Should I take vets to court??

emlou2009

cakeordeath wrote: »

aren't you the same person who posted the following on another thread?


you're very judgemental for someone who leaves a dog unsupervised with a potentially lethal amount of toxic substance.

:rotfl::T

when i had my male neutered, they gave me a collar and made me sign to say i had received it i can only imagine to cover their own backs in case of a similar emergency? not that i'm saying he could pull his intestines out through his empty ball sacs, but i'm sure you get my drift.

IMO if the vet didnt give you a collar then they do have a fault here - a fault which they have already admitted (just thought i'd put that in bold for the people attacking the OP for blaming the vet for whats happened!!) if you did claim through a court, you would probably get more, but it would be a long process and for the hassle probably not worth it. i'd just take what they've offered, wait til the cheque clears and then report them to every regulatory body you can, that will hurt them more than a court case and be more hassle for them in dealing with reviews and things. if it was my cat i'd just want them hit where it hurt and that would do the trick.

on another note, what actually happens in the process of emergency vet treatment? do they take payment before the treatment or ask if you can afford it? is it not possible to just pay what you can afford there and then and then pay the rest later? surely if treatment has already started then the vet will have no choice but to continue treatment? not saying its the right thing to do and not saying that its something i would do, just out of interest.

ceebeeby

emlou2009 wrote: »

:rotfl::T

when i had my male neutered, they gave me a collar and made me sign to say i had received it i can only imagine to cover their own backs in case of a similar emergency? not that i'm saying he could pull his intestines out through his empty ball sacs, but i'm sure you get my drift.

IMO if the vet didnt give you a collar then they do have a fault here - a fault which they have already admitted (just thought i'd put that in bold for the people attacking the OP for blaming the vet for whats happened!!) if you did claim through a court, you would probably get more, but it would be a long process and for the hassle probably not worth it. i'd just take what they've offered, wait til the cheque clears and then report them to every regulatory body you can, that will hurt them more than a court case and be more hassle for them in dealing with reviews and things. if it was my cat i'd just want them hit where it hurt and that would do the trick.

on another note, what actually happens in the process of emergency vet treatment? do they take payment before the treatment or ask if you can afford it? is it not possible to just pay what you can afford there and then and then pay the rest later? surely if treatment has already started then the vet will have no choice but to continue treatment? not saying its the right thing to do and not saying that its something i would do, just out of interest.

I'm sure the vets aren't jumping up and down for joy right now thinking yippee we killed a kitten for no good reason :rolleyes:

There are no winners in this debate, and there never will be.

• The kitten has lost its life
• The OP and family have lost their pet in quite a traumatic way
• The vets have lost part of their reputation, and I presume as animal carers are equally as upset.

The quickest resolution all round would benefit all, without resorting to trying to 'hurt' anyone further.

golden_eagle

DrScotsman wrote: »

1. An emergency vet clearly has a duty of care to his..er...patients, and their owners.
2. It sounds to me that the reasonable emergency vet would not have made the mistake of saying the OP had to pay for the operation. Hence duty of care breached.
3. Unless the operation was unlikely to succeed, the emergency vet clearly caused the losses of the OP: She could not afford to pay the operation and hence she lost her cat (which as a possession the E.V. are agreeing to pay for) and has had a mountain of distress caused

I mean seriously though, the OP mentions that the E.V. has already admitted guilt, so these are all covered.

This is an extreme simplification of what tends to be a quite complex legal argument, Dr Scotsman. Negligence is actually quite hard to prove and even if OP has succeeded there is no guarantee that the court would award any substantial damages for post traumatic stress disorder in this case. In addition, any legal costs incurred would likely outweigh any damages received. If OP couldn't afford to pay £200 or so extra for the surgery how is she going to be able to pay solicitors fees up-front? Solicitors can charge on average anything between say £150-350 p/hr so we are talking thousands before it even goes to court. And even if OP won, successful party tends to only get back about 2/3 of their costs. And I don't think any of the "no-win-no-fee" firms would want to get involved (though you never know).

I must say I feel so terribly sorry for the poor little kitten. It must have been in agony.

OP I don't want to sound harh but if you can't afford to pay roughly£10 p/m for insurance, maybe it'd be better if you didn't get another cat to save you going through something similar like this again (and the poor cat too)?

emlou2009

i wasnt saying the vet would be pleased about it, but the OP obviously needs some kind of closure to this and feels that the sum she was offered wasnt enough to give it, so perhaps reporting them would offer that. regulatory bodies would be better qualified than the courts to decide what is fair anyway.

Dave101t

cant afford the bill? dont have the cat.

MrsTinks

It depends on the situation and the vet is only obliged to ensure the pet does not suffer - if the owner can not afford treatment then PTS would cover this too.
Whilst this is something you may not agree with then bear in mind that the vet would have to (usuallly personally!) have to cover the unpaid bill if an owner "did a runner"...
Most vets once you have built up a relationship with them will be understanding about things, but when you're not registered with them and they don't know you from adam then why SHOULD they operate on "credit"? Would you?

The only body that you can complain to btw would be the RCVS - www.rcvs.org.uk
There is a clear outline of complaints procedure on their website.

There is also a guide of what they can and can't do on there. What is important I guess is the point stating that they cannot fine the vets and they CAN NOT award any form of compensation.
They will investigate any complaint of negligence but chances are if this is a first offence the most they will do is formally advise the vet. Nothing more.
Any claim for compensation is a civil matter and you would need to bring a civil case against the vet in question. You need to question if this is not only the right course of action but also if you can afford to do so...

DrScotsman

golden_eagle wrote: »

This is an extreme simplification of what tends to be a quite complex legal argument, Dr Scotsman. Negligence is actually quite hard to prove and even if OP has succeeded there is no guarantee that the court would award any substantial damages for post traumatic stress disorder in this case. In addition, any legal costs incurred would likely outweigh any damages received. If OP couldn't afford to pay £200 or so extra for the surgery how is she going to be able to pay solicitors fees up-front? ...

Small claims court? The fees are minimum and no solicitor required.

The proof of negligence is already mostly done with the admission of fault of the E.V.

You are of course completely correct that nothing is guaranteed, but I am not advising the OP to go to court, I am just stating what I believe the E.V.'s legal liability is. That alone is a good bargaining chip in resolving the dispute.

peachyprice

emlou2009 wrote: »

IMO if the vet didnt give you a collar then they do have a fault here - a fault which they have already admitted (just thought i'd put that in bold for the people attacking the OP for blaming the vet for whats happened!!) .

Erm, not quite. The only thing the vet has admitted being at fault for is the EV charging OP, nowhere has it been said that the vet has admitted being at fault for not providing a collar which isn't complusory, just a wise precuation.

Jimx26

I still do not understand how the OP could afford £200 towards the bill but not the remaining hundred or so pounds for the operation that could have been paid in 30 days, I personally would have given the go ahead for the operation and beggen/borrowed to pay the balance to keep the kitten alive. If the OP really could not afford that small amount of money in that time then they should not have a pet in the first place.(sorry to sound holier(sp)than thou but thats how I feel).

peachyprice

eveie189 wrote: »

truth is I am devestated and even after 4 weeks I am still in shock. There is not a day goes by without me feeling guilty. Yes I should have probably tried to cover the wound but I was in shock and the EV did not suggest doing anything so we just tried to get her there as quickly as possible. My daughter is still having regular nightmares about it and unfortunately was in the room when I was crying and had to tell my husband that we could not afford the operation so she knows this was avoidable and this is what makes me most upset. .

So how is getting more compensation out of the vet going to help
Are you saying that if you go to court and get £500 out of the vet your daughters nightmares will suddently stop, and you will suddenly stop feeling guilty?