Vets Operation Fees

pbartlett

It might help if you think of other examples - you take car in for repair - it comes back - fails again - you take it back to the garage - they replace a second part - you say why didn't you do that in the first place - garage says we don't normally do that ?

What you need to do is show that a reasonable vetenary surgeon (or garage mechanic) SHOULD have in the first place used  splints. It may well be that the hospital is right - the best and normal course was NOT to use splints in the first place as they cause rubbing. You need a professional view.

Supersonos

Dal_Whinnie said:

The reason, in our opinion...

Unless you're a vet, your opinion is pretty meaningless.  You need a professional opinion.

JamoLew

Dal_Whinnie said:

Our dog had a cancerous growth on a knee joint which required surgery to remove. For this, we were referred to a specialist Veterinary Hospital by whom we were quoted for removal of the growth and signed a consent form which included following:

• Permission to undertake the surgery together with any other procedures that may be necessary
• Understanding of risk of sedation and anaesthetics
• Understanding that final fees may differ from estimate

 Following the operation, the wound did not heal, despite various attempts by our own vet. The reason, in our opinion, was failure to splint the joint so that it was impossible to keep the wound stable. 

 We subsequently had to take the dog back to the Hospital where the wound was re-opened, cleaned and re-stitched as well as being splintered. The wound than successfully healed. We were charged a further amount totalling c50% of the original cost. 

Under s55 of the Consumer Rights Act we have “the right to require the trader to perform the service again, to the extent necessary to complete its performance in conformity with the contract”.  On this basis we declined to pay the additional costs since the first operation failed to achieve what they had contracted to undertake. 

The Hospital rebutted this and referred it to their insurers who have advised that the relevant measure is a test of professional negligence and not based on the end result. Having undertaken a peer review the insurers have determined that there was no professional negligence. 

The reasoning for not using a splint has subsequently been explained to us in that this could cause rubbing sores and injuries.

My view is that the service originally quoted for would include the successful healing of the wound. No unexpected issues arose during the operation. The surgeon took the decision not to splint (which has been supported by the insurers) but having taken that decision, in my view, should actually repeat this part of the operation irrespective of whether there was any professional negligence.

I would welcome other’s views on this. 

You need more than your opinion to bring a successful claim

As with human care - some aspects are evidence driven - others are clinician opinion driven. You need to establish that:

a) the use of a split would be the "norm" and evidence driven
b) the reasons that it was not used were not sound clinical decisions

Undervalued

Unless you can get an expert opinion, from a specialist vet of at least the same level as those that treated your animal, that the original treatment was negligently deficient I think you will struggle to defend a claim.

Whether they will actually take you to court for the money, particularly if there is any valid question as to whether they did all the right things, is another matter. However if they do you will need expert evidence which you will have to pay for (initially at least) and if you lose it will cost you more than they are currently seeking.

sheramber

When the wound didn't heal dod your own vet not consider splinting?
It  may be that the specialist's professional judgement that the original surgery did not need splinting but  the more radical second surgery  warranted it.

bris

Get an expert to agree they were negligent (a hard thing to do with with the insurers already stating they weren't).

Without negligence then your case is very weak, like all surgery animal or human it comes with risks.  

unholyangel

Dal_Whinnie said:

Thankyou all for these comments and I certainly accept (as with any service) that there is a risk of additional complications arising and the potential increased costs to me. I am not really questioning the skill employed by the surgeon, more, I am questioning the protection of the Consumer Rights Act. The vets had the option as to whether to splint or not and did not discuss with us. As I said, the peer review undertaken by the insurers decided that there was no negligence but does that mean I have no claim under the Consumer Rights Act? If that is the position Is there any case law which supports this conclusion?

But you are, because the protection under the Consumer Rights Act is that a service is to be performed with reasonable care and skill. Chapter 4, sections 49-53. If not reasonable care & skill, which other provision do you think would cover the scenario? 

What you effectively need to show is that the vet done something no reasonable professional would have done or didn't do something that a reasonable professional would have done. What the explanatory notes of the Consumer Rights Act says on the matter is:

It is generally accepted that relevant to whether a person has met the standard of reasonable care and skill are industry standards or codes of practice. The price paid for the service can also be a factor in determining the level of care and skill that needs to be exercised in order to be reasonable. For example, a consumer might expect a lower standard of care and skill from a quick and cheap repair service than from a more expensive and thorough one.

I can't tell you if they've failed that standard, because i'm not a vet. But I can tell you that it seems to be what your entire claim rests on. IMO it would wise to first speak to your vet and see if they can explain to you why proceeded as they did. Then get a 2nd opinion. 

Dal_Whinnie

Thankyou everyone for your further comments, I will respond as follows:

1. My understanding of the Consumer Rights Act is that not only must the provider use reasonable care and skill but any information provided (or not provided to the customer) should be taken into account and the price should be reasonable. Clearly, if the provider is negligent then the case is straightforward but even if they are deemed not to be negligent surely the other points still apply. We were not advised about the pros and cons of splinting in advance, only when we questioned it. We were quoted a fee and the only possible extras advised was if the cancer had spread further than expected. The second operation meant the ultimate cost was at least 50% greater than the original estimate. We were only given a consent form in relation to the anaesthesia. To my mind the original quote was therefore a reasonable price to pay. 
2. I have tried to relate to other services and the garage one is an interesting one although in this case, the 'fault' was fixed, it just didn't turn out to be permanent (or at least last a reasonable time).
3. My vets liaised with the hospital throughout the process. It would be wrong to say the second operation was more radical, it was basically cleaning the original wound, re-stitching it and then adding the splint to avoid movement in the joint where the wound was.
4. I have also re-read the explanatory notes but think I have covered the point's raised therein, the service we undertook was definitely not a 'low price' option!
5. I will have a further discussion with our Vet before proceeding although they are in the same Group as the Hospital so may not be prepared to offer an official opinion.