
had an answering machine, right? He should have kept the animal on premises
(if any part of his story is true) and continued to try to contact her.
That is the ONLY reasonable right and fair course of action he had, other
than euthanasia.

Please, spare me the idiots of this world and those who excuse them!

"Caroline" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Betsy" -0 wrote
However, regardless of whether the victim should receive a cash
settlement,
this vet should be properly investigated and castigated. If the owner
of
the cat doesn't follow through, lawsuit or not, then others will suffer!

How will they suffer? Compare this to how much joy many would have upon
learning
their little cat was still alive and might make a full recovery, at no
cost to
them?

For what should the vet be investigated? Doing harm to animals? What harm
did he
do when in fact he appears to have saved this cat?

Would you rather a vet who saw a cat recovering, thought he may have
misdiagnosed, then tried to reach the owner but couldn't, just euthanize
anyway?
Would you want this for your cat?

I wouldn't. Maybe the vet didn't behave perfectly, but I think there are
far
bigger fish to fry in the vet world than this one.

(GovtLawyer) wrote:

Done what before? Saved a cat's life?


We don't know what he has really done. At the very least he has taken money
under a false pretense.

How do you figure this, since he offered not only to wipe clean the owner's vet
bill but also pay for a specialist to see the cat?

(GovtLawyer) wrote:

Done what before? Saved a cat's life?


We don't know what he has really done. At the very least he has taken money
under a false pretense.

How do you figure this, since he offered not only to wipe clean the owner's vet
bill but also pay for a specialist to see the cat?

That's great! I'm GLAD he was on the verge of tears! I'll bet he was scared
****tless about losing his license! Bet he won't EVER make the same mistake
again with other animals. What a lousy explanation about not being able to
reach you on your phone. He should have gotten his "tech" to drive to your
home with this type of situation to let you know what was going on! You'd
better believe that if it were me, I would pick out the specialist myself,
get Abby the best doctors/treatment she deserves and tell them to send the
bill to that Joe Blow vet! He can apologize all he wants, get on his hands
and knees, but don't buy into it. Let him take on all the bills from now on
to make up for what you and Abby and your family has gone through. Good for
you for going there today and confronting him!! I'll bet he's having a panic
attack as we speak. I'm so sorry you had to go through all of this and wish
that it was a dream, but realize that he's terrified of a lawsuit now, so
he's going to do everything possible to give Abby the medical treatment she
deserves. Please let us all know what you decide to do and try to remain
calm and do what's best for her. How is your little girl doing, your
daughter?

The statement he made about "the weekend got away from him, he couldn't get
in touch, and figured you'd be grieving by Monday anyway" made my blood
boil!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christina

That's great! I'm GLAD he was on the verge of tears! I'll bet he was scared
****tless about losing his license! Bet he won't EVER make the same mistake
again with other animals. What a lousy explanation about not being able to
reach you on your phone. He should have gotten his "tech" to drive to your
home with this type of situation to let you know what was going on! You'd
better believe that if it were me, I would pick out the specialist myself,
get Abby the best doctors/treatment she deserves and tell them to send the
bill to that Joe Blow vet! He can apologize all he wants, get on his hands
and knees, but don't buy into it. Let him take on all the bills from now on
to make up for what you and Abby and your family has gone through. Good for
you for going there today and confronting him!! I'll bet he's having a panic
attack as we speak. I'm so sorry you had to go through all of this and wish
that it was a dream, but realize that he's terrified of a lawsuit now, so
he's going to do everything possible to give Abby the medical treatment she
deserves. Please let us all know what you decide to do and try to remain
calm and do what's best for her. How is your little girl doing, your
daughter?

The statement he made about "the weekend got away from him, he couldn't get
in touch, and figured you'd be grieving by Monday anyway" made my blood
boil!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christina

This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like selling
animals to laboratories or pit bull owners. You just don't know.

I don't think this guy is running any scam at all. It is a simple matter of
his actions in this case being so way below expectations, that it deserves to
be looked into by some competent authority.

This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like selling
animals to laboratories or pit bull owners. You just don't know.

I don't think this guy is running any scam at all. It is a simple matter of
his actions in this case being so way below expectations, that it deserves to
be looked into by some competent authority.

"GovtLawyer" wrote
How will they suffer? Compare this to how much joy many would have upon
learning
their little cat was still alive and might make a full recovery, at no cost
to
them?

The owner of this cat did not experience any joy. She was hurt and distressed
by the whole episode.

I can't see how the vet caused this hurt. The owner would have grieved if the
cat had been euthanized. She grieved even though it actually hadn't been
euthanized. What's the difference?

Now that the cat has been found alive, and all medical expenses will now be paid
by someone else, why would she grieve?

For what should the vet be investigated? Doing harm to animals? What harm did
he
do when in fact he appears to have saved this cat?

His duty extends beyond the cat. At the very least he was extraordinarily
sloppy in the running of his office.

Having a sloppy office is not illegal. It has no bearing on any breach of
contract claim, as long as the vet put things back the way they were prior to
the contract.

He should get his head on straight if he
is going to continue to take on the responsibility of the health of people's
precious pets.

Sure. And I have no doubt what he is going to pay to get the cat better will
help accomplish this.

I want vets who are honest. This guy appears to have come clean *and* is going
to pay all future bills. He didn't have to do the latter.

Would you rather a vet who saw a cat recovering, thought he may have
misdiagnosed, then tried to reach the owner but couldn't, just euthanize
anyway?
Would you want this for your cat?

He didn't try to reach the owner.

Now you're being sloppy.

This guy is a total jerk. He got her
machine and left no message.

This is not the whole story.

He didn't follow up a mere two days later. Maybe
his original idea of second-guessing himself was a noble one, but his
execution
of his remedy was negligent and inexcusable.

Lawyer-speak. You have an interest in promoting legal remedies.

File a suit. Since the vet restored things to the way they were before the
contract, and since there was no intentional infliction of emotional distress, I
expect there's a fair chance the stinkin' plaintiff's lawyer and the plaintiff
would be sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit.

Or now, since you seem to be backing down from any possibility of a legal remedy
here, I would not have an objection if the owner made inquiries to the
appropriate state board (I presume) about this vet. I doubt the board (or
whatever) would put him out of business, but it would serve as a warning. Would
disciplinary action result? No, because I don't see that the vet did anything
outrageously wrong. Instead, the owner of the cat will likely have begun a
reputation with the state board. Crying wolf, sort of thing.

I wouldn't. Maybe the vet didn't behave perfectly, but I think there are far
bigger fish to fry in the vet world than this one.

So, go fry them. What is your objection in having this pursued a bit further.

It deters veterinarians from owning up to their mistakes.

No one has all of the answers now. We need to get some people who are not
directly affected by this incident to take a soboring look at what happened.
No one is suggesting that he be hung by his b***s.

On the contrary, I think that's what many people here are saying.

"GovtLawyer" wrote
How will they suffer? Compare this to how much joy many would have upon
learning
their little cat was still alive and might make a full recovery, at no cost
to
them?

The owner of this cat did not experience any joy. She was hurt and distressed
by the whole episode.

I can't see how the vet caused this hurt. The owner would have grieved if the
cat had been euthanized. She grieved even though it actually hadn't been
euthanized. What's the difference?

Now that the cat has been found alive, and all medical expenses will now be paid
by someone else, why would she grieve?

For what should the vet be investigated? Doing harm to animals? What harm did
he
do when in fact he appears to have saved this cat?

His duty extends beyond the cat. At the very least he was extraordinarily
sloppy in the running of his office.

Having a sloppy office is not illegal. It has no bearing on any breach of
contract claim, as long as the vet put things back the way they were prior to
the contract.

He should get his head on straight if he
is going to continue to take on the responsibility of the health of people's
precious pets.

Sure. And I have no doubt what he is going to pay to get the cat better will
help accomplish this.

I want vets who are honest. This guy appears to have come clean *and* is going
to pay all future bills. He didn't have to do the latter.

Would you rather a vet who saw a cat recovering, thought he may have
misdiagnosed, then tried to reach the owner but couldn't, just euthanize
anyway?
Would you want this for your cat?

He didn't try to reach the owner.

Now you're being sloppy.

This guy is a total jerk. He got her
machine and left no message.

This is not the whole story.

He didn't follow up a mere two days later. Maybe
his original idea of second-guessing himself was a noble one, but his
execution
of his remedy was negligent and inexcusable.

Lawyer-speak. You have an interest in promoting legal remedies.

File a suit. Since the vet restored things to the way they were before the
contract, and since there was no intentional infliction of emotional distress, I
expect there's a fair chance the stinkin' plaintiff's lawyer and the plaintiff
would be sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit.

Or now, since you seem to be backing down from any possibility of a legal remedy
here, I would not have an objection if the owner made inquiries to the
appropriate state board (I presume) about this vet. I doubt the board (or
whatever) would put him out of business, but it would serve as a warning. Would
disciplinary action result? No, because I don't see that the vet did anything
outrageously wrong. Instead, the owner of the cat will likely have begun a
reputation with the state board. Crying wolf, sort of thing.

I wouldn't. Maybe the vet didn't behave perfectly, but I think there are far
bigger fish to fry in the vet world than this one.

So, go fry them. What is your objection in having this pursued a bit further.

It deters veterinarians from owning up to their mistakes.

No one has all of the answers now. We need to get some people who are not
directly affected by this incident to take a soboring look at what happened.
No one is suggesting that he be hung by his b***s.

On the contrary, I think that's what many people here are saying.

"Betsy" -0 wrote
Here's the point: you are observing this from afar.

So are you.

Tell me what harm was done.

Who really knows WHAT this vet's intentions truly were?

Exactly. An investigation will not establish this. It will attempt to establish
the raw facts, particularly the physical events that transpired.

And isn't the OP just damn LUCKY that it worked out this way?

Can you even begin to visualize the possible suffering this cat ALMOST went
through at the hands of the irresponsible people it ended up with?

Would you rather a healthy cat now be dead?

Isn't
this cat just damn LUCKY that the humane society was responsible enough to
check for a microchip?

Without the microchip, the cat would either be euthanized by the Humane Society
or rescued by a new owner.

These outcomes are equal to or better than the original outcome (euthanasia) the
owner arranged with the vet.

This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like selling
animals to laboratories or pit bull owners. You just don't know. This
"comedy" of errors has laid open his best laid plans to lots of speculation.
He's busted!

Let's investigate all vets, because we "just don't know" what sort of scams they
run with pets they're told to euthanize.

Moreover, how would you like to be in the OPs shoes? Put a child in the
place of a pet, it you need to, because that's the attachment a lot of us
have to our pets.

Just tell me exactly how the OP suffered; how it differs from the suffering she
had if the cat had been euthanized; and how responsible for this difference the
vet is.

I just can't imagine a vet making decisions for a long-term client after
"not being able to contact them". That's RIDICULOUS in the extreme.

His explanation that he tried to reach them, meanwhile had to decide how to care
for the cat, and didn't want to impose more heartache on them is entirely
plausible.

She
had an answering machine, right? He should have kept the animal on premises
(if any part of his story is true) and continued to try to contact her.
That is the ONLY reasonable right and fair course of action he had, other
than euthanasia.

Nonsense. The owner asked for euthanasia. To continue after a weekend or so
trying to reach her to tell her the cat hadn't been euthanized, for this or that
reason, poses a difficult situation.

I think many are missing the conflicts the vet was facing.

First and foremost, the vet appears to have put the animal's needs first,
without imposing hardship on the owner.

That's his job. Remember?

Please, spare me the idiots of this world and those who excuse them!

If you'd identified an idiot, then you better believe I would not excuse him.

You're still not responding to the following:

Would you rather a vet who saw a cat recovering, thought he may have
misdiagnosed, then tried to reach the owner but couldn't, just euthanize
anyway?
Would you want this for your cat?