Do I pay my vet bill - for their mistake

[cptrayes]

If I was in your situation and had asked the same questions, then I would be asking the same question as you and I would expect the Vet to waiver to cost.

I think it is unacceptable for a Vet to 'mis diagnose' whether a horse had been castrated or not. They are the professionals, which you are paying for, so they should foot the bill, in this case.

I have very good Vets myself, but sometimes they push me to the limit ......

First, I wonder how easy you think it is to tell an expertly done castration of a very young horse, where the scar will have been very small and healed with no trace, a very common thing and a two year old with undescended testicles, a rare occurrence.

Second, I completely fail to see your logic that making that very easy to make mistake results in the vet being liable to pay for a castration that would have had to be done anyway and has caused no additional expense.

The scan is debatable, but even that I think the OP should pay for, given that the horse is (I think?) not fertile until his balls drop, and who owns a male horse without realising that it has balls? Do they never groom the insides of his back legs or pick up his tail? ESPECIALLY after being told he is behaving coltishly?


OP do you realise that if you do not pay this bill that the vet can come after your horse? I once bought one at auction that had been seized by my own vets in non-payment of their bill.

PAY UP!

 

[Ladyinred]

Ah! LadyinRed - so why are YOU going on the defensive about abusive postings I wonder?? Oh and the unwanted pregnancy was the mare! Not the OP! Crikey - keep up!

Loving the irony. Soo.. do I deduce its not fine for people to be blunt with the OP but it IS fine for you to be less than polite?? Or are you some sort of special case exempt from your own rules?

 

[Mithras]

OP do you realise that if you do not pay this bill that the vet can come after your horse? I once bought one at auction that had been seized by my own vets in non-payment of their bill.

PAY UP!

I wouldn't worry too much OP, a complaint to the RCVS about professional negligence should sist any court action for lien...

You could ask the practice if they have adopted the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and what they would advise in this instance. I do think there has been negligence - a duty of care is owed, and it has been breached, and it has caused part of the harm complained of (the additional costs of scanning the mare plus time and distress on your part). Higher standards are required of professionals.

So I think you are right to query paying the scanning costs, and also to ask for some discount off your gelding bill to compensate you for the professional negligence and worry and distress for you.

Yes people can make mistakes but categorically stating a young horse has been gelded when it is not and pointing out evidence is a pretty huge mistake to make, in terms of the potential losses that the negligence could have incurred. The vet would probably have been more sensible to say that the horse should be checked again for being gelded at a later date. Perhaps the vet did - then you get into the realms of proof.

 

[CBFan]

I can think of a few cases where having tesicles could be thought of as akin to an illness but they weren't horses.

haha! Well yes, there is that!

 

[cptrayes]

I wouldn't worry too much OP, a complaint to the RCVS about professional negligence should sist any court action for lien...

You could ask the practice if they have adopted the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and what they would advise in this instance. I do think there has been negligence - a duty of care is owed, and it has been breached, and it has caused part of the harm complained of (the additional costs of scanning the mare plus time and distress on your part). Higher standards are required of professionals.

So I think you are right to query paying the scanning costs, and also to ask for some discount off your gelding bill to compensate you for the professional negligence and worry and distress for you.

Yes people can make mistakes but categorically stating a young horse has been gelded when it is not and pointing out evidence is a pretty huge mistake to make, in terms of the potential losses that the negligence could have incurred. The vet would probably have been more sensible to say that the horse should be checked again for being gelded at a later date. Perhaps the vet did - then you get into the realms of proof.

I wouldn't wish clients like you or the OP on the worst vets in the world. A huge mistake not to realise that a 2 year old's balls had not descended when she had also been told by the owner that the horse was purchased as a gelding?

I hope I get to live in your world next time I am born if that's a huge mistake by a vet where you come from

OP, that's an interesting question. If you thought you'd bought a gelding why did you ask the Vet to check anyway? You obviously had doubts. The more I think about it the more I reckon even the scan is down to you, since you had doubts and failed to do the simplest check in the world - look between his back legs from time to time.

 

[Mithras]

I wouldn't wish clients like you or the OP on the worst vets in the world. A huge mistake not to realise that a 2 year old's balls had not descended when she had also been told by the owner that the horse was purchased as a gelding?

I hope I get to live in your world next time I am born if that's a huge mistake by a vet where you come from

OP, that's an interesting question. If you thought you'd bought a gelding why did you ask the Vet to check anyway? You obviously had doubts. The more I think about it the more I reckon even the scan is down to you, since you had doubts and failed to do the simplest check in the world - look between his back legs from time to time.

You seem to have something of a problem with putting things in proportion.

The huge mistake is because an entire youngster can get mares in foal if turned out with them on the mistaken advice of a vet that the horse has been gelded. Perfectly open to the vet to say they cannot say for sure because of the age of the horse. There is hardly any point in paying a qualified professional for their opinion if they get it so wrong. Perhaps "where you are" indiscriminate breeding is the norm?

 

[Littlelegs]

The op didn't pay for the vet to check if it was gelded or not. Op asked vet to check while out anyway for jabs. Unless op received an itemized bill including ' check for balls £x' it didn't cost anything for their mistake, she didn't pay for an expert opinion on its ability to reproduce or not. Op had to foot the bill for castration whether it was because vet found them initially or now. And tbh, if you take months to notice a pair yourself, you aren't in a position to moan about a vet not doing in minutes. I agree under normal circumstances you pay a vet for expert opinion, but as an owner if you rate yourself as having the experience for a youngster you should also be able to notice a pair of balls within a few months yourself. From some replies you'd think the vet had misdiagnosed a broken leg.

 

[Mithras]

The op didn't pay for the vet to check if it was gelded or not. Op asked vet to check while out anyway for jabs. Unless op received an itemized bill including ' check for balls £x' it didn't cost anything for their mistake, she didn't pay for an expert opinion on its ability to reproduce or not. Op had to foot the bill for castration whether it was because vet found them initially or now. And tbh, if you take months to notice a pair yourself, you aren't in a position to moan about a vet not doing in minutes. I agree under normal circumstances you pay a vet for expert opinion, but as an owner if you rate yourself as having the experience for a youngster you should also be able to notice a pair of balls within a few months yourself. From some replies you'd think the vet had misdiagnosed a broken leg.

Sorry, but thats just not correct. A higher standard is expected of a professional than of a non-professional, and this was the giving of a professional opinion sought by the client, during the course of work. There is case law stretching back to Hunter v. Hanley on this point, way back in the 1960s. And the standard required is that of the skilled person of the same discipline. I don't believe most vets would have made such a throwaway comment without a qualification, so its a prima facie case of negligence.

The OP is reasonable to expect to rely on the assurances of her vet as to a question put to them during the course of work. According to Hunter v Hanley (giving of a reference of creditworthiness for free by a bank), whether or not the advice was charged for is irrelevant.

 

[Littlelegs]

If the op was facing any costs that could have been avoided without the vets mistake, eg scanning the mare, unwanted foal etc then she may have a case against the vets. But op has only mentioned castration costs which she was liable for either way. So the hanley case would only be relevant in the case of extra costs incurred by the vets mistake.

 

[AmyMay]

Of course you should pay. Do pop a letter in with the payment expressing your dissapointment at the vets inability to spot the testicles. However, I can't help bit wonder why it took you so long to spot them. They're pretty hard to miss...??

 

[pookie]

The huge mistake is because an entire youngster can get mares in foal if turned out with them on the mistaken advice of a vet that the horse has been gelded...

And yet the mare isn't in foal, so that's a moot argument.

Whether the vet made a mistake or not is entirely irrelevant to the OP's decision to castrate her horse...something she admits she would've done anyway if the vet had said he hadn't been gelded. She could have kept him entire - she chose not to do this and so she should pay the bill for her decision.

 

[frozzy]

A lot of years ago (25 plus) I went to an auction that was being held to sell off the ponies that were part of the estate of a chap who had died. All ten of the ponies were in a dreadful state, long long winter coats, skin and bone, wormy, lousy etc etc.
I bought a filly that I felt sorry for and duly paid for and had a receipt that said I had bought a yearling filly.
Imagine my horror the next day when my daughter bathed it and said it was the only filly she had ever seen with a penis.! No balls (they came as soon as the poor thing got some proper feeding, and then with a bang!)
But did I sue the auctioneers ? no I did not. It made not one difference to me whether it was a filly, a colt with testicles, or a gelding.
Pay your bill. I paid mine!

 

[murphysmum123]

i work for a vets, and i think unless the vet in question stated on your record that you had a conversation about the testacles you will be hard to prove that the conversation actually took place. Have you asked whether the vet has commented on this on your record? as if not its your word against their's. Like the majority of posters i think you should just pay the bill you would of had to pay if the outcome was different and she had told you at the time that he was a colt.

 

[alsiola]

Sorry, but thats just not correct. A higher standard is expected of a professional than of a non-professional, and this was the giving of a professional opinion sought by the client, during the course of work. There is case law stretching back to Hunter v. Hanley on this point, way back in the 1960s. And the standard required is that of the skilled person of the same discipline. I don't believe most vets would have made such a throwaway comment without a qualification, so its a prima facie case of negligence.

The OP is reasonable to expect to rely on the assurances of her vet as to a question put to them during the course of work. According to Hunter v Hanley (giving of a reference of creditworthiness for free by a bank), whether or not the advice was charged for is irrelevant.

I am far from a lawyer and your post suggests you have significant legal training. I may be mistaken but as far as I am aware there cannot be negligence without harm. Given that in this case there has been no harm, there can therefore be no negligence.

 

[alsiola]

I wouldn't worry too much OP, a complaint to the RCVS about professional negligence should sist any court action for lien...

I can confidently state that the RCVS could not give two tosses about a vet making an honest mistake that caused no material harm. If I were the vet involved the only effect it would have on me would be the instant application of interest to the money already owed, and a refusal to ever lay eyes upon this person's horses again in my lifetime.

Of course it may have the effect of causing a young vet to spend weeks worrying about a complaint. If you want to do this to a fellow human being because you are too tight arsed to reach into your pocket then think about how that reflects upon you as a person.

 

[Laafet]

Surely OP's problem is with the seller of the horse as they had expected a gelding? I agree with the others, the vets need to be paid for the castration ASAP, the scanning might be waived as a good will gesture but surely that is being generous. FWIW the price quoted for castration is very reasonable anyway so I wouldn't have quibbled that.

 

[Mithras]

I am far from a lawyer and your post suggests you have significant legal training. I may be mistaken but as far as I am aware there cannot be negligence without harm. Given that in this case there has been no harm, there can therefore be no negligence.

your terminology is incorrect and you are trying to simplify something you don't quite understand. There appears to be loss here in terms of additional cost incurred and possibly also aclaim for solarium due to a potentially negligent misrepresentation.

There may also be a claim for breach of contract based on implied terms added to the contract during the visit

A vet was struck off recently for negligent misstatement for falsely dating a vaccination certificate.

Id certainly expect the practice to consider taking the scan costs off the bill on the basis that the op may not have turned out the colt with mares if she had not received such a dogmatic reassurance. Whether or not a case would succeed in court depends on the quality of evidence and whether financially is is worth pursuing.

I see no reason why vet practices should be treated with kid gloves. Not much point in getting a vet out of they're not going to make much of an effort to get things right.

 

[Mithras]

Solatium not solarium - damned phone

 

[jhoward]

the point to me is very simple..I asked a qualified equine vet if the animal had been castrated and she examined him replied..YES

when we bought him we were told he was a gelding and we asked the vet to check him over..because he was crawling in that area, I dont think she checked properly or thoroughly...what I mean by I would of gelded him anyway is the fact that it didn't matter that much to us whether his balls were there or not we just wanted him but we were on the understanding he had been cut...

Even months after when I rang the practice to speak to her..and the quote he has found life...no that she should arranged to visit and check him over..surely that would of been that right thing to do.

years ago i disputed a vets bill..

1st thing is evidence.. ask for records of first visit, and i presume he is registered as gelded since the 1st visit?

write a well worded letter to vet, keep a copy and send it recorded/special.

definatly speak to an equine solicitor.

i think thoose that are suggesting u want the castration for free are being very harsh.

 

[Racergirl]

your terminology is incorrect and you are trying to simplify something you don't quite understand. There appears to be loss here in terms of additional cost incurred and possibly also aclaim for solarium due to a potentially negligent misrepresentation.

There may also be a claim for breach of contract based on implied terms added to the contract during the visit

A vet was struck off recently for negligent misstatement for falsely dating a vaccination certificate.

Id certainly expect the practice to consider taking the scan costs off the bill on the basis that the op may not have turned out the colt with mares if she had not received such a dogmatic reassurance. Whether or not a case would succeed in court depends on the quality of evidence and whether financially is is worth pursuing.

I see no reason why vet practices should be treated with kid gloves. Not much point in getting a vet out of they're not going to make much of an effort to get things right.

Surely the breach of contract that should be persued more fully than the vets look is the contract stating that the OP was buying a gelding?? OP hasnt bought what she was expecting to buy - clearly the pony wasnt as described,so the way bigger issue is between the OP and the vendor of the pony?

as for the vets bill - if they werent there when the vet looked, and there was what felt like a scar - its annoying. If you had commented in the first instance (when the balls first dropped) then you may have found that they would have only charged you for the castration, and you could have got a free visit and the mare scanned as a goodwill gesture, but by waiting this long to pay and then deciding that they are in the wrong?? You'll be lucky....

 

[Natch]

erm... so if she had said 'no he's not been castrated' you'd have still had to pay out for the castration as you'd already got the horse.... so yes, you should still pay for the castration but I wouldn't be expecting to pay for the scan of the mare as it was down to their mistake that the mare was ever exposed to an entire...

The vet was asked to health check him and that meant checking he had been castrated to which she confirmed yes..he had and she said he wasn't then I would of arranged for him to of been gelding as being entire is not what we wanted.

I feel that the vet misdiaganosed him and why should I pay for her mistake?

You asked if you should have to pay for the castration, not if you should have to pay for the scan. I find that illogical but there you go.

You've had pretty conclusive advice, which concurs with the first reply. The vet didn't do unnecessary surgery, they did surgery you required. When it happened is not relevant.

a duty of care is owed, and it has been breached, and it has caused part of the harm complained of (the additional costs of scanning the mare plus time and distress on your part). Higher standards are required of professionals.

So I think you are right to query paying the scanning costs, and also to ask for some discount off your gelding bill to compensate you for the professional negligence and worry and distress for you.

I don't pretend to understand law but is there really compensation for distress over something like this

 

[Mithras]

I quite like this issue from an academic standpoint. It would make a good exam question.

I don't pretend to understand law but is there really compensation for distress over something like this

If you were making a claim, you might include a small claim for solatium (worry and distress) if you were claiming for loss at the same time. Its not going to be a big financial claim anyway, but for the sake of completeness you would probably just add it in.

Better to claim in tort/delict than contract law as damages potentially higher, but pretty minimal here anyway. I think claiming for the costs of gelding would be pushing it too far, but nothing to stop it being added to the claim just in case.

Hypothetically speaking. I doubt its worth all the hassle of gathering affadavit evidence etc to make a claim worthwhile, so if I were the OP, I'd simply write a letter expressing my dissatissfaction and asking for the charge for the scan to be removed from the bill...

 

[cptrayes]

You seem to have something of a problem with putting things in proportion.

The huge mistake is because an entire youngster can get mares in foal if turned out with them on the mistaken advice of a vet that the horse has been gelded. Perfectly open to the vet to say they cannot say for sure because of the age of the horse. There is hardly any point in paying a qualified professional for their opinion if they get it so wrong.

You make a mistake, not me, and I think from what you write that you are a lawyer, so your flawed logic is worrying.

The mistake was tiny. It is extremely difficult to tell a very poor colt with very late undescended testicles and a natural thickening in the general area from a colt gelded very young with a well healed scar. The vet was also told by the purchaser that she had bought a gelding. Any vet could have made the same mistake, not only incompetent ones.

The outcome of the mistake could have been severe. But it was not.

In addition to that, it was within the capability of the owner to prevent any bad outcome at no cost in time effort or money, by looking between her horse's back legs the moment she became aware of coltish behaviour, and from then onwards. It's a mystery to me how she could have missed them when they dropped.

Perhaps "where you are" indiscriminate breeding is the norm?

If you are the lawyer that I think you are, then you bring your profession into disrepute with gratuitous insults like this one.

 

[Natch]

Thanks for the explaination mithras

 

[Mithras]

You make a mistake, not me, and I think from what you write that you are a lawyer, so your flawed logic is worrying.

The mistake was tiny. It is extremely difficult to tell a very poor colt with very late undescended testicles and a natural thickening in the general area from a colt gelded very young with a well healed scar. The vet was also told by the purchaser that she had bought a gelding. Any vet could have made the same mistake, not only incompetent ones.

The outcome of the mistake could have been severe. But it was not.

In addition to that, it was within the capability of the owner to prevent any bad outcome at no cost in time effort or money, by looking between her horse's back legs the moment she became aware of coltish behaviour, and from then onwards. It's a mystery to me how she could have missed them when they dropped.





If you are the lawyer that I think you are, then you bring your profession into disrepute with gratuitous insults like this one.

Completely unacceptable. You're embarrassing yourself now.

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

 

[AntxGeorgiax]

he had been "wintered out" in a herd of approx 6 and when I decided to buy him it was not any condition of vets etc he was to weak.

The vet was asked to health check him and that meant checking he had been castrated to which she confirmed yes..he had and she said he wasn't then I would of arranged for him to of been gelding as being entire is not what we wanted.

I feel that the vet misdiaganosed him and why should I pay for her mistake?

I completely agree!!!
I think you should call them and write, even go there! She diagnosed him wrong, as he is now older this would have caused him more stress and potentially,vbecause he was gelded late he will act more of a stallion than a colt that had it done as a yearling.
I would definitely ask for some compensation or a percentage off of the bill. It is a stress concern on the behalf of your horse.
If not, I would ask for the money back for the health check the incorrect vet gave you, put a complaint in about her ( regardless or not if she doesn't work there) and demand your money! Or at least some form of explanation and apology!

 

[CBFan]

I completely agree!!!
I think you should call them and write, even go there! She diagnosed him wrong, as he is now older this would have caused him more stress and potentially,vbecause he was gelded late he will act more of a stallion than a colt that had it done as a yearling.
!

BALLS!!! Colts are routinely gelded up to the age of about 4 as some are kept entire as stallion potentials and then cut when they don't make the grade!!!
and the point is, he obviously didn't have any balls at 6 months or vet, never mind the OWNER would have noticed them on examination!!!

 

[stranger1612]

It looks likely that the vet missed the fact the animal had not been gelded, but what have you actually lost? We would wear the cost of confirming the mare was not in foal but you are clearly trying to avoid paying a legitimate invoice. Do remember that a day will come when you will need the vet and I promise you clients who kick up a big fuss definitely get the poor service.

If you were my client I would sack you, chase you as hard as I could for the outstanding invoice and contact all of my neighbouring practices advising them not to take you on as a client.

 

[tristar]

the point for me is that the vet should have asked has the colt been gelded?, because sometimes its hard to tell, but i think normally one can tell, the buyer should have asked the relevant questions of the seller, the vet should have have asked the question, if there was any doubt, ie. no testicles visable, the name of the castrating vet should have been asked for to verify.

an entire colt not only can put mares in foal but also is a serious hasard, sometimes they mount people and injure them not to mention kicking and biting, what if a child had gone in the field with it, ok nothing has happened, fortunately.

i find the remark about vets should treat complaining clients by giving them bad service disgusting, it is after all the welfare of the animal that is paramount.

 

[Batgirl]

Completely unacceptable. You're embarrassing yourself now.

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

I think CPTrays has a point and as CP suggests if you are a lawyer you don't paint your self in a good light, arguing ins as complicated legalese as you can manage whilst skirting the points other people raise and then resulting to sexist comments (about yourself, chip, shoulder much??)

There has been no damage caused (if there had been this would eb an entirely different matter), the castration should be paid for. The OP should complain and not pay the scan fee. To persue a vet for missing a castration when there was a scar consistent with gelding and no evident testicles is ridiculous and I doubt the case would go anywhere.

I await your haughty and wordy reply with baited breath.