Should I take vets to court??

DrScotsman

Ruby_Moon wrote: »

What is having your arm cut off got to do with anything? They are not the same situations at all.

It is a perfectly analogous scenario.

How the cat got to the stage of having open stitches is completely irrelevant. The E.V. was presented with a cat with open stitches and that is all that matters, and all of the E.V.'s actions that happen after this point have completely identical consequences regardless of how the cat's stitches opened in the first place

The distress was caused by her own neglect. You can't go around blame other people for that and expecting them to cough up cash.
How else was she distressed? Distressed by the bill? The amount of money to pay? Not a good enough reason to claim compensation and she told the vet to put her cat to sleep.

For the distress up until the E.V. arrived you could argue that, but assuming the operation was likely to succeed the OP is clearly not responsible for the distress of the cat dying. If the E.V. had not messed up and instead had said there would be no bill then the cat would most likely still be alive.

She could have taken the cat elsewhere. She could have got a 2nd opinion. She could have paid the bill. Lots of options. She choose the one to end the cats life. Her choice, noone elses.
She caused her own distress by her own neglect.

Everyone saying this really confuses me, surely there was absolutely no time for any of these options if the stitches were already open!?

And again she said she could not afford the bill and hence could not pay the bill.

And is no one taking into account the state of panic the OP might be in with such a tough decision? She should not be expected to think so completely rationally while in such a timed situation, which is something the reasonable E.V. would take into account.

beks

Sorry but I think the opinions on here are a little extreme. I agree with both side to an extent.
My first thought is the poor kitten who went through all this. I am sorry that OP was misinformed by the EV of the costs but surely that money could have been found from somewhere. I don't think the EV made a clinical error and I am sure they would have done all they could to help this kitten (to either live or be out of its pain). If i was the OP, I hope that I would have found a way round putting the poor animal to sleep.
I dont think the OP has a claim to go to court. If I am right, you could not go to small claims court because you are not claiming back a specific amount which is owed to you (the vets has aleady offered this plus more). I dont think you can sue for emotional distress in small claims court so personally, I think the OP should accept the money and if (when) they get another pet, make sure they take out pet insurance to cover eventualities and make sure no other pet has to go through this. Very sorry that you have had to go through this, I dont think you can lay the blame solely on the vet though.

DrScotsman

beks wrote: »

If I am right, you could not go to small claims court because you are not claiming back a specific amount which is owed to you (the vets has aleady offered this plus more). I dont think you can sue for emotional distress in small claims court

Where did you get that from?

Buttonmoons

Oh how horrible! I personally wouldn't push for more compensation, they have offered you a reasonable sum, I'd say.

If you had the money lying around, the cat wouldn't of been put down (though I'm confused as to why they wouldn't have to pay the EV anyways?)

Not everyone has access to hundreds in the blink of an eye (which I'm sure the OP needed to do, you can't leave a cat in pain and distress with an open wound, whilst you phone around different vets comparing prices...!)

I also think it's rubbish to state that if you don't have hundreds spare for an emergency then don't get a pet. What did people do back in the 50's and 60's, before pet insurance?

The OP got her cat it's jags and neutered, like a responsible owner, she couldn't of guessed her cat would rip it's stitches out! If she hadn't been letting her cat outdoors (like most people wouldn't until it was neutered) then there would be no URGENT need to get insurance sorted out, and you'd want them up to date on their injections before getting pet insurance anyways!

It's not like the OP could of pawned her TV to cash converters if it was late at night to pay for the operation. I think a lot of people on this thread are being very harsh, and not everyone has oodles of cash lying around, certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed a pet!

My cat had a right go at her stitches after she got done, she managed to bash her head off the side of a door and knock the cone off, and the her stitches were very inflamed for a few weeks, but I don't doubt that she would of done worse damage if I hadnt been there, BUT people have lives, they can't possibly sit with a cat 24/7 until their wound has healed.

tandraig

er - scuse me - but how was cat able to rip out stitches? didnt the vet give her one of those lampshade things?
my staffy took out her own stitches when she was spayed - nine of them - and the vet charged me ten pounds per stitch to re-do them. this was nearly twenty years ago!
a friend of mine told me about the lampshade collar and i asked the vet about it - he said I should have asked for one at time of op. how the H could I as I didnt know about them - but he did!
I changed vets!
so how did this kitten manage to rip out her stitches? did vet offer lampshade and was refused or did he just not fit one - they seem to be standard these days. (sorry about the pun - standard - lampshades?)
the first vet to my mind - if they didnt fit the lampshade - WAS to blame.
and I can understand the OP doesnt want another kitten - still hurts doesnt it hun?
my advice - take the payment - i doubt the court would award much more - and NEVER use that vet again!

MrsE_2

DrScotsman wrote: »

What if the OP didn't have a choice? What if she literally had no money and no means of borrowing? What would you say then?

Would the vets not treat an animal & let the owner pay after?

MrsE_2

Ruby_Moon wrote: »

Are you blinkered somehow? Can you not see that the OP was the one who put her own cat in danger?
She allowed the cat enough time on its own so it could pull its stitches out. (She should have had the cat under supervision)
She had left the cat so long it had begun to destroy its own insides. (Again, no supervision)
Upon finding the cat had taken out some intestines, the OP failed to even try anything to stop the cat doing more damage. (She could have wrapped damn duct tape round the cats body to stop it)
The Vet acted on instruction. (The OP said "Put her to sleep")
The OP now thinks somone other than herself is to blame and she wants cash!!
Cash is what it boils down to. If she were given a £1000 cat, she would say "No thanks, I want cash."
:mad:

This is turning my stomach.
Wouldn't the cat have had a buster collar?

DrScotsman

MrsE wrote: »

Would the vets not treat an animal & let the owner pay after?

I didn't mean no cash in hand, I meant not £1 to her name, and wouldn't be able to afford reasonable installments, and hence not able to even pay eventually (and hence unable to legally agree to pay later). Again assuming the operation would succeed, if the E.V. had not made the mistake then the cat would not have died.

cakeordeath_2

MrsE wrote: »

Would the vets not treat an animal & let the owner pay after?

Unfortunately many out of hours emergency vets won't because the pet owners are not their regular customers and they won't know if they will keep to their payment agreement.

eveie189

I would just like to xclarify a few things.
1. I was not offered a collar to stop her pulling her stitches out at any time. Also, ironically enough she took her stitches out in a period of less than 10 minutes when I could not see her whereas she could have done it when I was asleep or does being asleep make me a bad pet owner?
2. I gave my husband every bit if money we have to pay for treatment but £200 was not enough and although they said the rest could be paid within 30 days there is no way I could have paid this.
3. My local vets were the one's who take on the cost of aftercare provided by either themselves or an EV. However despite the fact that they have used the same EV for some time, both the on call EV and his receptionist did not know of the protocol (seems strange to me).
4. My husband had to take her to the EV for treatment and this took 40 minutes which is why she was in such a state when she got there. I did not know that emergency treatment had been outsourced till I made the call as previously it had always been done at my local vets.
5. I asked for £500 in my original letter it is not a case of me asking for more regardless of what is offered.
6. I do not want a dog, I only mentioned this is because I wanted you to see my point that I could never get another cat despite always having one but does that mean they should not give me the £100 for a cat. My point is that when the pain has gone I may want another pet (just not a cat) and this pet may cost more than what has been offered. This is not my fault as I should still have my cat.
7. What has happened to my cat could not have been foreseen by anyone. My local vet said in all his years of prectice he has never seen a cat able to pull out it's intestine and I have never heard of it happening. Yes I probably should have had more money put aside but the fact is I didn't as like I said the last operation that I had done on a cat only cost £200 and the vets said it sounded simple enough to sort it out.