Veterinary malpractice

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

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."

"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/

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/

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

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

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

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/

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.

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"
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/