My dog bled to death 2 hours after leaving veterinary practice

carmel11

Aargh legal people- be very very wary

earthstorm

ValHaller wrote: »

It is worse than that. The difference is between

• You have a case - meaning you have something on which you might win in court
• You may have a case to be resolved - meaning you have something on which a court could deliver a ruling, not necessarily in your favour

What he has written are what is known as weasel words. They are so transparently obvious, that as and when you lose, there will be absolutely no comeback on him. He is promising you absolutely nothing other than to take your money and get a resolution, not necessarily in your favour.

It seems that one vet bled your dog to death and another is quite willing to bleed you to bankruptcy. If it could bring your dog back, it might be worthwhile to take the risk. And that is about the best anyone could say for this.

true, and it looks like the OP is just pushing and pushing for report after report until she gets a report that says what she wants to hear. As i stated earlier i am sure this vet had already given a report, so why is he given a new report on 11th November.

peachyprice

hachette wrote: »

its seems that he is keen to be a negotiator and he can get his fee from my ex vet for his service. Why would he suggest it if he did not think I have a solid claim? It is all so confusing now but I feel I can trust him

Of course he's keen to be a negotiator, and hoping to get paid by both you and the vet. Open your eyes, he's in it for the money, not because he thinks you may have a case (note, nowhere at all has he said you have a solid claim, you're imagining that).

At best the going to try for "some sort of acknowledgement
that a tragic or unfortunate mistake occurred and an apology". That in no way suggest that he thinks you have a case you would win in court, in fact he's steering you away from that entirely.

Also note, that he may send the vet a bill for his 'services' but they are under no obligation to pay it, they haven't instructed him, you have, so when they refuse to pay it will fall to you, 100%. Have you asked him yet how much his fees are expected to be for this resolution service?

earthstorm

Also if this does not go the way you want will you be asking someone else to do another report, in the hope it will say what you want it to say ( lost count of how many reports you have already had done)

imoneyop

earthstorm wrote: »

Also if this does not go the way you want will you be asking someone else to do another report, in the hope it will say what you want it to say ( lost count of how many reports you have already had done)

There's always the other forensic vet expert she can go to for a second opinion.

hachette

earthstorm wrote: »

Also if this does not go the way you want will you be asking someone else to do another report, in the hope it will say what you want it to say ( lost count of how many reports you have already had done)

No I will not be seeking second opinion and I haven't had any other reports done based on all the clinical records that I have and explanation from vet making clinical judgment based on empty blood stained syringe rather then blood test result. This will be first objective report that should say how reasonable or not was my ex vets action. The RCVS findings simply said that if error of medical judgment has happened this is not matter that they can to deal with. Their letter was not a report. Every judge would be seeking to see such report from the professional in that field rather then reply from RCVS.

likelyfran

ILW wrote: »

Do you want the Vet barred from practising?
Not going to happen over a pet dog.

How horribly dismissive. Many people regard animals as equal to humans, you know.

earthstorm

hachette wrote: »

Every judge would be seeking to see such report from the professional in that field rather then reply from RCVS.

Untrue the RCVS is the legal governing body every registered vet MUST be a member of, so a judge would 100% take what they find and say. even the forensic vet will be a member of the RCVS and would have to follow their rules and regulations.

The RCVS has provided a report as you mentioned early on in this long thread, but they did not give you the answer you wanted to hear

paddyrg

likelyfran wrote: »

How horribly dismissive. Many people regard animals as equal to humans, you know.

This is true, however the law doesn't. Rightly or wrongly (rightly - unless you want cats voting) they're treated differently.

hachette

earthstorm wrote: »

Untrue the RCVS is the legal governing body every registered vet MUST be a member of, so a judge would 100% take what they find and say. even the forensic vet will be a member of the RCVS and would have to follow their rules and regulations.

The RCVS has provided a report as you mentioned early on in this long thread, but they did not give you the answer you wanted to hear

The RCVS did not provide a report. They just replied to my complaint stating quote "RCVS has no powers under the Vet Surgeons Act 1966 or other legislation to adjudicate on claims of negligence...therefore,allegations of negligence which cannot be resolved directly between veterinary practice and client are matters for adjudication by civil courts.."
So by me taking legal action is following their rules and regulations.