My Vets Advice and Bill

adcenv

Our dog was being sick and had diarohea...we didnt know how sick.  We had pet insurance which said £3k - we hadnt checked it at that point.  My wife took him in to vets on monday awaiting advice from vet.  At this point we were in the mind of 'if its just antibiotics etc then we will not use our insurance'.  When the blood test came back an indicated it wasnt anything like cancer etc, but that it was likely that he would need to be kept in overnight to rehydrate my wife decided that we should use the insurance and my wife told the lady at the desk that she was going home to get the insurers details and call them.  At this point the lady at the vets said to my very upset wife that ‘the practice could take our insurance forward on our behalf as it had a direct portal with the insurers'.  My wife took this advice on board believing that the vets were acting in our best interests and let them do this for us.  I then arrived at the vets.  Nobody made me aware this advice had been given to my wife.  We both went into see the vet and he then showed ME (not my wife) a consent form outlining POTENTIAL treatment (over £2k).  My wife and I agreed to the vet that we would be using our insurance and I then signed the form.  As I left the vets I said to my wife that we should call our vets and make sure we are covered for all that work before they do it.  To which my wife replied that it wasnt necessary because the vets were dealing with it for us.  4 days later our dog comes out.  One week later we get a bill for £2800 from the insurers of which only £200 is covered.  Our argument is that my wife and I relied on the advice of the vet practice.  Their advice changed our original plans to check with our insurers, and in an upset state we relied on them believing they were best suited to deal with insurers on our behalf, and for our benefit.  Originally we though the insurers were to blame and questioned why they let the work continue when they new we were not covered.  But they advised us that the vets had not checked with them on our behalf and simply put a bill in once our dog had undergone 24/7 care for four days in a vets being rehydrated and given antibiotics and paracetomol.  Our dog came out still sick and we cared for him 24/7 for a further 6 weeks before we had him put down by another vet.  When we questioned our vets as to why they are giving out incomplete, ambiguous and misleading advice at such a traumatic time, and why they had not followed their governing bodies Best Practice to check with the insurers before doing the work, they simply said that 'hadnt told us NOT to call our insurers' so it was our fault.  Then over the course of several letters the vet replied to us in person accusing us of a 'slew of misinformation' because we were questioning the policy and procedure at his practice.  Finally, the vet wrote a really accusational email to us saying that we were wrong and our account was wrong.  He then wrote a timeline of events as he said that happened to prove he was right and we were wrong and discredit us.  But I went to his practice and got the documents and proved that he was completely wrong and totally incorrect.  The then wrote back offering £200 of the bill for his mistake in the letter.  We then took it to vets arbitration which achieved nothing except his parting salvo through mediation being that he was going to pursue this by debt collectors.  We are thinking about letting this go to court.  Its not right in our opinion.

powerful_Rogue

adcenv said:

Our dog was being sick and had diarohea...we didnt know how sick.  We had pet insurance which said £3k - we hadnt checked it at that point.  My wife took him in to vets on monday awaiting advice from vet.  At this point we were in the mind of 'if its just antibiotics etc then we will not use our insurance'.  When the blood test came back an indicated it wasnt anything like cancer etc, but that it was likely that he would need to be kept in overnight to rehydrate my wife decided that we should use the insurance and my wife told the lady at the desk that she was going home to get the insurers details and call them.  At this point the lady at the vets said to my very upset wife that ‘the practice could take our insurance forward on our behalf as it had a direct portal with the insurers'.  My wife took this advice on board believing that the vets were acting in our best interests and let them do this for us.  I then arrived at the vets.  Nobody made me aware this advice had been given to my wife.  We both went into see the vet and he then showed ME (not my wife) a consent form outlining POTENTIAL treatment (over £2k).  My wife and I agreed to the vet that we would be using our insurance and I then signed the form.  As I left the vets I said to my wife that we should call our vets and make sure we are covered for all that work before they do it.  To which my wife replied that it wasnt necessary because the vets were dealing with it for us.  4 days later our dog comes out.  One week later we get a bill for £2800 from the insurers of which only £200 is covered.  Our argument is that my wife and I relied on the advice of the vet practice.  Their advice changed our original plans to check with our insurers, and in an upset state we relied on them believing they were best suited to deal with insurers on our behalf, and for our benefit.  Originally we though the insurers were to blame and questioned why they let the work continue when they new we were not covered.  But they advised us that the vets had not checked with them on our behalf and simply put a bill in once our dog had undergone 24/7 care for four days in a vets being rehydrated and given antibiotics and paracetomol.  Our dog came out still sick and we cared for him 24/7 for a further 6 weeks before we had him put down by another vet.  When we questioned our vets as to why they are giving out incomplete, ambiguous and misleading advice at such a traumatic time, and why they had not followed their governing bodies Best Practice to check with the insurers before doing the work, they simply said that 'hadnt told us NOT to call our insurers' so it was our fault.  Then over the course of several letters the vet replied to us in person accusing us of a 'slew of misinformation' because we were questioning the policy and procedure at his practice.  Finally, the vet wrote a really accusational email to us saying that we were wrong and our account was wrong.  He then wrote a timeline of events as he said that happened to prove he was right and we were wrong and discredit us.  But I went to his practice and got the documents and proved that he was completely wrong and totally incorrect.  The then wrote back offering £200 of the bill for his mistake in the letter.  We then took it to vets arbitration which achieved nothing except his parting salvo through mediation being that he was going to pursue this by debt collectors.  We are thinking about letting this go to court.  Its not right in our opinion.

I ploughed through that huge wall of text, but i'm still none the wiser. What is your actual complaint?

Vets use a sytem called Pawtel to submit information to the insurance company. It's then up to the insurance company whether they accept the claim. You should have checked with your insurance company. This is not the fault of the vets.

Undervalued

adcenv said:

Our dog was being sick and had diarohea...we didnt know how sick.  We had pet insurance which said £3k - we hadnt checked it at that point.  My wife took him in to vets on monday awaiting advice from vet.  At this point we were in the mind of 'if its just antibiotics etc then we will not use our insurance'.  When the blood test came back an indicated it wasnt anything like cancer etc, but that it was likely that he would need to be kept in overnight to rehydrate my wife decided that we should use the insurance and my wife told the lady at the desk that she was going home to get the insurers details and call them.  At this point the lady at the vets said to my very upset wife that ‘the practice could take our insurance forward on our behalf as it had a direct portal with the insurers'.  My wife took this advice on board believing that the vets were acting in our best interests and let them do this for us.  I then arrived at the vets.  Nobody made me aware this advice had been given to my wife.  We both went into see the vet and he then showed ME (not my wife) a consent form outlining POTENTIAL treatment (over £2k).  My wife and I agreed to the vet that we would be using our insurance and I then signed the form.  As I left the vets I said to my wife that we should call our vets and make sure we are covered for all that work before they do it.  To which my wife replied that it wasnt necessary because the vets were dealing with it for us.  4 days later our dog comes out.  One week later we get a bill for £2800 from the insurers of which only £200 is covered.  Our argument is that my wife and I relied on the advice of the vet practice.  Their advice changed our original plans to check with our insurers, and in an upset state we relied on them believing they were best suited to deal with insurers on our behalf, and for our benefit.  Originally we though the insurers were to blame and questioned why they let the work continue when they new we were not covered.  But they advised us that the vets had not checked with them on our behalf and simply put a bill in once our dog had undergone 24/7 care for four days in a vets being rehydrated and given antibiotics and paracetomol.  Our dog came out still sick and we cared for him 24/7 for a further 6 weeks before we had him put down by another vet.  When we questioned our vets as to why they are giving out incomplete, ambiguous and misleading advice at such a traumatic time, and why they had not followed their governing bodies Best Practice to check with the insurers before doing the work, they simply said that 'hadnt told us NOT to call our insurers' so it was our fault.  Then over the course of several letters the vet replied to us in person accusing us of a 'slew of misinformation' because we were questioning the policy and procedure at his practice.  Finally, the vet wrote a really accusational email to us saying that we were wrong and our account was wrong.  He then wrote a timeline of events as he said that happened to prove he was right and we were wrong and discredit us.  But I went to his practice and got the documents and proved that he was completely wrong and totally incorrect.  The then wrote back offering £200 of the bill for his mistake in the letter.  We then took it to vets arbitration which achieved nothing except his parting salvo through mediation being that he was going to pursue this by debt collectors.  We are thinking about letting this go to court.  Its not right in our opinion.

Which, to be blunt is correct.

You are the person with the contract / policy with the insurance company and are ultimately liable for any fees you incur if, for whatever reason, they are not covered by your insurance.

If you believe the insurance should have covered this then your claim is against the insurance company, not the vet. I imagine the vet's terms of business make it very clear that the client is liable for any fees not covered by insurance. 

A vet has a legal duty to provide emergency first aid or, if appropriate, to put down a sick or injured animal even if there is nobody to pay their bill but that is all.

pinkshoes

SUMMARY:

Your dog was sick

You took it to the vets. They offered to deal with the insurance on your behalf.

Neither you nor your wife checked with your insurance that this treatment would be covered. 

You were then sent a bill for £2800 because the treatment was not covered.

The dog was put down 6 weeks later by a different vet.


Ultimately, although the vet offered to deal with the insurance for you, how on earth would they know what your policy did and did not cover? That would have been entirely up to you to consult the policy.

Also, even if you did consult the policy and discover you were not covered, are you saying you would have just let your dog suffer and die and not have it treated?!?! It is highly likely that you would have gone ahead with the treatment to save your dog and paid the bill which would be no different to the scenario you have now. 

Sorry for the loss of your dog, but I'm afraid it was your responsibility to know the details of your insurance policy. Pets are expensive. 

adcenv

Appreciate all the views.  My point is this.  We took the dog in and planned to deal with our insurers direct.  Until our vets gave us their professional advice that they could take it over for us.  Then we believed they were dealing with it, and wouldnt be carrying out work we were not covered for before checking for us.  If we had just carried on as we intended we would have discovered we were not covered. 

Im not disputing their care and certianly would have paid for the overnight rehydration...but not another 3 days of 24/7 giving my 13 year old dog paracetomol, anti sickness tablets to the tune of £700 a day...I could and did do that for 6 weeks.

cx6

i am really so so sorry about the loss of your dog.

powerful_Rogue

adcenv said:

Appreciate all the views.  My point is this.  We took the dog in and planned to deal with our insurers direct.  Until our vets gave us their professional advice that they could take it over for us.  Then we believed they were dealing with it, and wouldnt be carrying out work we were not covered for before checking for us.  If we had just carried on as we intended we would have discovered we were not covered. 

Im not disputing their care and certianly would have paid for the overnight rehydration...but not another 3 days of 24/7 giving my 13 year old dog paracetomol, anti sickness tablets to the tune of £700 a day...I could and did do that for 6 weeks.

When the vets deal with your insurers direct, they submit all the information via Pawtal, which saves the customer having to post/scan receipts/invoices etc. Whether the work carried out is covered by your policy, is for the customer to check.

I'm sorry for your loss, however the vets are not to blame in this situation.

adcenv

Imagine for arguments sake that your old mum walks in, all distressed, with her beloved pet and is told by the vet team...dont you worry ms simpson we will deal with all that nasty old insurance for you...and then send her a £x bill...how would people here feel about that?  Its wrong.  Either give full professional advice.  Or none at all.

I think Ill just rely on a civil court to decide this.  Every person has a duty of care when offering up advice.  By providing professional advice which a reasonable person might rely on is covered by Tort.  

ThumbRemote

If the vets offered to take over dealing with the insurance, I would expect them to do all of that. Not a subset, and certainly not a subset where they don't tell the customer what they are and aren't going to do. 

Whatever portal the vets may nor may not use is irrelevant; they have arranged with you to take over dealing with the insurers. It's not for the consumer to know what the unspoken details of that entails. 

I'd hold off paying and see if they want to take it to small claims court. 

powerful_Rogue

adcenv said:

Imagine for arguments sake that your old mum walks in, all distressed, with her beloved pet and is told by the vet team...dont you worry ms simpson we will deal with all that nasty old insurance for you...and then send her a £x bill...how would people here feel about that?  Its wrong.  Either give full professional advice.  Or none at all.

I think Ill just rely on a civil court to decide this.  Every person has a duty of care when offering up advice.  By providing professional advice which a reasonable person might rely on is covered by Tort.  

They did exactly what they said they would do. They sent all the paperwork outlining the costs/procedures to the insurance company. It's for the customer to know what cover they have.

By all means let it go to court, I do however think you have a slim to none chance of winning.

powerful_Rogue

ThumbRemote said:

If the vets offered to take over dealing with the insurance, I would expect them to do all of that. Not a subset, and certainly not a subset where they don't tell the customer what they are and aren't going to do. 

Whatever portal the vets may nor may not use is irrelevant; they have arranged with you to take over dealing with the insurers. It's not for the consumer to know what the unspoken details of that entails. 

I'd hold off paying and see if they want to take it to small claims court. 

They did deal with the insurers, like they said they would. The issue is the customer did not have the correct cover to  pay the costs.