advice - suing a vet

D

ducktails

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 April 2009
Messages
138
Visit site
Now this is all if's big butt's and maybe's but i just wondered on where the purchaser stands.

Right in brief, is there a case against a vet who has passed a horse as fit for purpose that was obviosuly not due to conformation faults. A bit more detail may help, the horse was vetted in April by a well respected practice and signed as fit for general riding, show jumping, eventing. No levels specified. Said horse has been into owners vets recently who have said that it is extremely straight through the hock (on a scale of 0 - 5 with 5 being great he scored it at a 2) and also that the he would have recommended the horse has feet xrays as one foot is considerably smaller than the other. None of the previous was mentioned on the vetting, the horse has been on / off work since April with various issues but after xrays there are no changes within the hock, although there is definately some inflammation in the lower hock joint due to concussion caused by sh1tty hock conformation and even sh1ttier feet balance. Hopefully horse will come right with the shoes as it is only 6 but inevitably it will have hock problems in the future in some way or form.

I have no idea where the purchaser would stand from this point of view only that looking at it, it seems the vet has signed that it is fit for purpose stated on the vetting form when it is clearly not. Foggy ground I know but any advice / opinions would be great.
 
A lot of things can go wrong in 9 months especially if you have a rubbish farrier who can easily upset all sorts of things if it's not done properly.
I don't think you'd have any comeback after this length of time - and so they shouldn't IMO as quite possibly, they only have themselves to blame.
 
I doubt you have any comeback after that length of time. If the problems are being caused by poor foot balance then it could be the farrier who has caused this? It's likely the horse was fine when it was vetted. Also remember that the vetting is only a snapshot of that horse on a particular day - it isn't a guarantee that it will remain sound forever.

I would also query why the purchaser didn't notice the conformation faults, which are so apparently obvious now, at the time of purchase?

What sort of work have you been doing with the horse? I know you say it's been on/off work since April, but what do you do with it when it is in work?
 
A conformational defect does not necessarily mean that the horse is not fit for purpose. The horse seems to have been purchased as a general all rounder and vetted as such.

Presumably the purchaser asked the vet to pay special attention to the hocks and feet, and the vet and purchaser were subsequently happy that they would not affect what the horse was being bought for....... And that bloods were taken also.

Horses do go wrong and I suppose we can lesson the odds by buying confirmationally sound horses. But one with poor confirmation is not reason enough to fail a vetting.
 
Sorry but I don't think you would have any comeback. No horse's conformation is 100% and it is very often a matter of opinion as to whether a 'fault' would or could affect horse's ability to do a job. Every other horse has a hock problem of sorts as it is one of those really badly designed joints I'm afraid. It's just utter bad luck. a lot of horses also have odd feet... some arew affected by them, others not...
 
Well it was a bit daft of the purchaser not to specify a level - there is a big difference between conformational faults which would stop a horse doing Badminton and ones which would stop it doing a BE80 for example! Ditto showjumping at 75cm and BSJA level. Therefore assuming that the horse was capable of popping round a 2ft unaff course both SJ and eventing, there is surely little in the way of comeback - the horse could, presumably at the time of purchase - do both, in which case the vet was right, in a way. If the purchaser had said 'to do PN and above' for example, then if another vet was willing to testify the horse was not ever going to have been suitable to do that then they might have a case. But TBH I think the purchaser is on pretty shaky ground!
 
I'm sorry but really feel you have no chance, the horse may have one foot smaller than the other but so do thousands of others without it being a reason for problems. It's more likely to be your farrier at fault if the horse is imbalanced.
I would imagine it's very rare for any horse to be free of conformation faults, so actually pinning down what would be considered a sufficiently severe one to cause problems will always be a matter of opinion, and the vet could roll out some expert who will state in his opinion it isn't that severe.
I do know of one youngster who was asked to climb incredibly steep hills as a baby and then had hock problems, after a prolonged period of rest the inflammation settled down and it was fine ever after, so perhaps turn this horse away for six months having first ascertained the foot balance is correct.
I would be very wary of sueing anyone these days, the only people who win are the barristers at over £1000 a day in court..
 
I dont disagree with any of you, just opinion finding and hopefully said horse will be sound for years to come. However is it not part of a vets obligation to not only identify any existing health problems but also identify potential problems that may occur in the future. I am sure that many inexperienced purchasers will use the 5 stage vetting as a way of replacing that lacking knowledge, after all the vet is employed by the purchaser and its not cheap, it almost seems pointless if they are only there to tell if the horse is lame on the day.

Interestingly though there is the case below, which is talking serious pennies. I can't find a case verdict though.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/397/169178.html
 
[ QUOTE ]
I dont disagree with any of you, just opinion finding and hopefully said horse will be sound for years to come. However is it not part of a vets obligation to not only identify any existing health problems but also identify potential problems that may occur in the future. I am sure that many inexperienced purchasers will use the 5 stage vetting as a way of replacing that lacking knowledge, after all the vet is employed by the purchaser and its not cheap, it almost seems pointless if they are only there to tell if the horse is lame on the day.

Interestingly though there is the case below, which is talking serious pennies. I can't find a case verdict though.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/397/169178.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that case you refer to is difficult to compare given the buyers were obviously desperate for the horse that had failed a vetting for them on 3 different occassions!

In your case at this stage I think there is no comeback on the vet.
General conformation and a direct link to competitive soundness is very difficult to prove.
If a horse had different sized feet at point of vetting I would definitely expect this to be noted/discussed with me. Personally if a horse had different sized feet I would hope to notice myself and walk away before the vet even got involved. However if I was inexperienced I would expect the vet to know this could potentially have a clinical significance.

The issue as I see it is that you are only highlighting different feet months down the line, the foot shape can change quite drastically quite quickly with poor farriery / foot injury - so I think the emphasis would be on you to prove asymmetric feet at point of vetting.
 
[ QUOTE ]
MFH - just wondered, who only has there selves to blame?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to put words into MFH's mouth but in 9 months, a lot can go wrong. The horse could have become injured in the field, it could have problems because of poor shoeing, or the problems could have been caused by bad riding.

I'm not neccessarily saying this is the case here, but sometimes people are very quick to blame the vet, farrier, whoever, when maybe they should look to themselves first.
 
[ QUOTE ]
However is it not part of a vets obligation to not only identify any existing health problems but also identify potential problems that may occur in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the 'potential' word. I wonder where a vet would start with that one.

No, the vet's job is to establish that the horse is fit and well and suitable for the purpose it is being bought for - on the day. Nothing more.
 
The trouble with a reliance on a vetting is that it is a snap shot in time and on that day the vet deemed the horse suitable for purpose, however I still believe that as you are paying for a professional opinion I myself would have at least expected a conversation to highlight conformational weaknesses.

As previously said all horses have some weakness conformationally and it doesn't affect performance, however armed with the information you could have made a judgment for yourself about whether you thought it a risk worth taking.

And to those saying the purchaser should have seen the faults I would say that not everyone is an expert.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MFH - just wondered, who only has there selves to blame?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to put words into MFH's mouth but in 9 months, a lot can go wrong. The horse could have become injured in the field, it could have problems because of poor shoeing, or the problems could have been caused by bad riding.

I'm not neccessarily saying this is the case here, but sometimes people are very quick to blame the vet, farrier, whoever, when maybe they should look to themselves first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have put it better myself, CC, thanks for saving me time!

Don't forget, bad conformation is not a bar to success or soundness; take Attraction as a case in point; she has the most diabolical front leg conformation and action but it didn't stop her speed and success in clocking up many thousands of pounds in very high class races. A very interesting article here - http://website.markjohnstonracing.co.uk/?page=10577

As someone else said, a vetting is only relevant for that day; who knows, the horse might have had a problem just after it, maybe slipped and tweaked something the next day (stranger things have happened!); you'd hardly expect the vet to have picked that up so as far as he was concerned, the horse passed the vetting as fit for the work you were going to ask of it. If you decided to push horse further than you said you would, I don't think you can blame the vet as that wasn't in his remit. You also can't blame the vet for the straight hocks, he would have taken them into account for your remit and you were willing to accept those hocks before the vetting which the horse passed fit for purpose as he saw it on that day but he also can't be responsible for how you have or haven't managed the horse since you bought it.
I'm not having a go at all, just trying, badly I admit, to see both sides of the coin.
 
It's a difficult one. I had a horse who I was selling - he had an old eye injury which left him with slight cloudiness, basically this could potentially have got worse over time and make him blind, but it also could do absolutely nothing! He failed one vetting because the vet said based on his eye, the potential was there for him to go blind and probably not then be able to compete (ie. be fit for purpose). Then the second time he was vetted, the vet passed him off easily - they said that it was so highly unlikely it would make him unfit for purpose that they had no issue with it. Totally vets opinion!! Horse was sold and several years on, owners had no problem with him at all. The same horse was also failed on another occasion on his flexion test, vet said he was 3/10's lame on both hinds and therefore wasn't fit to compete even though said horse I rode daily and BSJA'd every weekend no problem! Had my own vet out within an hour of the vet leaving (as I was so shocked), he passed him... that was within ONE hour! Vetting's must be taken with a pinch of salt IMO.
 
Chestnut cob- all true I guess but I doubt the owner ironed the horses hocked, I would predict that 9 months ago the hocks were just as straight as they are now. As for the feet yes poor farriery can cause that, but I would expect a mention of the above.

ss - i disagree with you, surely a vet is not just hoping to see it through more than just the rest of the day and is saying that in terms of the horse he cant see any reasons for concern Yes accidents happen, bad riding, bad shoeing but is it not a vets responsibility to point out conformation faults?

LHS - everyone is inexperienced at somepoint, right? You pay an expert to help you make an informed decision. I personally think in this case the buyer is innocent and it is the vet who is at fault. I do also agree it would never be worth taking to court.
 
[ QUOTE ]
ss - i disagree with you, surely a vet is not just hoping to see it through more than just the rest of the day and is saying that in terms of the horse he cant see any reasons for concern. Yes accidents happen, bad riding, bad shoeing but is it not a vets responsibility to point out conformation faults?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure it is a vets responsibility to point out conformational faults - but it is something that is quite often commented on at the time of vetting, so shows how important it is to be there on the day. These things quite often don't make it in to a report.

Straight hocks, as has been said, don't equate to a failed vetting.

It would be lovely to see a picture of this horse.......
 
Surely it's not a vet's provenance to judge "suitability" or even, strictly speaking, potential. Any vet with experience will tell you lots of odd shaped horses doing the job. A vetting is to examine the horse for existing conditions which make it unfit for purpose ON THE DAY. Yes, a vet may say "x and y might be a point of concern in the future" but it's not for them to fail a sound, fit horse on the basis of what might happen.

As to them providing an experienced helping hand for an ignorant client, I can't see that's really a vet's job. They're there to provide information, the client decides what to do with it. If the client doesn't feel qualified to judge surely it is up to him/her to hire appropriate expert assistance for that purpose, such as a trainer.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Said horse has been into owners vets recently who have said that it is extremely straight through the hock (on a scale of 0 - 5 with 5 being great he scored it at a 2) and also that the he would have recommended the horse has feet xrays as one foot is considerably smaller than the other......... inevitably it will have hock problems in the future in some way or form.


[/ QUOTE ]


Not a hope of succeeding suing unless the horse goes permanently lame. Have you ever seen Party Politics' hocks? He won the National with the straightest pair of back legs I have ever seen. If I'd seen him at auction without knowing who he was I wouldn't have paid meat money for him. My friends totally reliable and sound point to pointer had the most unmatched set of front feet I had ever seen too. Horses can do the most astonishing things with dreadful conformation defects.

I think you will also find that it is not considered a vet's responsibility to point out conformation defects to a buyer, only to identify actual unsoundness.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Ah the 'potential' word. I wonder where a vet would start with that one.

No, the vet's job is to establish that the horse is fit and well and suitable for the purpose it is being bought for - on the day. Nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

And any GOOD equine vet WILL note conformation defects that make it unlikely to stay sound if worked hard. This is why the vet will want to know the purpose for which a horse is being purchased. A happy hacker can get away with minor defects that would prevent it being a Badminton contender.

I have a vetting form in front of me - done 2 years ago - on a mare who is here for schooling and sale. It says:

Slightly toed in both forelimbs
Dishes right forelimb and plaits left forelimb
Small splint inside of left fore cannon
A few fly bites over back

THE OPINION: (and this is standard wording printed on the form)
On the balance of probabilities the conditions set out above ARE/ARE NOT (are not was selected) likely to prejudice this animal's use for - (and vet inserted) pleasure riding and light competition/jumping.

That appears pretty reasonable and complete to me. The mare IS sound and has been sound since the vetting. Obviously she could only do low level dressage or eventing because her movement is not straight. The lack of straightness MIGHT predispose her to lameness if she went into SERIOUS work - say, 100km endurance rides, or 'serious' eventing. There's no way of knowing for sure, but the vet's opinion is clear that she is NOT suitable for SERIOUS competition.

I think that the vet who vetted the horse referred to by the OP SHOULD have mentioned very straight hocks - and the noticeable difference in foot size/shape. But I'd agree with others who think it's probably too late UNLESS it can be proven that the horse now has serious DJD in those straight hocks.
 
[ QUOTE ]

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/397/169178.html

[/ QUOTE ]

This link, in regards to sueing I would have thought would be mainly related to the heart murmor, and inability to compete at the desired level, due to the severity of the heart problem, the horse may be completely unridable without risk to both the horse and rider's life. Yes its lame, but the reason behind the lameness isnt stated, so may not have been an undetected defect, it could be wear and tear.

As a purchaser of a few horses over the yrs, I have personally taken to learning about conformation and faults so I can make a suitability desicion off my own back. If the buyer bought a horse with straight hocks and odd sized feet, surely they should have noticed ??

In 9 months (and a lot less) a bad farrier can cripple a horse, imbalance its feet, potentially causing lamness either through joint stress, or ligament damage. Same as a good farrier can correct a lot in 9 months. Without photographic proof, theres no way to say when the hoof problems started
 
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/best/article.php?aid=47193

In this artcle it says in Stage 1 of the vetting conformational defects should be noted. But I guess this is a matter of degree and unless they are pronounced then it would be hard to do.

Having bought a horse with a 5 Stage vetting carried out for dressage and the vet saying they "couldn't fault the horse" I am very sceptical. The first thing my then instructor said when he got off the lorry was - do you realise his front leg is twisted and the knee turns out! I felt like a right numpty for not noticing myself. When is a twisted leg suitable for a dressage horse? For other reasons he turned out to be completely unsuitable so I sold him on in a month. I made a big mistake and just cut my losses - I couldn't be bothered with the aggro of pursuing the vet. Another vet also passed a horse I bought with significant muscle wastage on one side at the vetting ( I know it was there at the vetting because I thought it was his old saddle not fitting that caused it to tip to one side but a new saddle did the same) and he was disgnosed with wobblers about 8 months later and 2 years on was PTS. I do not have a lot of faith in vettings.
 
cant really give an ans directly only to say, if what your concluding was grounds for litigation then how on earth do these less than perfect confo int eventers pass vets and get sold on!! foggy is an understatment, is possitively a blackout!!!! I think supreme rock had a turned in toe!!!!
 
Tarrsteps - Since when does owner ignorance come into it? inexperience is not ignorance, ignorance is assuming that everyone should have the same knowledge of conformation.

In my opinion the vet failed the purchaser, I am not saying the horse should have been failed as it was sound on the day but I do think that it is the vets responsibility to give the information to the purchaser so that they can make their own informed decision. And yes a bad farrier can cripple a horse in less than 9 months but he cant straighten hocks can he!
 
Surely the purchaser should be aware that the horse has straight hocks, weigh up whether that is an issue for THEM and if not then arrange a vetting. The vet passed the horse as sound, and it was, so I am missing the point here I think! What does it say on the certificate? WHAT exactly has the vet passed the horse sound for?

In regards to the litigation case above, the buyers are at fault IMO - the vet failed, failed, failed the horse and still they wanted him done again, and I reckon they would have kept going until the horse was passed as sound! The horse was sound that day, even though it had been lame on other days, and they want to sue - get lost, ridiculous. Let's face it, I could buy a horse tomorrow, vetted as sound, run it on unsuitable ground and then raise my hands in horror and blame the vet. The girl ran the horse at an event even....nah, don't like that case at ALL!
 
[ QUOTE ]
When is a twisted leg suitable for a dressage horse?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one line sums up a large part of the issue.

In fact, if you take a look at some of the top dressage horses in the world today, many of then are definitely not straight. (There is a school of thought that some toeing in is actually desirable in upper level horses because it makes for a freer elbow for the more extreme collected movements.) Before Hong Kong there was a publicity shot of a top horse walking on a paved path and he was obviously significantly crooked in front and not even bilaterally so.

Obviously not only are these horses staying sound enough to reach those heights, through years of highly specialised training, but they're excelling AND people thought there was a good chance they'd stay sound or they wouldn't have invested the time and effort.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that conformational abnormalities should be noted and discussed at a vetting, but at what point does deviation become unsoundness? This is actually a genuine question - how far are vets expected to guess the future? If the vet in this case felt the horse's conformation made it unsuitable for the job then yes, he/she should definitely have commented. But since none of us have seen the horse it's impossible for us to judge if this is a horse with a deviation of the level many (most) horses have or a walking cripple.

Vetting in the UK does seem to be a minefield.
 
I agree - all views on conformation are subjective, so it is impossible to judge where that fine line between 'just not 100% in conformation' and 'will cause a problem'. In reality, a vet does not have x-ray eyes and will pass a horse if they as the vet feel the horse will be capable of doing work to the requested level of the purchaser. For example, I had a horse vetted for BE intermediate eventing - he had flat feet and if you tried hard enough would go 1/10 lame in a circle, and in hindshight I shouldn't have even got as far as vetting him, but fell for him...anyway vet failed him for me, but said she would have passed him for a PC/RC rider.

I think ducktails, you should have made it clear to your vet that you were inexperienced, and asked them to point out EVERYTHING to you (which is as far as I'm concerned beyond the call of duty), which would then allow you to make an informed decision on your purchase. But, as stated by others above, a vet will pass/fail a horse on what they have seen ON THAT DAY and for the stated intended use.

I bought a horse who was pointed out to have a slightly sore back on the day of vetting (which was written down), but still passed. However, a year later he was beginning to deteriorate and x-rays showed he had sever kissing spines. Now, I suppose you could look at it and think 'well my vet knew he had a sore back, why did she not recommend x-rays?' but at the same time, I didn't query the back further, and I didn't stand up for myself and request x-rays at time of purchase. My vet didn't think the back was an issue, but I didn't push further, so really I have nobody to blame for the fact that my horse is now a cripple. I suspect he had the beginnings of the boney changes at the time of purchase, but I would never dream of trying to blame my vet - as I said vets do not have x-ray vision, nor can they see into the future!
So I think you have no case. You'll soon know, if you contact the RCVS to complain, as they will follow your case up and contact your vet who will have to write a written response to them. If the RCVS believe that vet made no mistakes, the case will be dropped and go no further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top