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

waamo

I'm really confused. The first vet appears to have admitted what they did and settled up. So why is there an argument about this second vet who's evidence appears completely unnecessary anyway? 

[Deleted User]

Someone asked earlier how I'd been abused. Abuse of trust and professional abuse is exactly that. Abuse. I trusted the vets I was referred to to carry out a risky procedure on my dog, a liver biopsy, for medical and legal purpose. I didn't think for one minute they'd act against me. I didn't think to say 'now don't forget, tell the pathologist about the drug, make sure you fill out the submission form correctly, include the information the lab asks for'. No, I trusted and expected them to do their job, a proper job.  They didn't. They left the drug out and ignored the labs request for specific information resulting in a report that favoured the first vet.  That report was  used against us by the first vet. It was a hard and very worrying time and I was angry that this report had been corrupted.  They lied in their letter to me when I questioned why they'd done this, and to tell me in writing that I wasn't allowed to have this drug factored in this test is more professional abuse. They also say they did this for the benefit of my dog. How can it benefit the patient or test results to hide a known toxin and not give the lab the required information. More professional abuse, no one should have to swallow that nonsense.
If you look up the definition of professional abuse, that's exactly it.
Then to be told the pathologist agreed with them, the drug wasn't to blame, when the pathologist didn't even know about the drug.
The warning is, if ever you are in a similar position as I was, do not trust that your vet will remain impartial, or that he'll be open and honest and  respect your interest needs and requirements, which he is obliged to do as per his code of conduct mentioned before.
The warning extends to RCVS, because if they say this behaviour is 'reasonable', that it's ok to act against a client in a legal case, or any other case, then they can't be trusted to investigate client complaints.  

elsien

I have to be honest, if I see the words bullying and abuse being slung around In this sort of context I tend to take the information less seriously. 

Taking some of the emotion out goes a long way in getting people to listen. 

[Deleted User]

I think it's been established now that there was no abuse or bullying.  

It may be that English isn't the OPs first language, although most of it reads ok otherwise.  It's either that, or a lot of hyperbole.

It's a shame, because it does detract from any real issues that might be hidden in the thread.

Manxman_in_exile

OP - I'm still confused.  You sued the first vets and according to you they settled your claim before it got to court by "admitting liability", but then, subsequently, a second vet carried out some tests indicating that the first vet was not liable?  If the first vet had admitted liability why did you allow the second vet to carry out tests not required if the litigation had already been settled?

How much did you sue the first vet for (the thread title implies £10k) and how much was the settlement?

dinglebert

Manxman_in_exile said:

OP - I'm still confused.  You sued the first vets and according to you they settled your claim before it got to court by "admitting liability", but then, subsequently, a second vet carried out some tests indicating that the first vet was not liable?  If the first vet had admitted liability why did you allow the second vet to carry out tests not required if the litigation had already been settled?

How much did you sue the first vet for (the thread title implies £10k) and how much was the settlement?

Misread then wrote rubbish based on incorrect information.  Probably not the last time I'll do that.

sheramber

dinglebert said:

 

I am not reading anywhere she won anything from the first vet or indeed that the first vet admitted liability for anything.

 

Did you miss "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. "

Manxman_in_exile

Eh???

(What I was querying has been corrected).

dinglebert

sheramber said:

dinglebert said:

 

I am not reading anywhere she won anything from the first vet or indeed that the first vet admitted liability for anything.

 

Did you miss "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. "

Yes missed it completely.  That important bit of information was not in the original post and I missed it in subsequent posts.  Makes my post rubbish really so I'll delete it.  Mind you I am now completely confused about what and who the OP has done and to who and when.  Think I need a cup of coffee.

waamo

Deleted_User said:

I think it's been established now that there was no abuse or bullying.  

It may be that English isn't the OPs first language, although most of it reads ok otherwise.  It's either that, or a lot of hyperbole.

It's a shame, because it does detract from any real issues that might be hidden in the thread.

I think this is spot on. There is potentially a very serious issue here but it seems to be getting lost in hyperbole and confusing explanations.

I think we could do with seeing the letter the second vet sent explaining why they left out information. It may be they had a genuine reason or it may be they were indeed "covering up" but so far we have only had opinions and one side of a very emotional story.