Do I pay my vet bill - for their mistake

[stranger1612]

-And another thing, regardless of what previous posters have stated the RCVS would have absolutely no interest in your complaint. The RCVS are limited by statute to matters of professional conduct and have no interest or responsibility in civil disputes (such as negligence) except when the negligence is so severe as to be described as "disgraceful professional conduct" and whilst describing a colt as a gelding is undoubtedly a mistake, it might even be negligent in no circumstances could it be considered "disgraceful".

You might have a claim for negligence- BUT

Even if there has been negligence, as animals remain "chattels" (possessions) the OP would only be entitled to being returned to their original position and a claim for "worry or distress" or solatium would not be successful, although no doubt some slick lawyer will bleed you for some cash convincing you that a big pay day was on its way(you might even find some on here). As fas as I can tell there has been no loss, so the most you can expect is an apology and an invoice for the castration. Stop using a petty complaint as an excuse for fee avoidance.

Tristar- if you think clients who complain get the best service then (regardless of what you might wish for) you are mistaken. Veterinary surgeons are human and the response to this sort of complaint is to provide this sort of client with a poorer service (charge as much as possible, not be accommodating for visit times etc).

 

[Miss L Toe]

-
Tristar- if you think clients who complain get the best service then (regardless of what you might wish for) you are mistaken. Veterinary surgeons are human and the response to this sort of complaint is to provide this sort of client with a poorer service (charge as much as possible, not be accommodating for visit times etc).

So much for a "professional" service.
The OP has not had any ongoing problem following on from the original error, so not a cause for compliant, things in life are not all B&W.

 

[cptrayes]

Completely unacceptable.

What is?

You're embarrassing yourself now.

No, I'm not. Completely unembarassed about my posts on this thread, I assure you

And quit being so excited about the lawyer bit - they do let women in these days, you know.

It never occurred to me to question what sex you are. It's irrelevant.

Though as a woman myself I'm now a bit aggrieved that you have firmly linked my sex with your illogic in confusing a simple mistake on the part of the vet with potentially serious consequences which never happened.

In criminal law, which you will know, the principle is that you punish the crime, not the consequences. So if someone steals from someone else, you punish the theft. If that theft causes the victim to get so depressed that they throw themselves off a cliff, you don't punish the thief any more than anyone else who stole a similar amount in a similar way.

The vet is a human being who made a very small mistake with potentially large consequences. Those consequnces didn't even happen and yet you want the vet punished as if the mistake was severe.

Spare us from lawyers who would support a complaint of this kind against the vet, it's akin to ambulance chasing.

 

[stranger1612]

Sadly the propensity for the modern client to look for any reason to avoid legitimate fees makes a "professional" service more and more difficult to provide. The halcyon days of James Herriot are long gone. If the OP feels she has legitimate reason to avoid paying the fees for the castration then she is welcome to pursue a claim for negligence (she wont get very far) otherwise she should pay her bill and stop whinging.

 

[Parker79]

OP - I think you need to pay your bill minus the cost of the visit and scan.

Whatever you decide pls do it quickly as you shouldn't leave a bill that long

 

[Littlelegs]

I'm not a solicitor or a barrister, let alone a lawyer as they don't exist in the English legal system. But if anyone who is cares to provide the case used to set a current precedent that is relevant it would be interesting. Afaik there isn't one that basically states a mistake with no consequences entitles op to break her contract to pay for gelding.

 

[tristar]

if the attitude is to give a poorer service for questioning a faux pas, in other words make the animals suffer, then i think people who act in this way should have given up their place at veterinary colledge to another person who cares about animals, and got a job as a dustbin person.

i truly admire any vet honest enough to say they don't know the answer, yet try their best, and most importantly care about their patients, i think the problem is only certain people are really 'horse vets' with the insight and talents required, and have for along thought it might be a good idea for vets to specialise more in certain areas instead of trying to do it all.

 

[stranger1612]

Tristar-

It is not in questioning a "faux pas" that the OP is wrong- no doubt the vet involved would apologise and would certainly suffer the embarrassment and loss in professional reputation in mistaking the colt as a gelding.

The OP's error is to use this as an excuse to avoid paying for the castration of the horse: having decided to have it gelded it doesn't really matter whether she has gone through a few months of blissful ignorance that the animal she thought was a gelding is in fact a colt. It is perfectly reasonable that any expenses relating to ensuring that the mare is not in foal should be "worn" by the veterinary practice but the invoice for the castration has been legitimately raised.

Fortunately entrance to veterinary school is based on slightly more objective criteria than how much one cares about animals.

If a client seeks to avoid paying legitimate fees then do you really expect a practice to continue to provide them with their best service? They would be too busy working doubly hard to cover the expenses incurred associated with the unpaid or late paid invoices. It might come as a surprise to you that most vets don't work as a hobby but as a means to make a living.

 

[Mithras]

-And another thing, regardless of what previous posters have stated the RCVS would have absolutely no interest in your complaint. The RCVS are limited by statute to matters of professional conduct and have no interest or responsibility in civil disputes (such as negligence) except when the negligence is so severe as to be described as "disgraceful professional conduct" and whilst describing a colt as a gelding is undoubtedly a mistake, it might even be negligent in no circumstances could it be considered "disgraceful".

It is innacurate however to state that this matter is not one of professional misconduct. It could well be so, depending on the evidence.

All professional associations have a complaints procedure, it is part of organising a profession, and while I don't think it a particularly complaint worthy issue, its really up to the aggrieved party to decide.

-You might have a claim for negligence- BUT

Well, yes. And of course negligence complaints and professional complaints often run together.

-Even if there has been negligence, as animals remain "chattels" (possessions) the OP would only be entitled to being returned to their original position and a claim for "worry or distress" or solatium would not be successful, although no doubt some slick lawyer will bleed you for some cash convincing you that a big pay day was on its way(you might even find some on here). As fas as I can tell there has been no loss, so the most you can expect is an apology and an invoice for the castration. Stop using a petty complaint as an excuse for fee avoidance.

You are confusing damages for breach of contract with damages in tort. In breach of contract, damages are indeed for the purpose of returning the parties to the position they would have been in, had the breach of contract not occurred. In tort (eg negligence) damages may be higher as compensation is permitted for additional headings. That is because damages in tort can include more remote damages from the source than in contract.

Solatium is generally a tiny amount, but if the colt had (hypothetically speaking) got two mares in foal for instance, the associated costs/loss of use, etc may not be adjudged by a court to be too remote a cost to claim in the tort of negligence by way of damages, whereas in contract, you would only be able to claim the direct costs of breach of contract, ie the professional fees invoiced for. I'm not saying it may succeed, its a question of evidence and remoteness of damage.

I doubt most lawyers would suggest there are big damages anywhere in this matter, its probably a small claim at best, if the OP particularly wanted to pursue it at all beyond simply querying the scan charge, which is designed for claimants representing themselves if they choose.

In this case, there appears to have been economic loss related to a physical issue, ie the costs of the scan. I don't think other poster's assertions that the OP should not have listened to the vet saying the colt was gelded and spotted it herself are quite realistic; its quite easy for a lay person to mistrust their own judgement if a professional states something categorically.

-Tristar- if you think clients who complain get the best service then (regardless of what you might wish for) you are mistaken. Veterinary surgeons are human and the response to this sort of complaint is to provide this sort of client with a poorer service (charge as much as possible, not be accommodating for visit times etc).

Littlelegs - in answer to your question - Hedley Byrne and Hunter v. Hanley are in point and already quoted. The questions of law they concern are in point. The question of fact is a different element to question of law and not particularly relevant. ie the facts of a case do not have to be the same or similar in order to set a legal precedent, merely the principle of law involved. There are vast numbers of precedents on the topic of professional misconduct and professional misstatement but these are the leading cases.

I am loving the barrack room lawyers on here (thats someone with no or limited legal training) . Given with great determination, if with little regard to accuracy. I particularly enjoyed the confusion of criminal and civil law. The concept that a professional should not comment on their professional subject was novel, although there is some merit in suggesting that a professional may not wish to be tarnished by association with idiocy. As I say, this place is excellent for providing potential exam questions, but not perhaps somewhere to go to provide legal advice. As always, anyone seeking legal advice should consult a solicitor and not seek it on the internet. I only argue for the sake of academic interest, and HHO is not somewhere I would in any way consider as a source of work, for safety reasons if nothing else.

 

[Mithras]

Tristar-

It is not in questioning a "faux pas" that the OP is wrong- no doubt the vet involved would apologise and would certainly suffer the embarrassment and loss in professional reputation in mistaking the colt as a gelding.

The OP's error is to use this as an excuse to avoid paying for the castration of the horse: having decided to have it gelded it doesn't really matter whether she has gone through a few months of blissful ignorance that the animal she thought was a gelding is in fact a colt. It is perfectly reasonable that any expenses relating to ensuring that the mare is not in foal should be "worn" by the veterinary practice but the invoice for the castration has been legitimately raised.

Fortunately entrance to veterinary school is based on slightly more objective criteria than how much one cares about animals.

If a client seeks to avoid paying legitimate fees then do you really expect a practice to continue to provide them with their best service? They would be too busy working doubly hard to cover the expenses incurred associated with the unpaid or late paid invoices. It might come as a surprise to you that most vets don't work as a hobby but as a means to make a living.

I too think trying to claim the costs of gelding would be too remote a claim from the original mistake by the vet. Although perhaps not. Theres no new intervening act, who knows if contributory negligence would be relevant or not in a question of professional negligence. It would be a bit extreme to take court action on such uncertain grounds for such a relatively small cost. I don't think its unreasonable for the OP to question the costs of the scan.

I have to say, if I were the OP, I'd be hoping the vets in question were reasonably apologetic for the mistake and took it seriously; if not, I simply wouldn't use them again.

 

[Littlelegs]

Mithras- I understand re precedent, but iirc neither case is relevant to the op as she hasn't suffered any loss, damages etc, the vets mistake has had no consequences, adverse or otherwise. The cases you quote may be relevant if the ops original question had been in regards to any cost/problem etc to the mare, but as it stands op is questioning the gelding cost, which would be ops responsibility whether noticed originally or now. And if anyone has a case, op has breached her contract with the vet for failure to pay for castration.

 

[cptrayes]

I particularly enjoyed the confusion of criminal and civil law.

If you are referring to my post, you have misread it. I was not suggesting that this was a criminal case. It is clearly a civil one. I was simply using criminal law to illustrate why, if you are the kind of solicitor or barrister who would take on this case for the OP, then you are, in my opinion, no better than an ambulance chaser.

But you're a teacher, so that's fine.

 

[pookie]

Solatium is generally a tiny amount, but if the colt had (hypothetically speaking) got two mares in foal for instance, the associated costs/loss of use, etc may not be adjudged by a court to be too remote a cost to claim in the tort of negligence by way of damages, whereas in contract, you would only be able to claim the direct costs of breach of contract, ie the professional fees invoiced for. I'm not saying it may succeed, its a question of evidence and remoteness of damage.

Also irrelevant to this case as the colt didn't get one mare in foal, let alone two.

I doubt most lawyers would suggest there are big damages anywhere in this matter, its probably a small claim at best, if the OP particularly wanted to pursue it at all beyond simply querying the scan charge, which is designed for claimants representing themselves if they choose.

Has the OP been charged for the scan? I can't find mention of that. Could you reference the post please?

In this case, there appears to have been economic loss related to a physical issue, ie the costs of the scan.

As above.

I don't think other poster's assertions that the OP should not have listened to the vet saying the colt was gelded and spotted it herself are quite realistic; its quite easy for a lay person to mistrust their own judgement if a professional states something categorically.

I think all anyone expects is that the owner of a young male animal check for the presence of testicles in the event the animal begins to display hormone-related behaviours. Hardly something beyond the capabilities of most 'lay persons' with functioning eyesight.

 

[Mithras]

If you are referring to my post, you have misread it. I was not suggesting that this was a criminal case. It is clearly a civil one. I was simply using criminal law to illustrate why, if you are the kind of solicitor or barrister who would take on this case for the OP, then you are, in my opinion, no better than an ambulance chaser.

But you're a teacher, so that's fine.

I am neither. I do some part-time lecturing, in my field. I am not a qualified teacher.

Why are you so fascinated with what I do, putting labels on things and telling people what they are and are not? It wouldn't be so bad if you were a little more accurate with your pronouncements! Its very, very odd behaviour.

Is it beyond you to concieve why someone might have an interest in correcting misinformation on an internet forum in their professional field?

The OP might want to take this claim herself as a small claim, theres probably not enough of a fee in it for any firm, if they are in the relevant jurisdiction, and it may well be too much hassle. Theres no insurance. Do you know anything about the way law firms work at all? You don't just go around taking on clients over the internet. You wouldn't want to, there are far too many nutters and timewasters around. Not every lawyer does court work. Jesus Christ. Far from being too complex terminology, virtually all of what I have said on this thread is first year, first term LLB stuff. ie the very, very basics.

 

[Littlelegs]

Tbh, its not first year law even, just common sense. Still confused as to what the nature of the ops claim would be for. Mental anguish thinking about what could've, but didn't, happen to the mare?

 

[Mithras]

Tbh, its not first year law even, just common sense. Still confused as to what the nature of the ops claim would be for. Mental anguish thinking about what could've, but didn't, happen to the mare?

I doubt the OP, if sensible, would want to take it beyond a letter asking for a refund of the scan costs and expressing her disappointment.

As I see it, the scan costs could be claimed by the OP, because if the vet had not told her the colt was gelded, she would not have put it in a field of mares and therefore not needed the scan to see if the mare was in foal. Its a direct and reasonably forseeable consequence. Less forseeable is the costs of gelding as a result of a possible negligent misstatement, as the gelding would have been necessary anyway. Although the OP might simply have been saying it because she is upset and aggrieved.

If she did decide to be awkward and take it to court, you generally put in as many heads of claim as you can, because if you don't put them in at the beginning, its hard to put them in later. And you don't want to be accused of professional negligence by failing to put in a potential head of claim, even if its likely to fail.

 

[Littlelegs]

That's the whole point though, op hasn't mentioned having to pay any costs for mare, ops original question was if she/he should have to pay the cost of gelding.