Forensic Vet Report

hachette

WTFH wrote: »

I don't think it will take the insurers and solicitors long to reach a decision. But if the legal team do not come up with the decision she wants what will happen next?

That was has been said when I asked for the forensic vet's opinion.

Valli

hachette wrote: »

That was has been said when I asked for the forensic vet's opinion.

What?

Makes no sense...

hachette

Valli wrote: »

You are waiting for a 'pay out', a phrase I used for brevity tbh, and had you read my post anyway I added 'acted upon'. While I know your insurers are not going to pay you they are going to decide whether they will pay the legal costs.

So they are going to carefully weigh the evidence and consider whether, in their opinion, you are likely to win or lose. Because if they think you will lose chances are they will be looking for a way out.

I have a feeling that they'll recommend you accept the £2K.

As has been said, what will you do if the insurers decide they won't pay your legal fees?

2K is only what it costs me to deal with Maxie's death, to me the most important part of my claim was getting money back for the surgery that killed my dog. This they refused. as for the offer of £200 for my shock and distress at the time and subsequent stress for the past year while dealing with this matter is a bit of an insult. To this day I cannot come to terms that the vet could after causing dog's bleeding just cover it up and send him home to die. Not just 1 vet 5 professionals were involved in the care of my dog. Am I to believe that 2 nurses who were putting pressure bandage on him did not know why they were doing it? They are still out there. The examlpe of breaching Animal Welfare Act 2006 at its best .

hachette

Valli wrote: »

What?

Makes no sense...

It has been said what will happened if the forensic vet report won't confirm my fears why my dog died. People did not believe what I was saying about my dog's death and that the vet was negligent.

Valli

you do muddy the waters.

There's a world of a difference between an admission of neglect and a compensation payout.

hachette

I would like you all to read this letter that I have send to DEFRA. There are so many speculations why I am doing what I am doing is it for all I can get, money? Is it revenge? What drives me, well maybe this letter can make it more clear. Although I have based it on my case this does not potray my situation because as you well know I was able to pay for the barrister's advice, forensic vet report and other vets' opinion. However many people cannot afford that. Many have taken a loan in order to pay for their pets treatment and when their pet was harmed by the negligent vet they had nowhere to go. Here is my letter.

Re: Vets negligence.
Please find enclosed a copy letter that I have been recently forced to write to RCVS together with a forensic vet report. I would be grateful if you could read that letter and the forensic vet report before you carry on reading this letter. I would like to use my case as an example of how difficult or even impossible due to current law and regulations it is for us animal companion’s owners to deal with vets that have caused harm, injury or even death through bad and inadequate treatment. Since the death of my dog over 1 year ago that was caused by my ex-vet I have found that pet owners face 2 big obstacles when trying to get justice for their harmed animal companion. Number 1 is RCVS and number 2 is the animal’s status in law as a property. We live under the illusion that if wrongdoing had happened to our animal companion we are protected by the RCVS complaints department and the vet in question if proven of wrong doing will receive some sort of punishment. The fact is that when you find yourself in the situation when you need to make a complaint this illusion is quickly shattered. If you have read the forensic vet report and my letter to RCVS you will see how and why I feel about the standard of the RCVS case examiners investigation. The RCVS were in the possession of the same documents as my forensic vet. My complaint was accepted on the basis of an issue of professional misconduct by failing to provide veterinary care that was appropriate and adequate. To me the fact that the vet could not interpret simple blood test result was clearly an inadequate standard of care and the fact that the surgery proceeded and my dog (with active bleeding) was given back to my care was inappropriate to say the least. However these words can be easily translated into negligence or error of judgement as they were in my case (possible error of judgment) and if that is what RCVS decides had occurred they have no powers to punish the vet under Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. In their acceptance of my vet’s explanation the RCVS have showed total bios towards the vet. One of the examples of this is: My vet stated and RCVS supported that statement that she had used other indicators to satisfy herself that it was reasonable to proceed with the surgery, namely that there was no evidence of clotting issues and that the blood in the syringe used to take a sample had clotted fine. This is what the forensic vet had to say about that statement. Quote: “To observe and note blood in a syringe would seem an unusual practice. Needles and syringes are usually disposed of immediately after blood has been taken and placed into sharps bin and clinical waste bin. There is no need to look at the syringe to obtain clinical information and this statement is unexpected.” There is no doubt that RCVS tried to pull the wool over my eyes by making me believe that this was normal practice to make a clinical judgment, by doing so they have not only left a negligent vet in the profession but gave the vet go ahead to make her unusual and unacceptable clinical judgments in the future. That is very worrying. So I have stumbled on my first obstacle the RCVS who care only for their own. My case was promptly closed.
Fortunately as the RCVS informed me I have one more option, taking the vet to court. Let’s see how that will work out for an average pet owner. In law my dog is a property (a “thing”) so what I am likely to be awarded by court is the price of my dog. What if my dog was just a mongrel with no economic value? Even if dog was pure breed what solicitor is going to undertake a case if their costs would be far more than what their client is likely to recover and what pet owner would risk such case unless they were very rich or their dog was the famous dancing Pudsy? So there it is a pet owner’s obstacle number 2. All doors closed. The negligent vet is left in practice without any punishment, pet owner is left grieving, devastated and angry at the inability to do anything about his pet companion’s wrongful death. This is a country of animal lovers and yet that is what we have to deal with when wrongdoing happens.
The RCVS pride themselves on the fact that only 1 or 2 cases per month go to DC action that is because the threshold of Professional Misconduct has been made so high that hardly anybody who has made a complaint can reach it.
The Animal Welfare Act 2006, while it is very welcome still does not help us to deal with vet’s negligence. Even in my case would I want to see my ex-vet to be heavily fined or sent to prison? No I would not. Although, I do believe that by sending my dog back home with active bleeding that Act has been breached. What I and most of the pet owners would like to see is the vet being suspended and made to undertake compulsory further training before they are allowed back into the profession. This cannot be ordered by court.
In 2003 campaigners against negligent vets handed a 5,878 name petition to Buckingham Palace calling on the Queen to intervene. There are several other still ongoing petitions. It is clear from my case that over 10 years on nothing at all has changed to protect our animals and us owners from negligent vets. They are left in the profession (with RCVS blessing) to cause more misery and grief. There are clearly thousands of people unhappy about the current law and regulations so why is the government insisting on being committed to retaining the principle of self-regulation for the veterinary profession while it is no longer acceptable for the animal companion’s owners?
I note that the EFRA committee made an inquiry into the need to replace the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 in 2003 and list of recommendations were presented to the Government in 2008. Subsequently DEFRA decided to walk away from work on a White Paper due to insufficient funds and lack of human resources so we are still suffering the consequences of this archaic system we live in. The sad part is that DEFRA is aware that thousands of people are very dissatisfied and harm is being done to our animals by the very people who we trust give them proper care and treatment and these people are still allowed to practice as the RCVS does not act for the public but their own. This profession seem to be the most protected in UK and we pet owners all 26 million of us are “left out in the cold” The veterinary profession is losing peoples trust. Is that DEFRA’s way of caring for the welfare of animals, by turning a blind eye?
With approx 20,000 veterinary surgeons currently practising in UK and almost 6,000 of unhappy owners who have signed the petition in 2003 there should be without a doubt huge concern for our companion animal’s welfare.
I look forward to your comments on this matter.

Chickabiddybex

I'm not sure what anyone could comment on that. You've just stated some unfortunate things. Other than "I'm sorry for your loss, it's a shame about the system" what else is there to say?

Also because of how amateurish the style of writing is (obviously not sent by a professional, or someone who has had it checked by a professional) I doubt it will be seen as important enough to even read all the way through.

Why don't you put your time, effort and money into setting up a charity that supplies legal aid to people fighting for animal rights or something instead? Then you might be able to actually work together with others to change the laws so animals have better protection.

hachette

Chickabiddybex wrote: »

I'm not sure what anyone could comment on that. You've just stated some unfortunate things. Other than "I'm sorry for your loss, it's a shame about the system" what else is there to say?

Also because of how amateurish the style of writing is (obviously not sent by a professional, or someone who has had it checked by a professional) I doubt it will be seen as important enough to even read all the way through.

Why don't you put your time, effort and money into setting up a charity that supplies legal aid to people fighting for animal rights or something instead? Then you might be able to actually work together with others to change the laws so animals have better protection.

It is amateurish as it has been written by a normal person. What makes you think that only professionals can write to the goverement in order to be heard?

RosiPossum

Hachette, could you edit that into paragraphs please? I can't read a block of text like that.

The reason people think you're out for compensation is because you find it an insult to be offered 10% of the random amount you chose to ask for for suffering. If it was not about financial payout at all, you would accept this.
They seem fair to offer the costs you incurred because of Maxie's death, but not the surgery. He shouldn't have been discharged and died, so they are the costs you incurred after. Although one could argue that you'd face these costs even if he died of old age.

Valli

What is the point/aim of the letter?

if you are going to take your vet to court for negligence why are you wrting to DEFRA?

Muddying the waters again Hachette.

Decide on a plan of action and follow it.

Re the letter - I wouldn't write or send that.
I''m a normal person, by the way. But I would use paragraphs and check my spelling. I would also indicate to DEFRA what I wanted them to do. Not just ramble on.