Has anyone argued the BEVA guidelines and won ?

T

toomanyhorses26

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 October 2007
Messages
2,652
Visit site
My horse is being put to sleep next week due to many conditions which have become apparent in the range of tests she has gone through. I phoned my insurance company to discuss and have been told she doesn't mee the guidelines for destruction. She has active navicular,pedal osteitis,susepected soft tissue damage in both fronts,damage to her suprspinious ligament,si joint damage,change in both hocks and damage to both proximal suspensories. In my discharge notes - the vet has stated she does not advise surgery for the suspensories due to her hind leg confo. She has said that shockwave,tildren and remedial shoeing are options for the other issues but given the combination of problems she doesn't believe that they will give a successful outcome. My mare is a shadow of her former self in terms of personality (she looks a million dollars) as she isn't working (thirved on work and routine) - would I have any grounds to argue the insurance companies verdict ? I feel like I am sounding quite mercenary but I have thrown a large amount of my own money trying to get her rideable (saddlers,back,teeth etc - not covered by insurance)
 
The best person to argue your case is your vet, if they feel the treatment options are limited and likely to fail, the insurance co may listen. The problem is they would rather spend ££££s on unsuccessful treatment than pay out a one off death claim.
I understand why the guidelines are there, something needs to be in place to prevent the unscrupulous owner having a horse pts when it gets an injury just because it will not do the job required, it may still be fit to do another but at a lower value or after a long rest period it is the more complex cases, like yours, that get caught up in the same way, when you really have little option, no one issue being that serious but as a whole there is no chance of recovery.
It may be worth delaying having her pts, as long as she is not going to suffer, for another week or two and start getting a case together possibly ask the insurance co to get a second opinion, see if your vet will write to them on your behalf, the fact she does not enjoy being out of work is not relevant to them, stick to the fact that she is not a candidate for operations or further treatment and is suffering constant pain.

Sorry you are going through this:(
 
In answer to your question - yes.
My beloved Henesy was pts after being diagnosed with grade 2 wobblers after sustaining horrific self inflicted field injury twice (we are talking over £10K of veterinary care and 19 weeks box rest for 1st injury and 6 weeks box rest for 2nd injury)
The heartbreaking decision was made by myself and my trusted vet to pts before he got too bad. The thought of my lad going down in the field and not being able to get back up again was heartbreaking. I did not want to leave him to get worse - as he would have no understanding of why his back legs weren't working. He was grade 2 when diagnosed.
BEVA guidelines say he would have to have been grade 5 (on the floor and not able to get up) before they would support euthanasia ffs!)
My vet spoke to the head vet representing my insurance company (NFU) and he agreed with my vet - the decision had been the right course of action in this case. So the insurance paid out in full. This was down to my wonderful vet - who fought my corner completely off his own back without any asking from me (I wasn't bothered about the money - was just heartbroken to have lost him). So - yes in this case we beat the BEVA guidelines.
Your vet needs to fight your corner.
 
Yes.

Both hind suspensories had it. She was only four and a half.

When her hind legs shook to stale, she couldn't make a small turn, and when she got down to roll her hind legs both shook violently, and when it sunk into my thick brain that it was only going to get worse and the winter was coming, I spoke to my vet. She confirmed. I arranged to have Tigs put to sleep.

The insurance company argued. I told them to boil their heads as she was my horse and I was the one responsible for her health and welbeing. My vet wrote a stonkingly good letter. they accepted, but then tried again to get me to change my mind the day before. I'd been over and over the possibilities so many times, there was nothing I could do for her, so it was, from my point of view, a heartless thing to do. I told them it was going ahead with or without their blessing.

They paid out in full a couple of months later.
 
You can complain to the insurance company, who can then look at the claim again and overturn the claims decision. If you are still not happy with the outcome you can take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service who offer a free service to review claims and decisions that are made.

also, couple of quick tips from one in the know, get your vet to make the point the it is for "welfare issues", this can be useful info to the complaints handler, but FOS also tend to take this into account when looking through the case. Also ask the insurer to look into a cash in lieu of vets fees, seems your mare has a number of problems, and if they are all valid claims you will be saving them £1000's by having her put to sleep.

Hard times for you whatever though ...:(
 
From your description it does not seem likely that you will receive a pay out from your insurer and (assuming you are attempting to claim on the "All risks mortality" section) neither should you.

Mortality insurance would be better described as emergency euthanasia cover. It is designed (and the premium is priced) to reflect the risks of horses suffering a fatal or serious injury/ illness where prolonging an animals life is viewed as unfair.

In reality it sounds as if your horse would live the rest of her natural life in a field without too much difficulty and mortality insurance is not designed to cover this situation.

Insurers do provide the opportunity to guard against this situation with "loss of use" cover but the additional cover is reflected in a higher premium.
 
I agree with stranger1612 - that is the reason there is the option to take out Lou cover for horses, to cover the scenario you are describing. The horse is not suffering and insurance is not there to cover incidences where there are actually options for the horse. The death cover is there for when euthanasia is the only option. In the case of the wobblers situation I can see why they would have agreed to pay out but for what the op describes, if I was an insurer I would not be wanting to pay under death. I don't think a get would be able to justify it to an insurer either I'm afraid
 
As the two posts above.

OP may not like the prospect of a ridden horse turning into a field ornament (and with good management there is no reason most horses can't be happy that way even if they do loose some of their interest in work/people) but horse would be fine with it.

PTS a horse for your own benefit (i.e. will be able to get something else to ride) is different and not a welfare argument.

Sorry.
 
With all the things wrong with this horse how can it not be in constant pain? I cant see how you could 'retire' to the field even as a pet when it must be at the least dreadfully uncomfortable, if not in agonising pain?? How is this in the welfare of the horse?
 
no-I feel for you as went through this recently. Had an 11yo with melanoma on his tail which were being treated. It became apparent that there was one just inside his rectum and scanning revealed several more. The most obvious one had begun to ulcerate as evidenced by a wound sinus that appeared a couple of days late, horse was showing signs of straining to defecate although this improved slightly with huge doses of bute to bring down some inflammation. They wouldn't ok it without a PM which could have cost hundreds with no guarantee they would pay out for that. IMO my vet was gutless and during the investigation both he and the company's vet were only worried about covering their backsides.

They would have paid out another couple of thousand though, for cimetidine which hadn't had an effect previously. He wasn't worth a lot and I wasn't expecting much-certainly wouldn't have covered the cost of another horse, it was more the fact that they would rather spend money on a useless drug, prolonging a horse's discomfort and risking him dying of a horrible colic or internal bleed out. It felt alot like they were insinuating that I wasn't doing the best for my horse. I will not insure a horse again.

I hope you get it sorted, you need your vet onside
 
No you won't. I had a horse with issues, but they wouldn't pay out, as I was putting her to sleep "too early"
 
W are in the same situation, after our mare slipped off a step and I initial diagnosis was ligament damage, she was on box rest for 6 months, turned away for 6 wks then walked out for 4 weeks with a little trot introduced after that. She has come back lame again. More detailed ex rays, by another vet practice has shown the cartilage in the proximal tarsal joint has been destroyed. So we have a horse that can stand and walk, will constantly rest that leg, and if does more than that will be lame.
The sensible option will be pts, we cannot afford and will not keep a field ornament, there is a glut of brood mares and I will not give her away because you cannot guarantee she won't be bute'd up and passed on.
 
I fought my insurance company when I had my 8 month old foal put down after he broke his back as they argued there was no need. In the end I won! My poor foal had a broken back and several of his ribs had detatched from his spine and were very likely to puncture his lungs. His back was about to snap completely in 2 which would of resulted in instant paralysis but they argued there was no need for him to be pts. It was a very distressing time for us but my vet fought with them over it and eventully lost his temper with them and told them he was pts for welfare issues as if he had died his natural death it was gonna be extremely painful and terrifying for the foal and not long after they paid out all over the measly £500 I had insured the wee soul for
 
12Feb said:
With all the things wrong with this horse how can it not be in constant pain? I cant see how you could 'retire' to the field even as a pet when it must be at the least dreadfully uncomfortable, if not in agonising pain?? How is this in the welfare of the horse?
Click to expand...

Vet has advised options for most of the issues which may relieve pain without making horse ridable.
 
jrp204 said:
... So we have a horse that can stand and walk, will constantly rest that leg, and if does more than that will be lame.
The sensible option will be pts, we cannot afford and will not keep a field ornament....
Click to expand...

Your call.

But why others premiums should pay for it I don't see.

LOU insurance is for this.

Choosing to PTS because you don't want an unridden horse is just that: a choice.
 
lornaA said:
I fought my insurance company when I had my 8 month old foal put down after he broke his back as they argued there was no need. In the end I won! My poor foal had a broken back and several of his ribs had detatched from his spine and were very likely to puncture his lungs. His back was about to snap completely in 2 which would of resulted in instant paralysis but they argued there was no need for him to be pts. It was a very distressing time for us but my vet fought with them over it and eventully lost his temper with them and told them he was pts for welfare issues as if he had died his natural death it was gonna be extremely painful and terrifying for the foal and not long after they paid out all over the measly £500 I had insured the wee soul for
Click to expand...

This ^ on the other hand is totally different.

I'm sorry you had to fight for a sensible outcome LornaA and please your vet backed you.
 
Tickles said:
Your call.

But why others premiums should pay for it I don't see.

LOU insurance is for this.

Choosing to PTS because you don't want an unridden horse is just that: a choice.
Click to expand...

I agree it is my choice, I can't afford to insure for LOU, she wasn't what I would call expensive, still enough though, she wasn't competing at affilliated level yet and being a mare the insurance co wouldn't give me 100% as she would still have breeding potential. I will not give her away, if I can't sell her as a brood mare, she has reasonable breeding, she will be PTS. I have already written off the money, of course it would be nice to have the money from the insurance company but unfortunately she will not be considered to be a welfare case.
I will not be fighting my insurance company, it's a bummer though, we are not in a position to replace her so daughter will just have to get rides.
Plus, it is not a matter of 'not wanting an unridden horse', we are farmers, our animals have to do a job and I consider an oversized lawnmower who is often in pain not to be filling that role, and is it fair on any animal to keep them in pain just to make ourselves feel better?
 
12Feb said:
With all the things wrong with this horse how can it not be in constant pain? I cant see how you could 'retire' to the field even as a pet when it must be at the least dreadfully uncomfortable, if not in agonising pain?? How is this in the welfare of the horse?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately though you are seeing this as a horse owner and not an insurance company. IF the vet said the horse was hopping, is never going to be right and warranted being PTS now then the insurance company would have no quibbles about paying for the horse to ne euthanased. However, the vet has suggested possible options, even if they may not work and yes (if the OP is insured for vets fees), you, me and others may figure it would be cheaper for the insurance company (maybe, depending on sum insured of the horse) to have the horse PTS instead of paying vets fees and then still the possibility of having the horse PTS at the end of it but, this is how it works whether you like it or not.

LOU cover is there and is available but people choose not to take it in many cases. However, that cover WOULD mean you would bet some settlement should you elect to have the horse PTS. If you had any idea how many people who don't have vets fees decide to have their horse PTS and claim the money because they don't want to or can't afford to pay for treatment, then you may understand more why insurance companies don't just hand out cash for death claims.

Sadly there are also many fraudulent claims - sometimes even claiming for the death of a horse that maybe never even existed and if it did exist it certainly was not PTS (definitely not twice through 2 different insurance companies!!!).

Horse insurance is not a lucrative business at all and sadly is only going to get more and more expensive.
 
jrp204 said:
Plus, it is not a matter of 'not wanting an unridden horse', we are farmers, our animals have to do a job
Click to expand...

Well I'm a [insert career (or rude word!) of your choice here] and my animals do/don't [delete as you see fit] have to do a job.

Again, that is a choice, a judgement you make.

jrp204 said:
and is it fair on any animal to keep them in pain just to make ourselves feel better?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But if animal was in constant untreatable pain then vet could advise PTS on welfare grounds and there wouldn't be an issue with insurance.
 
Tickles said:
Well I'm a [insert career (or rude word!) of your choice here] and my animals do/don't [delete as you see fit] have to do a job.

Again, that is a choice, a judgement you make.



Of course not. But if animal was in constant untreatable pain then vet could advise PTS on welfare grounds and there wouldn't be an issue with insurance.
Click to expand...

It is a judgement we will make, and we ARE gutted this has happened, my daughter has produced 2 difficult horses to competing well at affiliated level, this horse was
one she could get moving up the grades on, but hey, that's horses. We cannot afford to keep any animal as a field ornament, I'm sorry if you don't agree with this. We are not Hillside sanctuary. We see too many posts on here about horses being sold on with soundness issues, bute'd up etc, there are too many unwanted foals. So our choices are??
Obviously she could be kept on bute, increasing the levels as she deteriorates, you may think that is the right thing to do. But is there any difference in putting to sleep now or in 2 years when her liver packs up?
If you would like to buy her.......
 
Yes.

My warmblood was put to sleep in July last year.
Although the vet had to say he didn't meet the beva guidlines he agreed it was the kindest thing.

Nfu refused to pay.
I fought and after lots of letters and arguing 6 months later they paid out in full.

I quoted the animal care act.
About not letting an animal suffer and providing care and treatment for illness.

Feel free to contact me.
 
My horse is in pain end of . Its not manageable on an acceptable amount of pain relief and she struggles on a day to day basis going to the field,coming back from the field and general day to day tasks. She will not be rideable and by my vets own admission is not fixable. Yes I have been given treatment options as such but have been advised against them as in her words ' you could throw thousands at her but it doesn't change her conformation' .

I wont be postponing her passing as I feel she has gone through enough in the last few weeks - stays away from home,sedation,exercise (under vet supervision).

I struggle to see how she is fit for any purpose - lawnmower or otherwise as she will only graze uphill ( iguess it takes the pressure off her back) ,stresses when she is away from her field mates but equally is vulnerable when turned out with them..

Maybe I am just too close to this to see sense as such
 
I'm pleased to see this thread. I am having to make this decision on a severe head shaker. We have tried all sorts of drugs and nothing has worked. I would do anything to help or cure him. He was the most perfect pony, when he was well.

The experts say it it a very painful condition and he is certainly distressed much of the time, but does have periods that are a bit better. Having read the guidelines I can see I may have to fight. I think it is cruel to leave him in a field / stable and believe him to be a danger to himself and other horses and people at times, as he will suddenly bolt or rub his face enough to harm.

The decision to PTS is difficult and I think the OP is making the right call - too many horses are left in the field to decline in low / medium pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top