My dog bled to death 2 hours after leaving veterinary practice

earthstorm

hachette wrote: »

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.

you stated they ruled the vet did nothing wrong, which means they must of investigated the vet, which means they must have produced a report for them to come to this conclusion.

hachette

earthstorm wrote: »

you stated they ruled the vet did nothing wrong, which means they must of investigated the vet, which means they must have produced a report for them to come to this conclusion.

I don't think you quite understand how RCVS operate. They have never investigated it. My complaint was at the Case Examiners stage. They just wrote to my ex vet asking them for their comments in regard to my complaint. Of course no vet is going to say that they were negligent or made error in judgment. There were 3 nurses and 2 vets involved one who did the surgery and senior vet who gave go ahead. I have statements from all of them. Now there is a quote from RCVS after they examined their statements. "The case examiners considered your concern that despite the blood results revealing a low platelet count (14) they proceeded with surgery. They noted that Miss... said the low platelet count was thought to be a result of platelet clumping leading to an error in the lab machine reading, but despite any possible error with the machine she had used other indicators to satisfy herself that it was reasonable to proceed, namely that there was no evidence of clotting issues seen on physical examination".. the fact is if the dog is bleeding internally there wont be any physical signs. "that blood in the syringe used to take the sample had clotted fine and that there was no bruising around venopuncture site".... The fact is blood acts differently when cut into tissue so how can you make your judgment from that also his neck ( venopuncture site) was covered in bandage as well as the rest of his body so I only have her word for it. "It was noted that Mrs... was involved in the case as the senior veterinary surgeon on duty at the time and it was agreed in discussion with Miss... to proceed with the incisional biopsy." The fact is Mrs .....senior veterinary did not make any comment whatsoever regarding Maxie's blood test result. Why? Considering my whole complaint was around the blood test result why didn't she made any reference to it. My guess is she never seen it she never was told about it. "on the basis of the information provided, even if an an error of clinical judgment occurred and negligence was proved..." Of course error of judgment occurred, my dog died. ..."it would not be of such level to cross the threshold for serious professional misconduct...." That is it. The depth of RCVS investigation into my dog's death.

ILW

hachette wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand how RCVS operate. They have never investigated it. My complaint was at the Case Examiners stage. They just wrote to my ex vet asking them for their comments in regard to my complaint. Of course no vet is going to say that they were negligent or made error in judgment. There were 3 nurses and 2 vets involved one who did the surgery and senior vet who gave go ahead. I have statements from all of them. Now there is a quote from RCVS after they examined their statements. "The case examiners considered your concern that despite the blood results revealing a low platelet count (14) they proceeded with surgery. They noted that Miss... said the low platelet count was thought to be a result of platelet clumping leading to an error in the lab machine reading, but despite any possible error with the machine she had used other indicators to satisfy herself that it was reasonable to proceed, namely that there was no evidence of clotting issues seen on physical examination".. the fact is if the dog is bleeding internally there wont be any physical signs. "that blood in the syringe used to take the sample had clotted fine and that there was no bruising around venopuncture site".... The fact is blood acts differently when cut into tissue so how can you make your judgment from that also his neck ( venopuncture site) was covered in bandage as well as the rest of his body so I only have her word for it. "It was noted that Mrs... was involved in the case as the senior veterinary surgeon on duty at the time and it was agreed in discussion with Miss... to proceed with the incisional biopsy." The fact is Mrs .....senior veterinary did not make any comment whatsoever regarding Maxie's blood test result. Why? Considering my whole complaint was around the blood test result why didn't she made any reference to it. My guess is she never seen it she never was told about it. "on the basis of the information provided, even if an an error of clinical judgment occurred and negligence was proved..." Of course error of judgment occurred, my dog died. ..."it would not be of such level to cross the threshold for serious professional misconduct...." That is it. The depth of RCVS investigation into my dog's death.

So they have said "mistakes happen".
I would just leave it at that.

hachette

ILW wrote: »

So they have said "mistakes happen".
I would just leave it at that.

It wasn't your dog and you didn't watch him to die in such horrible way. He trusted me and I trusted vet. It was not a mistake it was pure ignorance. She had all the facts staring her in the face but thought she knew better. Vets are highly qualified more then medical doctors one would imagine she should have been capable of assessing blood test results.

jacques_chirac

I had a great deal of sympathy for the OP at first, but now it seems they are only interested in what money they can get. That is the only 'positive' outcome a court claim will bring. If I am wrong and they are seeking another outcome, then a claim is not the right way forward.

earthstorm

hachette wrote: »

Vets are highly qualified more then medical doctors

I had to laugh at this statement.

Vets and Medial Doctors are just as qualified as each other, but one deals with humans and the other animals.

We are all human and mistakes do happen. Medical Doctors have even being know to make mistakes

Dimey

I don't think OP is only interested in money (Jacques Chirac). Far from it.

I think she's devastated and grief stricken. I think she's put self imposed guilt on herself even though it wasn't her fault. Because it was her Mum's dog, looking after Maxie was the last thing she could do for her Mum and because of what happened, she failed.

OP wants to put that failure right by getting a genuine apology from the person/people responsible for the dog dying. And because (as usual) the organisations involved instinctively closed ranks to protect each other, OP is frustrated that every way she turns, she can't get justice.

The innocent life of a poor little dog means nothing to corporations. Sadly OP doesn't stand a chance and one day she'll have to give up and live with the injustice and her grief.

The vet will get on with her career and not give Maxie a second thought. But Hachett will remember her Mum and little Maxie with love and regret for the rest of her life.

RIP Maxie.
Hachett, I hope you will soon come to terms with the unfairness of what's happened and put it in a compartment in your mind that allows you to move on in life. I feel very sorry for you. (hug)

earthstorm

OP would your mother want to see you put yourself in an early grave with grief and worry. All the reports you have had will never bring Maxie back and i very much doubt you will get the resolution you want.

jacques_chirac

Dimey wrote: »

I don't think OP is only interested in money (Jacques Chirac). Far from it.

I think she's devastated and grief stricken. I think she's put self imposed guilt on herself even though it wasn't her fault. Because it was her Mum's dog, looking after Maxie was the last thing she could do for her Mum and because of what happened, she failed.

OP wants to put that failure right by getting a genuine apology from the person/people responsible for the dog dying. And because (as usual) the organisations involved instinctively closed ranks to protect each other, OP is frustrated that every way she turns, she can't get justice.

The innocent life of a poor little dog means nothing to corporations. Sadly OP doesn't stand a chance and one day she'll have to give up and live with the injustice and her grief.

The vet will get on with her career and not give Maxie a second thought. But Hachett will remember her Mum and little Maxie with love and regret for the rest of her life.

RIP Maxie.
Hachett, I hope you will soon come to terms with the unfairness of what's happened and put it in a compartment in your mind that allows you to move on in life. I feel very sorry for you. (hug)

Hence why counselling has been suggested to them several times.

hachette

jacques_chirac wrote: »

I had a great deal of sympathy for the OP at first, but now it seems they are only interested in what money they can get. That is the only 'positive' outcome a court claim will bring. If I am wrong and they are seeking another outcome, then a claim is not the right way forward.

what is then?