I paid a vet over £10,000, do I have rights?

[Deleted User]

Hi, I didn't report the negligent vet to RCVS. I took legal action and he admitted liability before the case reached court, he couldn't deny that he'd given the drug contrary to his practice notes. 
However, we had great difficulty with our legal case as a direct result of the 'bully boy' vet who saw fit to tamper with our evidence and to help the negligent vet. With the drug and required history removed from our liver biopsy, the underlying liver disease was cited as likely cause of the gastric trauma.
That report and comments this vet made in our records were used against us for two whole years to reduce our settlement. I wrote to the vets who'd tampered with my evidence.  i needed to speak to them and explain the difficulty this caused us. I made it clear I would accept a verbal apology but they wrote back refusing to speak to me. Their letter alone breaches the following code of conduct, 'veterinary surgeons must be open and honest with the client and respect their needs and requirements.' in their letter they tell me it's not standard practice to include extensive notes for these tests. A blatant lie, the liver biopsy submission form instructs the vet to attach such notes.  And, they actually say that this test was to aid my dog's treatment, not to construct my legal case 'or any such request from you'. Blatant breach of code.
And, It's unreasonable and unacceptable to claim that in removing a known toxin and withholding info requested by the lab is beneficial to the patient or test results.
 RCVS is claiming that disgraceful conduct is 'reasonable' which has to be in breach of the veterinary surgeons act 1966.
That letter from the vets alone proves i was subjected to professional abuse, bullying and unreasonable behaviour. And that's before you even consider that they tampered with a client's evidence in a Legal case against another vet.
The bottom line here is that RCVS cannot be trusted to regulate their profession.  And until someone in power holds them accountable this profession and the public remains at risk. 
Phew.

JJ_Egan

But a forum like this will not hold them to account .

[Deleted User]

No, but it will warn others.
I wish I'd been forewarned, because forewarned is forearmed.  When you've been bullied, abused and betrayed by a vet, then you are bullied, abused and betrayed by those who are meant to protect us, it destroys you.  I can vouch for that.

Manxman_in_exile

I'm confused.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that you took legal action against the first vets, who settled before court and "admitted liability".  What was the remedy you were seeking?  Was it payment of veterinary bills resulting from their liability?  How much did you claim and how much did you actually get?

(The RCVS can't be guilty of "misconduct in public office" because it's not a public office and it ain't a public authority either).

lincroft1710

In what way were you abused or bullied?

kayleighali

bimboz2 said:

No, but it will warn others.
I wish I'd been forewarned, because forewarned is forearmed.  When you've been bullied, abused and betrayed by a vet, then you are bullied, abused and betrayed by those who are meant to protect us, it destroys you.  I can vouch for that.

I still don't understand how you were abused or bullied? To me, it sounds like you took legal action against the vet and they admitted liability and settled...but you refused to accept this and kept contacting them wanting an apology - the apology was the money you got!
You also mention the vet code, specifically "veterinary surgeons must be open and honest with the client and respect their needs and requirements.", nowhere does it say they have to do everything you want. They clearly didn't want further communication with you and it appears that the abuse may have been coming from both sides here. The RCVS would have taken no firther action as this is what the legal action was meant to do

sheramber

kayleighali said:

bimboz2 said:

No, but it will warn others.
I wish I'd been forewarned, because forewarned is forearmed.  When you've been bullied, abused and betrayed by a vet, then you are bullied, abused and betrayed by those who are meant to protect us, it destroys you.  I can vouch for that.

I still don't understand how you were abused or bullied? To me, it sounds like you took legal action against the vet and they admitted liability and settled...but you refused to accept this and kept contacting them wanting an apology - the apology was the money you got!
You also mention the vet code, specifically "veterinary surgeons must be open and honest with the client and respect their needs and requirements.", nowhere does it say they have to do everything you want. They clearly didn't want further communication with you and it appears that the abuse may have been coming from both sides here. The RCVS would have taken no firther action as this is what the legal action was meant to do

I read is as the original vet who gave the drug settled out of court.
 But the OP wants the second vet who is claimed to have doctored the medical notes to apologise and it is he who did the bullying and then would not reply,
I don't see what an apology would achieve and the vet is not going to admit anything that could b used against him in further action. 
Insurance companies always advise not to admit anything- an apology is admitting a fault.

[Deleted User]

I don't think you understand. I never contacted the negligent vet again. I wrote to the vets I was referred to for an explanation as to why they'd seen fit to omit the drug from the notes they provided for our liver biopsy, and why they had not provided the history the lab requested.  What they did resulted in a report that corrupted our legal case. They didn't like that I was taking legal action against the first vet, they tampered with and corrupted my evidence.  One vet negligently administers a drug, another vet gets rid of the drug, classic bias and corruption. They deleted notes from our records, why do that?  They acted against me, the paying client. RCVS is a public body, albeit self regulating. They are in part funded by us.  They are public office holders and have a legal obligation to investigate our complaints in an honest and reasonable manner, and they clearly do not. 
Anyway, take from it what you will. Like I say, it's just a warning.

lincroft1710

Why do you consistently refuse to answer the question about how you were abused or bullied. The corruption you allege is neither abuse nor bullying.

dinglebert

You keep telling us this is a warning.  A warning against what?  Using a vet?  Its not a did I just don't know what you are warning peope about?