5 stage vetting report - please can anybody help? :-(

N

NewfBear

New User
Joined
5 March 2013
Messages
4
Visit site
Hi there,

I am a new poster on this forum (have lurked for a while) so don't know if this is appropriate but wanted to see if any of you kind people had any advice about a the vetting of a horse who was intended for low level eventing (BE100, maybe progressing to Novice eventually)

Said horse was vetted a last year and was declared fit for purpose. Lengthy discussions were had with vet, who was told very clearly the expectations and hopes for the horse, and vet was asked to stop exam at 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] stage if anything showed up that might, in the vet’s opinion, put the horse at greater risk than an ‘unblemished’ horse, as that would be a deal-breaker. Vet readily agreed, said that was sensible and promised to do so..

Vet carried out full 5 stage and reported a couple of findings including small amount of scarring from an old wound over a joint but declared it to be not to be affecting the horse in any way and posing absolutely minimal risk; vet said horse was no more likely to go lame than any other horse and had attended to top international jumpers competing successfully with far worse scarring / problems and no issues.

Lengthy discussions were had with vet about the horse - buyer was going to walk away at this point as thought risk was too great to take, but after reassurance from and interrogation of the vet, who they trusted implicitly, they were satisfied and bought horse, complete with a 5 stage cert declaring her fit for purpose.

Anyway, few months on and the horse has suddenly gone exceptionally lame and the (same) vet is adamant that it's due to the old injury, which had caused the scarring reported at the vetting, causing horse to not be up to the job. Vet said must have happened under saddle, despite this being contrary to circumstances of lameness. Moreover, they are thoroughly responsible owners and had not been doing anything outside horse’s capabilities or fitness level.

Vet now says the horse has no hope of being fit for purpose and even strongly implied that they’d made a bad call buying her then pushing her way beyond her limits, despite having talked them out of walking away, and said best option would be to go for LOU (yeah, like that’s going to happen now) or sell as a companion, and won’t consider any other theory, although is keen to do scans... This devastating conclusion was based on a very brief assessment, no scan, nerve blocks or anything; vet didn't even watch horse walk, just saw her take 1 or 2 steps in box and said they’d seen enough for diagnosis.

Just to let you now, they had known the vet for some years and thought they had no reason not to trust; had even vowed (volunteered) to do the absolute utmost to help them to choose the most suitable, soundest horse that can be reasonably expected.

Of course, it’s very well understood by us all that the vetting was a snapshot, subjective etc, etc.. But this situation can not possibly be put down to that, surely, with vet being so sure that horse was fine (if they said there might be a hint of trouble ahead then buyers would have declined) then so sure same issue caused career-ending lameness mere months later doing significantly lighter work than declared purpose?

Owners have gone for second opinion re current lameness, which is currently underway, but they are left distraught, bewildered and at their wits’ end regarding the original vetting and resulting debacle. I massively appreciate you taking your time to read this, and if anyone has been in a similar situation regarding the original vet’s assertions, would you be happy to offer any advice: how you managed to cope, what did you do, and where did you seek professional advice, if you did at all? We have contacted various organisations but have yet to receive a reply.

By the way – not looking for possible diagnoses - this is underway - or looking to be reminded of “caveat emptor” – this is why they employed and put trust in the vet. Also, of course horses can be injured any time but that’s not we’re getting at either. Not trying to be “snotty” saying this, just don’t want anyone to waste their time and energy typing this
clip_image001.png


Thank you so much, any advice will be so gratefully received.
 
Last edited:
I think the vet should sue himself :)
Seriously though, apart from the fact that the horse hasn't had a proper diagnosis or exam, as long as you didn't hide any information from the buyers, I don't see what more you could have done. The horse was vetted and passed on the day. The vet gave advice as to its suitabililty and has now disagreed with himself.
 
I would be incline to write very similar to this to the vet and request a summary of their report in return in the first instance and go from there.
 
They need a specialist equine solicitor with experiance in the field they should take advice as to if action agaisnt the vet will be cost effective and justified .
In the meantime hopfully the second opinion will give answers and hopefully hope for the poor horse .
It in biarzze in the extreme for a vet to make such a definative diagnoses without recourse to a full work .
 
To me it sounds like the new owners were unrealistic about what to expect from a vetting, or from a horse. Horses break down all the time. At the moment they don't even have a diagnosis so they don't even know what the problem is or whether it can be treater or whether it will affect the horse's ability to do the job.

If they get a diagnosis of a pre-existing condition that should have picked up at the vetting then they can speak to a solicitor about taking legal action against the original vet and see where they are with that, but overall I think they need to re-adjust their expectations about what is involved in buying a horse.
 
I bought an 8y/o with a 5* vetting in may. One leg came up not brilliant, but the vet passed him for what I wanted to do (aim of be80). 3 months later and he's diagnosed with mild arthritis in the coffin joint of that same leg.

I am now going to walk away from horses that come up similarly (what's that expression...once burnt twice shy?) On the vettings. My vet said it could have come on since I bought him (original thought was had it been covered up). Looking back, it was obviously underway when I had him vetted, but at the end of the day the vet cleared him to do what I wanted to.
 
Thank you so much for you replies, I am quite overwhelmed!

Sorry if I was ambiguous, I did not sell the horse but know both parties. Both sides are devastated and working together; no blame is being pointed either way.

BHS and RVC have been approached about what to do next, should the and advice from a good specialist equine lawyer will be sought once one is found. Obviously, the 2nd opinion diagnosis will have bearing on any action taken.

I have also found out that when the original vet came out and wrote the horse off, they slated the horse's natural hind limb conformation, saying it could never stand up to heavy work as the ligaments were constantly under undue stress, and would only be ok for light hacking if it had remedial shoeing, else the tendons and ligaments would be in danger of giving out at any moment. This was not mentioned at all at the vetting, and the horse's conformation has certainly not changed!! (Have photos) Stories have started to come out, and we have discovered that this vet has written off a number of other horses on very scant exam who, on 2nd and 3rd opinion were told nothing to worry about and the horses are now competing v successfully without any further lameness - however, the worry is always there.

Thanks again :-)
 
Booboos said:
To me it sounds like the new owners were unrealistic about what to expect from a vetting, or from a horse. Horses break down all the time. At the moment they don't even have a diagnosis so they don't even know what the problem is or whether it can be treater or whether it will affect the horse's ability to do the job.

If they get a diagnosis of a pre-existing condition that should have picked up at the vetting then they can speak to a solicitor about taking legal action against the original vet and see where they are with that, but overall I think they need to re-adjust their expectations about what is involved in buying a horse.
Click to expand...

Thanks for you reply, I do appreciate it and would agree in other circumstances; however, these people have very realistic expectations of what's involved at a vetting and understand that horses break all the time. This is not the issue and I think I was perfectly clear about this in my original post. With all due respect, you clearly misread or misunderstood my post.
 
OK I am not sure I understand then.

The horse passed a 5 star vetting, but the same vet is saying the horse had a pre-existing condition which he, effectively, missed at the vetting? The vet seems to be behaving very oddly. What is the pre-existing condition? Who did the vet make this dire diagnosis in front of?
 
We bought a horse last year that had a pre existing scrar over a joint and at the time of the vetting the vet advised getting the joint scanned and xrayed before we proceeded. She did however pass a very rigarius 5 stage vetting and repeated flexion tests on the joint. On the basis of a reduced price for hat was already a cheap horse we took and chance and "touching wood" have had no problems. (2 season eventing up to Novice) I don't think I would have spent the money on the xrays and would have walked away otherwise.

So what am I saying here, that a well respected vet, on seeing a scar over a joint recommended investigating prior to purchase, even to the extent that he initially proposed that this was done prior to him proceeding with the vetting, on the grounds he was there I requested that he proceed with the vetting as I didn't want to pay for xrays and then discover the horse would fail on something else. I am surprised that a vet would pass a horse with a significant former injury in the location of a joint without further investigation. The scar is noted on my horses vet cert with a note to the effect that they recommend further investigation prior to purchase.

I imagine that this should be noted on the vet cert produced for the horse in question, if its not then I would imagine there is a case for NOT having noted it and possible consequences, if it is noted with a recommendation that its not a problem then again, I imagine there is a question mark over the thoroughness of the examination?

I am not a vet, nor a lawyer, this is just my observations from having purchased a horse with a prior injury.
 
Is this vet suffering from dementia, having appeared to have totally forgotten that he vetted the horse for purchase? This is not entirely a flippant comment, the behaviour seems most odd. Subject to the second opinion confirming that either the scar or the hind leg conformation are at fault, I would have thought, depending on the value of the horse, that your friends would be looking to sue if they have the stomach for the fight.
 
So sorry for having been absent, I've been away for a while and I really didn't intend to snub all you lovely people who've replied. My friends are very grateful for your responses, and give you all their sincere thanks.

The horse in question has improved greatly but is still lame, sadly. Fortunately she's v sweet-natured, and also a bit of a princess who doesn't like going out when it's this wet, so is quite contented in her stable, bless her :-)

Booboos - I re-read my initial reply to you and was horrified at how snippy it sounded - it really wasn't meant to be, but I wrote it in a rush and didn't have a chance to read it back properly, so I do apologise if I sounded moody. In reply to your second post, yes, basically the vet's completely contradicted themselves. The old injury was known about, and my friends asked for it to be looked into thoroughly at vetting, and were happy to have extra steps such as scans if necessary - vet agreed. Previous owner had even released med records, although friends didn't feel the need to see them as they trusted their vet. Vet led the buyers to believe they'd seen records, scans etc and even discussed with the vet who treated the horse for injury, and there was absolutely no cause for concern. Now same vet's saying the old injury was always a disaster waiting to happen and insinuated that they had gone against vetting advice and 'broken' their horse in the process. They do, however, have a 5 stage cert that declares the horse fit for purpose, with no mention of said scarring (or conformation!). As for the vet's recent diagnosis, there were no witnesses to the entire conversation although one of the yard employees and a fellow livery heard different parts of it in passing, and the second opinion vet discussed it with original vet. However, there has been a something of a revelation....

Things have got a little more complicated, but in a funny way it makes things easier - some proper evidence that the vet was negligent in passing mare at 5 stage vetting has come to light, and now my friends are steeling themselves to pursue this (apparently the predicted outcome is reasonably good).

Jane-Lou - I think this is the kind of route they're taking. The vet's in a bit of a catch-22 situation really, which is fortunate for my friends.

Cptrayes - that was my reaction too! (And my friends', I think) I really don't understand vet's behaviour, think they're under extraordinary pressure but that does not excuse or explain this. I get the impression the vet can occasionalaly try to blind with science rather than admit when they're not sure of the cause of something, but they've never been like this before with my friends (who don't suffer fools gladly and wouldn't have had faith in this vet if they'd experienced this).

Alsxx - couldn't possibly say ;-)

To everyone else, thank you so much for your support; incidentally, a letter similar to this was written to the vet but not sent as they've been advised to hold off for now due to taking the legal route. Great idea though, and what many governing bodies generally advise, as it turns out.

I hope anyone going through something similar manages to resolve the problems satisfactorily. BHS help was fantastic, btw, and RCV also has useful advice.

If people are interested, I'll let you know how it goes - might help someone else in a similar situation.

Thanks again :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top