interesting article on vet malpractice suits

When pets die at the vet, grieving owners call lawyers
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
The patient had dental surgery, there were complications, and he died. Now his family members are accusing the doctor of negligence and claiming that the episode caused them emotional distress.

Duane Flemming is an animal opthamologist and a lawyer and past president of the American Veterinary Medical Law Association.
By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

It's a typical medical malpractice case — except in this 3-year-old dispute, the patient was a sheepdog named Lucky.

Barry Silver, the attorney for Lucky's owners, says that when the case goes to trial this year in Broward County, Fla., he intends to ask jurors to award hundreds of thousands of dollars to the dog's owners, Adam Riff and his mother, Ellen.

If Silver is successful, Lucky's case would join a series of recent court decisions that essentially have treated animals as human under the law. In a reflection of the special place that pets have come to hold in Americans' hearts, U.S. courts are bucking centuries of legal decisions that have defined animals as property.

In recent years, courts in New York, Maryland and Texas have resolved custody disputes involving pets by deciding what's best for the pet. Judges in 25 states have administered financial trusts set up in pets' names.

And as Lucky's case indicates, there has been another turn in animal law: Courts have begun to take claims of veterinary malpractice seriously.

Since 1997, courts in Kentucky and California have awarded damages to pet owners for loss of companionship, emotional distress and other factors that go beyond the way courts have long assessed animals' worth: by their market value.

That's the standard the Riffs are challenging in their lawsuit against the Welleby Veterinary Center in Broward County.

"I loved Lucky like he was my son, my little boy," says Adam Riff, 26, an Internet marketing salesman.

So for Riff, it was painful to hear an opposing lawyer's argument to a judge, during an unsuccessful attempt to get the lawsuit dismissed, that Lucky "had depreciated" in the eight years after Riff had bought him for $300.

"Like a car," Riff says.

Veterinary malpractice cases have not involved the staggering sums that can be associated with claims against doctors who treat humans.

The largest judgment in favor of a pet owner has been $39,000, which a jury in Orange County, Calif., awarded last year to Marc Bluestone.

His mutt, Shane, died of liver failure after a misdiagnosis. In a verdict that is being appealed by the vet, the jury awarded Bluestone $30,000 for the dog's "unique value" to his owner, and $9,000 for vet bills.

Treating pets like humans

Critics of such judgments sound much like those who warn that multimillion-dollar medical malpractice verdicts for human patients are driving up the cost of health care.

Richard Cupp, a Pepperdine University law professor, says that if courts routinely start to award emotional damages to pet owners, veterinary care will cost more, leading to "more suffering" among pets because "fewer pets will get sent to the vet."

He also fears the movement to treat pets more like humans under the law could lead to an avalanche of far-fetched animal rights lawsuits, such as claims on behalf of beef cattle headed for slaughter or monkeys used in medical research.

The emergence of veterinary malpractice lawsuits is driven not just by Americans' deep emotional bonds with their pets but also by advances in veterinary medicine that have raised expectations that pets will live longer.

The USA's 64 million pet owners now spend more than $18 billion a year on pet health care, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, which says that the owner of a typical American dog will spend $11,500 on the animal during its lifetime — half of it on medical care. Pet hospitals now have specialists such as cardiologists, neurologists and oncologists.

Steve Wise, a Boston lawyer who has taught animal law at Harvard Law School, notes that veterinarians who help to foster the attachment between owner and pet also benefit financially from it.

"For a vet to charge $1,000 to do a procedure on a dog who has a market value of $10, the only reason anyone would consider paying it is, they don't care what the market value is," Wise says.

Duane Flemming, a veterinarian, lawyer and past president of the American Veterinary Medical Law Association, says vets who promote the emotional bond between owner and pet are hard-pressed to go to court and claim the animal had little value.

"It's a hypocrisy to say, 'Spend more money on animals because they are worth more,' and then not be willing to award more when there's a loss," he says.

Flemming, who practices in Concord, Calif., is an ophthalmologist who says he once performed eye surgery on a one-legged duck.

"You used to go to the vet and get a bill for $20," he says. "Now you go ... and you've got an $18,000 bill. If your dog died, the only possible explanation is that someone did something wrong."

In Houston, Fritz the (late) Persian cat was a patient at an animal hospital that has so many specialists it has an entire wing for aviary care.

"They run out with a gurney and put the animal on" it, says Jeffrey Dorrell, a Houston lawyer who is suing Gulf Coast Veterinary Internists on Fritz's behalf. "It's almost theater. They deliberately raise expectations with the magnificence of their facility."

Fritz was diagnosed with pancreatitis and a cancerous mass in late 2002, the lawsuit says. Gulf Coast vets wanted to treat the pancreatitis first. Two months and many procedures later — including a failed effort to help Fritz gain weight — the tab topped $7,800, the lawsuit says. Then Fritz's owner, Jennifer Beegle, was told to take him home to die.

'Nothing to do' with fee

"The case has nothing to do with what they charged us, although my father is a retired physician, and I will tell you, you pay more to have an MRI done for your animal than what would be charged at the very finest hospital for a human being," she says.

Beegle is seeking a refund of her vet fees. At Gulf Coast, she says, "I saw grown men sobbing and pulling out three and four credit cards. Luckily, my parents had a $50,000 limit on their card. That was the first thing I was asked: What was the limit on my credit card?"

But Beegle, 36, says she would have paid more to save Fritz. She also says she wishes someone would have told her upfront that Fritz should have been put to sleep. "If he was not able to be saved, I never would have put him through this," she says. "I am suing them because he suffered. He had feelings. They will not profit off my cat's pain."

Gulf Coast's attorney, David Knight, says his clients dispute nearly all of Beegle's allegations. He says the conversation about the credit card limit never occurred.

Knight also says the vets who treated Fritz gave "appropriate care under the circumstances, consistent with the appropriate standards of care."

Dorrell, who plans to begin taking depositions this month, says he expects the case to be just as complex as a human malpractice case.

There are other parallels between veterinary malpractice and malpractice cases involving human patients.

Like doctors who treat people, vets express concern that lawsuits will drive up the cost of their malpractice insurance. So far, though, the price of vets' insurance has been stable for a decade, usually at less than $200 a month.

The parallels have not been lost on Dan Bachi, the lawyer representing vets Jeffrey Sands and John Willie in the Florida case involving Lucky the sheepdog.

"If society is at a point where we need to limit damages to people, should we as a society be awarding money for the loss of pets?" Bachi asks.

"And where do you draw the line? Is it dogs, cats? Is it horses? Is it frogs? Is it my pet snake?"

Other big cases

Courts have seriously considered veterinary malpractice cases only in the past few years. Besides the $39,000 judgment awarded to Bluestone in Orange County, two decisions stand out:

• In 1997, a Kentucky jury awarded $15,000 to the owner of a German shepherd, Sheba, who bled to death after surgery. The jury was instructed that the dog could have an intrinsic value beyond its market value, much like an heirloom.

• In 2000, a judge in Costa Mesa, Calif., awarded almost $28,000 in general and other damages to a woman whose Rottweiler, Lonnie, had to have its teeth capped after a bungled dental surgery.

Bluestone may hold the record for an award in a vet malpractice case, but he has spent more than $350,000 taking it to court.

"Any sane attorney would not take veterinary malpractice cases," Silver says. "You spend a long time and a lot of money, and you get nothing back." He says he supports animal rights and takes such cases in order to represent "those who can't speak for themselves."

Bachi says the case is "a significant endeavor financially and emotionally" for the vets.

So why don't the warring parties in Lucky's case find a way to settle?

"These doctors worked hard to save this animal," Bachi says. "They feel victimized by this. They feel falsely accused."

The vets want a jury to decide whether their work fell below accepted standards of care. They say Lucky died from a pre-existing condition that went undiagnosed.

Adam Riff says he has spent $10,000 on the case. His lawsuit alleges that Willie was "defensive and indignant" when the Riffs asked him what went wrong with the anesthesia. Riff says that rather than continue to treat Lucky — who was in an oxygen tent after the dental surgery — Willie sent the Riffs and Lucky to an animal emergency center because it was closing time at Welleby, "and the next day was (Willie's) day off."

Riff says that "if he had just told us what happened and said, 'I'm sorry, forgive me, it was an accident,' we wouldn't be doing this."

 

and case in ppoint, when wylie ended up in the ER (not her regular vet) in October they did an ultrasound and said she had a mass on her spleen and it probably wasnt good, could be a cancerous mass, they half way trying to talk me into doing surgery to do a biopsy and I said what ohter alnternatives are there, they could do a needle biopsy that is usually inaccurate or bring back in 10 ten days for a recheck. I chose the recheck. Well I went to my regular vet for that and he couldnt find anything, my husband picked her up and said the vet almost sounded paniced because he couldnt find anything like he was scared of a lawsuit. he asked to to do it again in a month which we did and still nothing. The vet said the tech who did the ultrasound the first time at the other vet was very good at what she did, So I think that made him nervous that he couldnt find anything and wanted a third ultrasound. which still didnt show anything.

So I wentand talked to the vet at the ER and she said it was probably a blood mass that disolved by itself

honeybear

 

Interesting thread.
I have to say that these days vets should be concerned about lawsuits, as should techs, as should anyone who works with animals.
There are bad vets and bad techs just as much as there are bad doctors and nurses. For malpractice and negligence they should be held accountable and I can say that based on over 15 years experience working in the animal medical field. There are vets that I have known that I would not allow to treat my 'pet rock' never mind my dogs. However for every 1 genuine lawsuit there are many, many unfounded lawsuits (I dont have the statistics Im going by personal experience with different hospitals in specific areas near LA and talking to other in the field) The arguement that it forces vets prices to increase is accurate, while vets laibility insurance may have stayed the same for the last 10 years it can cost a few thousand dollars just to fight the unwarranted claims. Each claim of wrongful death or misdiagnosis has to be addressed, the usual routine is a copy of the medical record and a letter back to the client, step 2, the client is usually not satisfied with that so then the hospitals lawyer has to be involved, this usually, by the time its settled a year or 2 later has cost the business at the very least $5,000, step 3 costs for going to to small claims court, could be another couple of thousand, employees time off if they are brought in as witnesses, other employers to cover the work of the employees in court, often being paid overtime, cost of bringing in a relief vet so the vet involved can appear in court....who covers these costs? Its not the client, even though the case is then thrown out of court and even if the court holds the client responsible financially for all costs incurred, they dont pay, often the only way to get the money is to then take them to small claims court which in turn will cost the hospital even more....theres no point) so just for one case the hospital has lost somewhere in the region of maybe $10,000 or more. In some cases the hospital will choose to settle out of court even though there is no possibility of a succesful lawsuit against them because it will cost less to do that than to go through a couple of years of retaining lawyers and making court appearances.
I remember 2 cases were 2 different techs were negligent in monitoring the anaesthesia and the pets died as a result, in one case a tech was fired and in both cases the hospital compensated the clients who were not interested in the money, the compensation covered the cost of pet that had died, cost of what it would be to buy another pet of that breed, cost of a training programme for the dog (the other was a cat), lifetime vaccines and general exams and a few thousand for emotional trauma to the owners. The owners thought that was fair under the circumstances.
Another case of a dog that was in CHF, we took x-rays, chest was full of fluid, we gave it a few injections (owner was adamant about not leaving the dog in the hospital, she expected the dog to die and wanted us to just make it comfortable so the dog could die peacefully at home), we also gave her meds to take home, the next morning the dog was doing much better, she went to check in with the 'new vet' at her daytime hospital who wanted to take more x-rays, the new vet then told the client that the drugs we gave and the medication were not necessary as the dog did not have any fluid on the lungs (couldnt possibly have been the furosemide we'd given actually doing the job it was supposed to do), the client came back to us demanding compensation, the vet, not wanting to deal with the whole costly court issue again, gave her the money back that she had spent on the x-rays (almost $200) he, in no way was admitting anything was done wrong or a misdiagnosis had been made (the dog had already been dx'd with CHF a few months before). Then he made a phone call to the 'new vet' !!!
I would have absolutely no problem at all backing a client up in a lawsuit if I had witnessed blatent malpractice, neglect or abuse but if they keep awarding people 30, 40, 50 thousand dollars which will sooner or later turn into millions the ones who are going to lose out are the pet owners because the vets costs will have to increase even more. The compensation should be kept to a reasonable amount and the vets or techs who do screw up should be held accountable personally, if that means losing their licence or even doing jail time well thats fine with me, but everybody else should not have to pay the price for bad vets and bad techs, money hungry lawyers and people who's only goal in life is to get rich quick by whatever means possible...and that is not in reference to the people mentioned in your post but these type of lawsuits, the higher the payouts get the more likely it will become that these money hungry vultures will come crawling out of the woodwork.

 

I do think in both instances, drs and vets should be held accountable, but the whole lawsuit industry has just left me furious, that now I just cant be biased for the person who sues, even though it is supposed to be legit. Like my vet, they are CYA, they wont let you hold your pets in the waiting room for fear of bites. SO they have signs up. when I picked up their heartworrm meds yesterday, the receipthas when they should have their vaccines, and next to Bortadella, its shows declined, so I cant come back to them and say its their fault if something happens because I declined the vaccine.

 

Ive heard clients say the werent offered certain shots, blood tests, x-rays etc when Ive been present when the vet recommended all this, Ive also been present when vets have not recommended nor offered the test but later say that they did. The last hospital I worked at would print up an estimate and we would go through everything on the estimate and the client would sign it so there was no miscommunication or..."oops I forgot", that covers everyone.
We have had problems also were a client insists on holding a pet while the pet is being examined, I personally will weigh up the situation, some pets are fine, sometimes I will place a muzzle on the pet but I have had clients refuse to have a muzzle put on their dog and refuse to allow a staff member to restrain the pet, those clients are usually asked to leave and go elsewhere, as much as I hate to do that but there is the risk of a lawsuit, in California at least, if a pet bites its owner in an animal hospital, even if it is the clients fault the hospital is laibel. I also dont appreciate being bitten by a pet that is badly restrained by someone who lets go of their pet at the first hint of a growl. Its a little different in daytime hospitals though than in emergency hospitals, we're usually dealing with pets that have been hit by cars, attacked by other dogs etc so there is usually major pain issue involved as well as the typical anxiety that a lot of pets have when going into a vets office.
The bigger the lawsuits become the harder its going to be for vets and pet owners alike, I know 2 great vets that just in the last 18 months have quit the business because they dont want to risk losing everything theyve ever worked for, some might say that if they were doing their job properly that they shouldnt have to worry about a lawsuit, but one of the vets went through a really hard time when a disgruntled client went around every other animal hospital in the area, told everyone that would listen to her that this vet had misdiagnosed her dog when in actual fact he had rightly diagnosed the dog and told her to take the dog immediately to a specialist as our hospital did not have the technology that could have made the difference between her dog living or dying, she took the dog home and it died about 4 hours later. He could have taken her to court and sued for slander but his reputation was pretty much destroyed or at least came under scrutiny from other vets, techs. All it takes is one person.
I can totally understand why vets and techs are sometimes uptight about things and having seen the dark side of what goes on in some hospitals I totally understand it from the clients view as well....That said I know that the majority of vets and techs are in the business for their dedication and love for the animals.

 

While I think it's great that vet malpractice suits are being taken seriously, I am sickened when people make up things just to get money. Or when they sue for something incredibally stupid (My dad's a lawyer, I'm around this a lot, though it doesn't involve animals.) About the holding the pets while the vet examines. I have had to do this several times to Ranger. He has never bitten or growled, but because I am his sense of security, and the vet is some stranger pocking and prodding him, he refuses to stay on the table, and if I am sitting in a chair, he will jump off and come and jump in my lap, so the vet usually asks that I hold him.

 

Rocky's vet prefers if I hold him. Even if the tech's try to hold him down he'll keep wiggling until he gets back to me but if I hold him he's perfectly fine.

The thing with Rocky is that if he is uncomfortable in a situation he tries to get as close to me as possible which usually ends up being right under my neck and my vet always stops and tells me to put him back on the table. I don't think my vet is worried about law suits just the general safety of the owners. I know Rocky would never hurt me on purpose but there is always the chance that he could try to go after the vet and get me by accident.

I think its good that the lawsuits that are viable are taken seroiusly but there are always going to be people that try to take advantage of the situation which then end up making it worse for other vets and pet owners.

 

Thats why I weigh up each pet and client, some pets are more comfortable with their owners there and I have no problem at all with that, the client is happier, the pet doesnt look at the experience as a nightmare, which can make a big difference to future visits, but some pets, dogs, will feel they are being threatened and if the owner is with them they feel they also need to protect the owner, Ive seen many a dog, growl or back off when the vet or tech walks into the exam room, as soon as you get them away from the owner everything is fine. In over 15 years, and I would imagine thousands of dogs Ive come in contact with Ive been bitten 3 times and every time was because the person 'restraining' the dog let go, Ive lost count of how many times Ive almost been bitten but moved quick enough after an owner had insisted on holding the dog.
A guy with an American Bulldog, about 8 months old, intact male, carried the dog into the hospital for a drain removal from the chest, no collar or leash, I had worked with the dog when it came in for surgery 4 days earlier and had no problems, I got into the exam room and the dog....jumped at me with, I gently eased the dog off me, he was growling and the owner thought it was funny, I went and got a leash and muzzle for him, he refused to put it on the dog saying he had 'verbal control', he, might I add made no attempt to restrain the dog, the dog then lunged at my face, growling and snarling....the owner left the room...terrified. When you come against situations like this over and over again, you learn really quick that you cant always trust the client, its not a personal issue its a safety issue for all involved.

 

After working as a tech, living with a family member who is a vet, and spending a great deal of time in the veterinary field, I find the current trend disturbing. It's getting to the point where you have to do much more paperwork just to cover your butt, and this is also true of dog groomers.

I can vividly remember so many instances of people taking a 'wait and see' attitude, finally giving in and bringing the animal to the vet, and having it die on the exam table. Then hearing them blame the vet for being incompetent.

The idea that if an animal dies during a procedure that must mean someone did something wrong is absurd. My daughter recently took her dog to have an ear infection treated. During the exam, the vet found a mass in his abdomen. Luckily, they decided to do an immediate emergency laparotomy. The mass was a HUGE hemagiosarcoma. It ruptured just as the vet opened the abdomen. If the surgery had been put off for even an hour, the dog would have bled to death. In fact, he almost bled to death anyway. So if he had died, does that mean someone did something wrong? I don't think so.

I think we all should face the fact that animals are living creatures, and eventually all living creatures die. Some die sooner than others. And while some might die due to incompetent vets, techs, even owners, trying to place the blame on the vet everytime things don't work out is an alarming trend. Sometimes, despite the very best care, animals die. It's unforeseeable, unfortunate, but a fact of life.

By the way, my daughters dog is just under 4 months post-op with no signs yet of reccurance. We have our fingers crossed. The prognosis for hemangiosarcoma is not good, and he's already lived longer than expected. But if or when he does have another tumor, we sure aren't going to blame the vet!

 

After working as a tech, living with a family member who is a vet, and spending a great deal of time in the veterinary field, I find the current trend disturbing. It's getting to the point where you have to do much more paperwork just to cover your butt, and this is also true of dog groomers.

I can vividly remember so many instances of people taking a 'wait and see' attitude, finally giving in and bringing the animal to the vet, and having it die on the exam table. Then hearing them blame the vet for being incompetent.

The idea that if an animal dies during a procedure that must mean someone did something wrong is absurd. My daughter recently took her dog to have an ear infection treated. During the exam, the vet found a mass in his abdomen. Luckily, they decided to do an immediate emergency laparotomy. The mass was a HUGE hemagiosarcoma. It ruptured just as the vet opened the abdomen. If the surgery had been put off for even an hour, the dog would have bled to death. In fact, he almost bled to death anyway. So if he had died, does that mean someone did something wrong? I don't think so.

I think we all should face the fact that animals are living creatures, and eventually all living creatures die. Some die sooner than others. And while some might die due to incompetent vets, techs, even owners, trying to place the blame on the vet everytime things don't work out is an alarming trend. Sometimes, despite the very best care, animals die. It's unforeseeable, unfortunate, but a fact of life.

By the way, my daughters dog is just under 4 months post-op with no signs yet of reccurance. We have our fingers crossed. The prognosis for hemangiosarcoma is not good, and he's already lived longer than expected. But if or when he does have another tumor, we sure aren't going to blame the vet!

 

This issue is like just about every other issue that confornts us these days. People have totally abandoned common sense and the idea of responsibility. Many people have to find fault for everything that happens, and the fault never seems to be their own. I remember a sermon our priest gave a few years back where he talked about a commercial pilot that crashed his plane while taking off. He blamed the sun for not being hot enough to melt the ice on the wings...

There are cases when a vet or tech does something blatantly stupid or wrong, and even worse there are times when they KNOW what they are doing is dangerous and go ahead and do it anyway. If a pet suffers for it, you bet your bottom I think you should be able to sue and collect damages.

But it's crazy how everyone's hands are tied now in everything they do because of lawsuits from the crazies who can't accept that bad things happen and want someone else's hard-earned money. I used to want to be a doctor but they can't even practice medicine anymore because of lawsuits and insurance companies. Who needs that kind of headache?! The fact that we even need to have good samaritan laws that protect people who are trying to help others shows how crazy the world has become.

We had a mouse die at the vet under anasthesia. Gee, maybe I should have sued for $10,000.... :roll: