Forensic Vet Report

1jim

Not necessarily, you have to be reasonable. The larger the report the longer it will take to review. The more complex the report the longer it will take to review. They will need time to examine, consider, refute or concur with the findings.

But what is the deadline for if not to commence legal action?

No point in setting deadline if there is no plan or no intention of carrying out the consequence.

I suggested 28 days as a starting point, in reality I would expect this to last a lot longer. Don't forget, they will understand the law, they will do whatever is necessary to minimise payouts and will look for most cost effective solution.....for them. Their job is not to make it easy for you I'm afraid.

My best advice in this is to really seek professional advice and support if you intent to pursue this further. Most solicitors will discuss this briefly for free at least

hachette

I have noticed that my letter to RCVS has been removed again. What happened to deomocratic country freedom of speech and all that.

What is the problem with my letter? It has nothing in it but facts. It already been sent to RCVS and DEFRA and some media. My dog’s death is not just about compensation I may get it is about what government (DEFRA) knew 10 years ago and made inquiries and recommendation to government and then they walked away from it.

hachette

So here it is again. If anybody has a problem with this letter please let me know.

I write this letter to voice my utter dissatisfaction and I would like some explanation as to why my complaint has been closed by case examiners. I am now in possession of a forensic vet’s report that has confirmed all the fears I had as how inadequately and inappropriately my dog was treated. My little dog Maxie has bled to death 2 hours after I brought him home from a routine biopsy. Maxie was heavily bandaged therefore I had no idea that he was bleeding until it was too late. The Surgery has been carried out despite of the fact that his platelets count on pre-operative blood result was only 14. With my complaint I have provided post mortem report, clinical records and blood test results. Myself as a lay-observer I could not understand why a veterinary surgeon would proceed while Maxie’s blood had no ability to clot. What is even worse in this case that my dog’s has been sent home with an active bleeding event. This has been confirmed by the expert witness report. The report also completely discredits my vets and her colleague’s senior vet explanations yet these explanations have been accepted by the case examiners. I can only conclude that your case examiners standard of expertise must also be below the average expected from a competent vet.

My complaint was taken on the basis I quote :

“The issues of professional misconduct identified from your complaint are as follows:

Your allegation that (text removed by MSE Forum Team) failed to provide veterinary care that was appropriate and adequate.”


In the RCVS final reply based on the explanation given and all the records provided by me my vet’s actions were categorised not as inappropriate and inadequate but as a possible error in judgment, something of course RCVS do not deal with. How convenient is that.

Would you say that for a veterinary surgeon not being able to interpret blood test results is adequate? Vets rely on blood tests everyday in order to treat/diagnose animals correctly and such lack of basic knowledge in my opinion is seriously deficient. Would you say that proceeding with non urgent surgery while there was a risk that the animal will bleed to death was appropriate? Would you say that sending the animal home bandaged with active bleeding was appropriate? I think it is safe to say that the answer to all these questions is no. As to the latter it was most unethical and unprofessional, cruel and deceitful. If the vet cannot recognise that animal in their care is bleeding as my vet had implied was not happening then they have no place in this profession. However in this case I believe she was well aware hence a pressure bandage. That is even worse. Clearly a case of out of sight, out of mind, hope for the best. At no time while in their care was the bandage removed and wound checked prior to discharge.

The above was not just a possible error of judgment. It was a seriously inadequate and inappropriate treatment, the result of which was then hidden away with bandages.

RCVS Serious Professional Misconduct quote:

“Serious professional misconduct does not include straightforward clinical mistakes, but if a veterinary surgeon misleads a client about what happened this could amount to serious professional misconduct.”

Would you say that my vet was honest with me when discharging my dog? She has made a number of errors and then tried to cover it up without a thought of how serious the result of her actions could be. She informed me that everything went fine, the lump was just fluid with little blood and blood results were good.

This is a cause for yet another question. Has Animal Welfare Act 2006 “1 (b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so “ been breached by my vet and 2(c)” he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all circumstances to prevent that happening” been breached by the senior vet?

Can I ask how many animals a vet needs to cause the death of by inappropriate and inadequate treatment before it can be classified as a professional misconduct? 1, 3 ,10,100, is there a limit?

Well in my view 1 is enough because that 1 was my little dog and his death was something that should have never have happened and by writing this I am hoping to save 2, 3.... 10?

My little dog trusted me and I trusted the vet. Never in the million years would I have ever thought that the vet can have such low knowledge in such simple matters and be left still practising, without even a recommendation of further training.

While I appreciate that the vet who carried out the surgery was practising for just over two years I would like to stress that 3 veterinary nurses including the senior nurse and 2 vets including the senior veterinary surgeon were involved in the care of my dog.

It would appear that when it comes to dealing with complaints RCVS is “barking up the wrong tree”
I would like to refer to disciplinary action taken against a vet and senior nurse (text removed by MSE Forum Team) simply for showing compassion. The vet has failed to put a cat to sleep as instructed by the client when the senior nurse offered to care for the cat. Both have been suspended for few months for trying to save this cat’s life, for showing compassion that one would expect from the vet and veterinary nurse. I think just a warning would be more appropriate in this case. My dog on the other hand received treatment well below expected standard, the blunder made by the vet was then withheld from me and camouflaged by bandage and then he was discharged home in a critical condition. A critical condition that has been caused by the vet. Well this vet had done no wrong in RCVS eyes and is back in the profession. If you consider actions of the punished vet/nurse and the unpunished, which vet would you prefer to take care of your animal companion?

It makes me sad that my case has now become financial issue but sadly getting money back for my dog's awful treatment plus other financial loss I have suffered due to his death is the only way I can get their addmition to the wrongdoing that had occured.
What RCVS is doing as self regulated profession is allowing bad vets to hide behind “RCVS skirts” while we animal companion’s owners, all 26 million of us have no protection whatsoever against negligent vets in this archaic system that need to be challenged.

wealdroam

hachette wrote: »

What happened to deomocratic country freedom of speech and all that.

From the rules:

Is this a 'free speech' forum?
No. This isn't a 'free speech' forum. It's important the main purpose of the site is protected, and having a 'say anything' forum does the opposite. There are plenty of other sites with those type of forums available, so if you want hotly contentious debate, we'd prefer you do it there.

Also, could it be that you left people's names in your earlier copy of the letter you posted?

There are certainly two individuals named in your latest post, which I imagine may lead to it's removal again.

1jim

Yes, I'd imagine you would need to remove the names of the people concerned, especially as you are considering legal action


On another note, you really need to try and depersonalise your letter as it will have more impact, the case for reference has no relationship with your case so confuses matters. It's difficult but try and depersonalise your letters, that's why legal representation is important, they will do this for you

lincroft1710

hachette wrote: »

What is the problem with my letter? It has nothing in it but facts.

Not quite true, it also contains opinions and emotions

It already been sent to RCVS and DEFRA and some media.

Which media? The wrong media attention could do your case more harm than good

My dog’s death is not just about compensation I may get it is about what government (DEFRA) knew 10 years ago and made inquiries and recommendation to government and then they walked away from it.

Which is?

Like any government department or agency, DEFRA do what their masters (the government at the time) tell them to, they have very little say in influencing government policy.

hachette

wealdroam wrote: »

From the rules:


Also, could it be that you left people's names in your earlier copy of the letter you posted?

There are certainly two individuals named in your latest post, which I imagine may lead to it's removal again.

The 2 names I have left in my letter are on the RCVS site . As the vets were suspended for few months it was public knowledge.

hachette

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Like any government department or agency, DEFRA do what their masters (the government at the time) tell them to, they have very little say in influencing government policy.

The fact is that it was the goverment that was keen to make changes and it was DEFRA that changed their mind.

hachette

1jim wrote: »

Yes, I'd imagine you would need to remove the names of the people concerned, especially as you are considering legal action


On another note, you really need to try and depersonalise your letter as it will have more impact, the case for reference has no relationship with your case so confuses matters. It's difficult but try and depersonalise your letters, that's why legal representation is important, they will do this for you

What I was trying to highlight is that good vet and nurse were suspended while negligent vets are given OK to practice. This cannot be right. Which vet would you prefer to treat your pet the suspened one or mine?

wealdroam

hachette wrote: »

The 2 names I have left in my letter are on the RCVS site . As the vets were suspended for few months it was public knowledge.

Yes, you had certainly left those two names in place, but you had also left the names of two ladies directly involved in your case.