Gobsmacked by RCVS reply

hachette

Undervalued wrote: »

I'm probably going to regret asking this but what legal action are they taking (or you are hoping they will take)?

Somehow I doubt normal legal expenses insurance would cover seeking a Judicial Review of the RCVS's decision which they would fight tooth and nail.

So, I can only assume you are suing the vet for damages in the County Court?

If so, you might very well get some compensation (without admission of liability) but it won't be a great deal and it won't in any way give you the "justice" you seem determined to seek.

Your legal insurance will require you to accept a reasonable offer to settle. The vet's insurers will rely on the RCVS decision but may well offer some some small settlement as it is cheaper than fighting. It will have a confidentiality clause attached. Reject the offer and your insurers will walk away, you will be on you own and at significant risk of paying costs if you lose or are awarded less.

The chance of it ever getting to court is slim. Even if it did a County Court judgement sets no precedent.

OK, it might put a few quid in your bank account but it won't give you "justice".

RCVS does not deal with negligence so the fact that they have not taken any action against the vet is irrelevant to the court. The Vets practise insurers have already admitted what they called “an error made by their insured” and made me an offer. However this offer did not include the money I have paid for the surgery that killed my dog and they offered me only £200 for my shock and distress that I have found insulting so I did not accept it. I will not pay for the surgery that killed my dog. This is what my insurer’s legal team are looking at now. Forensic vet report (expert witness) is what courts rely upon.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

If you are planning on taking this down a legal route, posting all of the details on here may well jeopardise your case. It is awful that you have lost your beloved dog, but if there is a case to answer, it would be a shame if your postings in a public forum were to affect the outcome.

I have a legal background - believe me, it happens.

hachette

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

If you are planning on taking this down a legal route, posting all of the details on here may well jeopardise your case. It is awful that you have lost your beloved dog, but if there is a case to answer, it would be a shame if your postings in a public forum were to affect the outcome.

I have a legal background - believe me, it happens.

Thank you for that but don't see how this forum postings could affect my case.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

hachette wrote: »

Thank you for that but don't see how this forum postings could affect my case.

Because you have posted details of the case in the public domain. In any legal proceedings, the defence will and can use any information you have posted in the public domain against you.

As I said, it happens. People have lost cases for this very reason.

hachette

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Because you have posted details of the case in the public domain. In any legal proceedings, the defence will and can use any information you have posted in the public domain against you.

As I said, it happens. People have lost cases for this very reason.

Are they going to look in all the forums what has been posted ? Also
what I have posted here were facts that if I have to I would use. Nothing that I have said is not what I truly believe.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

hachette wrote: »

Are they going to look in all the forums what has been posted ? Also
what I have posted here were facts that if I have to I would use. Nothing that I have said is not what I truly believe.

Sigh.

A very quick search on Google gave me the following links to your posts on here, but also duplicate posts on 2 other forums:

http://mysmelly.com/Archive/NegligentCausedDogsDeath/cmqqg/post.htm
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4828494
http://community.preloved.co.uk/forums/discussion/96017?startrow=1#983536

Now bearing in mind I have already said I have a legal background, if I was the defence in this case, within 1 minute I have my defence - I would argue firstly that the case would be difficult to hear in court because you have posted in the public domain and included facts that easily identify the case. Therefore, any (unlikely) hearing before a jury could would be prejudicial. Secondly, I would argue that you have launched an online attack on the vet and RCVS and I would have enough evidence to prove that your motive for bringing a case is questionable.

Those 2 things alone would be enough to put a halt to your case.

I'm absolutely sure that If I spent the next few hours going through all your posts, I would have several other arguments up my sleeve. However, it is late. I am going to go and let my pack out and head off the land of nod.

Good night.

emsywoo123

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Sigh.

A very quick search on Google gave me the following links to your posts on here, but also duplicate posts on 2 other forums:

http://mysmelly.com/Archive/NegligentCausedDogsDeath/cmqqg/post.htm
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4828494
http://community.preloved.co.uk/forums/discussion/96017?startrow=1#983536

Now bearing in mind I have already said I have a legal background, if I was the defence in this case, within 1 minute I have my defence - I would argue firstly that the case would be difficult to hear in court because you have posted in the public domain and included facts that easily identify the case. Therefore, any (unlikely) hearing before a jury could would be prejudicial. Secondly, I would argue that you have launched an online attack on the vet and RCVS and I would have enough evidence to prove that your motive for bringing a case is questionable.

Those 2 things alone would be enough to put a halt to your case.

I'm absolutely sure that If I spent the next few hours going through all your posts, I would have several other arguments up my sleeve. However, it is late. I am going to go and let my pack out and head off the land of nod.

Good night.

Posts like this make me glad to be part of MSE. The sheer breadth of experience of members, who give their skills, knowledge, time and expertise so freely may well save the OP (and potentially others) time and heartache.

OP, I have a veterinary background (nurse not vet) so am loath to say anything. If I start I might not stop.

Valli

And YTO (abbreviated for my convenience) there were other posts where OP gave such detailed information that the forum team has had to delete posts and close a thread.

I do believe that OP is expending a lot of her time and energy here and that her case, if pursued, would be unsuccesful. For this reason I wish, for her own peace of mind, she could call a halt to all this and start to move on.
I don't, for a minute, doubt her experience has been a traumatic and stressful one; I just believe she is embarking upon an unwinnable battle which willl be detrimental to her health should she continue to fight.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

Valli wrote: »

And YTO (abbreviated for my convenience) there were other posts where OP gave such detailed information that the forum team has had to delete posts and close a thread.

I do believe that OP is expending a lot of her time and energy here and that her case, if pursued, would be unsuccesful. For this reason I wish, for her own peace of mind, she could call a halt to all this and start to move on.
I don't, for a minute, doubt her experience has been a traumatic and stressful one; I just believe she is embarking upon an unwinnable battle which willl be detrimental to her health should she continue to fight.

Couldn't agree more.

peachyprice

hachette wrote: »

Thank you for that but don't see how this forum postings could affect my case.

Just google 'sub judice rule' and 'contempt of court'. All will become clear.

Luckily for you your insurers haven't even spoken about this going to court yet, once/if they do you have an awful lot of tracks to cover.