Help- passed 5*vetting with shiver ‘of no clinical significance’

[cowgirltobe]

Hello everyone
I am looking for advice - I have just bought a 6yr old horse for a substantial about of money for hunting and SJ. He passed a 5 stage vetting. On the certificate the vet noted ‘extremely mild shiver when hind limbs picked up of no clinical or husbandry significance’. I dont know anything about a horse having a ‘shiver’ of this sort. The vet on the phone was emphatic that it was nothing to worry about, that horses especially good jumpers often have this. I went with the vet’s view it was of no significance and bought the horse. the insurance company then refused to insure him on the basis that my horse had been ‘diagnosed as a shiverer’. I hadn’t foreseen any issues with insurance given he passed the vet and what I had been told re the shiver. The vet told me the refusal was ridiculous, he wasn’t making a diagnosis of ‘shivering’, the shiver was of no clinical significance and ‘it could have been behaviour anyway’. I have now been googling shivering horses and learn that it is in fact a neurological degenerative disease which can render horses unable to walk. I wouldn’t have bought him if I knew this was potentially the significance of having a shiver. Do I have any recourse re the vet in this situation?

 

[Equi]

First things first I would get another vet to have a look. If the horse does indeed have shivers at least you’ll know. You won’t have any recourse with the vet though. I know a few with it and they’re perfectly fine riding normally.

 

[TGM]

I don't know the legal implications but your vet is quite right in saying quite a lot of horses have a mild shiver and for many it doesn't affect their performance at all. We have an 18yo gelding who we bought 11 years ago knowing he had a mild shiver. He has successfully competed up to 2* BE and regularly hunts with the local bloodhound pack - his shiver has not worsened at all in all the time we have had him.

 

[ycbm]

The vet is trying to have it both ways. He says he hasn't diagnosed a shiver when he has, and he's done that, understandably, to protect himself against a claim later if it starts to get worse.

Unfortunately for you he did diagnose it, and I suspect that you will have no claim against the vet unless the horse degenerates and is no longer fit for purpose. While the horse remains fit for purpose I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to pursue a claim for him being not fit to insure.

Can you get the vet to write a full explanation for the insurance company of why he mentioned shivering on the vet certificate at all, and commit to writing that in his view it is not a degenerative condition in this horse? If he won't, then you might possibly have some comeback that he passed the horse but won't now stand by his judgement at the time.

It's a difficult situation to be in, I hope that the horse continues to do the job you need him to do (as many do) and that you can get insurance for everything except the shiver from another company.
.

 

[Red-1]

I feel for you and the vet.

If the vet felt a shiver, then they are bound to report that. They put it on the certificate and told you. He felt it would not affect the purpose that the animal was vetted for, so the horse 'passed' as suitable for that purpose.

When I put a deposit on a horse, I do so 'subject to a satisfactory vetting' as the vetting may not be satisfactory, even if the horse would be suitable for purpose sold. This would be one of those occasions.

The link where your current situation would have been broken is where you see the note on the certificate and make a decision as to weather the purchase goes ahead or not. As you say, this horse cannot now be fully insured (although can still be insured for everything else) and also, if it didn't work out, you should declare this and the horse would be worth way less money.

In this case, I may have still bought the horse, but used the note on the certificate to negotiate a discounted price to reflect the finding. As you didn't, and accepted the horse as-is, at the original price, I don't think you have any come back on anyone.

 

[cowgirltobe]

Thanks for all the helpful replies. It is an unfortunate situation. I hope another company will insure him with an exclusion however this company did refuse it outright. I did go ahead with the purchase with the ‘shiver’ noted on the certificate because I essentially understood it to be harmless from his descriptions, of no significance in his words. I understand that the vetting is an ‘on the day’ assessment and it may not affect his performance now but, from a lay perspective, I would have expected to be informed by the vet in full disclosure of what the implications might be if a horse showed an early symptom of a potentially serious incurable condition, rather than not informing me of what shivering is, only told that it is of no significance. Is it outside the remit of the vetting to identify what would potentially affect performance in the future rather than if it affects him now? I feel awful because I got the vetting to find out about concerns outside my own knowledge, relied on the vetting, and now discover he could actually have something really serious. I really hope he is fine. I will get another vet to look at him. Thanks for the advice all.

 

[ihatework]

Just try a different insurance company, you should find one that will cover the horse and just exclude shiver/related conditions - that’s par for the course.
The vet hasn’t done anything wrong, they have judged the horse fit for your purpose but noted a finding - it was up to you to assess whether you were happy to accept that finding.
You have bought the horse now, crack on and enjoy them!

 

[TPO]

You might be better engaging with a insurance broker as now that you've been refused cover you have to declare it. This might affect future quotes

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

I have to differ slightly from other posters, I do think the vet has failed in his duty of care to his client when vetting this horse. If your vet is an experienced equine vet I would have thought he was almost negligent at worse or ignorant and inexperienced at best not to warn you that by writing this on the vetting report you would struggle with insurance.

He MUST have been aware of this. It makes no difference that he said it was unlikely to be an issue physically and the horse was fit for purpose. What he said in fact, is worth nothing, but what he wrote on the vetting is, in fact, a huge question mark over the horse and its future and your ability to get it insured. It could also knock a huge amount off his re-selling price should you wish to sell him on at a later date.

I would not be happy at all.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

The vet is really damned either way in this situation ?

If would get the opinion of another vet and go from there. Maybe a second opinion would help with insurance? I'm not sure. A horse would be declined here for that.

 

[TPO]

When I've had 5 stage vetting the vets have always discussed their findings with me. I've never just been told pass or fail.

I would have expected the vet to discuss his findings, including the shiver, even if just to confirm that it should not affect the horse's ability to do the job that it is being bought for.

There has to be some responsibility for the potential purchaser to review the vet findings too before making their decision regarding the sale.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

The vet is really damned either way in this situation ?

Well he isn't really, he did the correct thing by writing on the cert exactly what he found. Where he failed, IMO, was verbally telling client he did not think it would affect the horse's performance in any way, but he did not also ensure his client was aware that this could and did affect trying to insure the horse and will have a huge influence on its selling price now or in the future.

Edited to add, I would not buy any horse that has even a hint of being a shiverer on its vetting, and one has to assume this would show up on another vetting too? I agree I would get a second vet's opinion and take it from there.

 

[Michen]

Well he isn't really, he did the correct thing by writing on the cert exactly what he found. Where he failed, IMO, was verbally telling client he did not think it would affect the horse's performance in any way, but he did not also ensure his client was aware that this could and did affect trying to insure the horse and will have a huge influence on its selling price now or in the future.

Edited to add, I would not buy any horse that has even a hint of being a shiverer on its vetting, and one has to assume this would show up on another vetting too? I agree I would get a second vet's opinion and take it from there.

I’m not sure that’s the vets responsibility though to advise on insurance. Client could have ringed insurers before purchasing the horse to check.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

I’m not sure that’s the vets responsibility though to advise on insurance. Client could have ringed insurers before purchasing the horse to check.

I understand what you are saying and I agree it is not the vets responsibility to advise about insurance. But if he is an experienced equine vet he must have known putting that on the vet cert was very likely to affect its insurability and open market value even on the day of purchase, never mind future possibilities. I think morally the full implications of his findings have not been explained to OP at time of vetting. And they should have been IMO.

 

[paddy555]

I am not sure the vet has done anything wrong. He saw something, pointed it out and gave his opinion that it was of no significance. OP asked the vet to do something ie vet and that's what he did and reported his findings and his opinion of it's significance.

OP then had a choice,, accept the vet's opinion or do further research. I doubt the vet was asked about insuring and many don't insure anyway. Maybe he thought it was so inconsequential, as it was in his view, he didn't think insurance would be a problem. Maybe he assumed you would check it with the insurance before purchasing.

The choice was to accept the vet's opinion or ask Google at that stage.

I cannot see any comeback on the vet. If insurance is important then I would contact a specialist in view of the refusal. Otherwise get on and enjoy the horse.

 

[cowgirltobe]

It’s not really just about the insurance, it’s also about not being informed of what the significance of a shiver is. I could have turned to google at the point it was raised by him, but to be honest I did not because he told me it was unimportant, and that was why I had sought an expert opinion in the first place in the form of a vet as to potential issues rather than having to resort to the opinion of google, which, can throw up all sorts of things you wouldn’t necessarily know were accurate or not especially not re the horse in question. I didn’t think I had any need to question the vet that it was of no significance.
Re the insurance, I had the insurance already lined up with the 5* certificate and full X-rays, but didn’t check specifically with the insurers before purchase that any the note would result in refusal - more fool me in retrospect - I had expected at most that any notes on the certificate might generate exclusions because prior to the vetting I had asked the vet the impact of findings on insurance which would not fail him but were noted and that is what he said. It was not mentioned after the vetting that the shiver finding would generate an exclusion and had no idea it could result in insurance refusal. Effect on value was not mentioned either. Thanks for all the comments, all the views much appreciated.

 

[splashgirl45]

i agree with mrs jingle, i would have expected the vet to say what the worst case scenario is so the purchaser would be able to do some research. if the horse was costly i would imagine most people would insure and the vet should be aware that his remarks would make a big difference to the insurance and the horses future value..personally i wouldnt have bought an expensive horse with that sort of question mark

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Well I am sure you are correct that it is not the vets place to advise on insurability or not. However, it is surely their place in a 6 year old being bought for a 'substantial price' , to advise that even a minimal sign of having shivers, in both hinds, although in the vet's opinion unlikely to be a problem can and will affect its price considerably, both on the day and at a later date if being sold on?

Perhaps I expect too much of a vetting, but I can only go by my own experience and knowledge of my own vet, he would most certainly have made me aware of all implications, and then allowed me to make my decision based on the good and the bad.

I sincerely hope for OP's sake that there will not be any future problems, although of course unfortunately one of the implications (insurance) is already becoming obvious. But I cannot assume that inability to insure might be a problem for OP? Possibly she is financially able to foot any possible related vet bills in the future, and has no concerns about value of her horse diminishing if she ever wants to sell on and another vet picks up on it.

 

[TPO]

The thing is any mention of a shiver at all would have spurred most people to have a discussion with the vet and find out thr impact of it on things like insurance before proceeding with the sale.

You mention in your OP that you didnt know about shivers in horses. Theres no point going over it because it's done now but you'll not make that mistake again. Some lessons are only learned the hard way as I know all too well.

Maybe if you make a seperate post someone could recommend how to proceed with insurance. Being refused usually has an impact going forward and if you dont declare it then your cover is void. I think SEIB are a broker so they might be able to help find an insurer who will cover your horse excluding the shivers

 

[CanteringCarrot]

So how do you think the situation should've played out?

Vet notices what he feels to be a shiver, but a very minor one and may be of no significance or further impact. Vet backs this up with his experience over the years as he's seen it not affect many other horses. Vet writes it on the vetting because it is something he noticed.

Vet should've gone into a full discussion on shivers and the impact of this small finding on insurance? Vets job isn't to advise on insuring, unless the client specifically asks. IMO.

As for the purchase price, that's all relative because one person's "significant price" is another person's "average/normal/easily affordable" we've seen it on other threads here.

Then, if the vet went into a whole discussion about shivers, suddenly the horse would have shivers. That's all the buyer would likely hear. Then we have a seller saying that a vet said her horse has shivers and it doesn't...I don't know, maybe not, just feels like a thread that would happen here ?

I'd just get another opinion and see from there. Otherwise, nothing here is productive, I think.

 

[cowgirltobe]

Yes quite I did have a discussion with the vet about it and he was emphatic that it was of no significance. I told the vet in that discussion that I had no experience of a horse that had a shiver. I didn’t understand that the mild occurrence of a shiver in the hinds could necessarily progress to that or be an issue and it certainly wasn’t mentioned. You are right I will never make such a mistake again!

 

[cowgirltobe]

I think the vet should have explained what shivers actually is and whilst he wasn’t saying this horse was definitely a shiverer, the snatching of the hinds and mild shiver noted COULD be indicative of a bigger problem that could get worse over time - so that I could make an informed decision - not just for insurance purposes although he was well aware that was the point of the vetting and X-rays etc - but also to have a full picture of the health of the horse.
I have spent most of my savings on him, the purchase was a big deal for me and I want to insure against losing that amount for some reason and because I will struggle with vets fees otherwise.

 

[splashgirl45]

was this a vet recommended by the seller or your own vet

 

[CanteringCarrot]

I think that's part of it, the "could" aspect of it all.

Could be shivers/worsen, could never worsen or be an issue. The vet possibly leans more toward the latter, but insurance means more toward the former, as is normal, when it comes to insurance.

So if the vet said this probably isn't but could be something we call shivers and gone into an explanation of shivers, you would've passed on the purchase?

 

[Red-1]

It’s not really just about the insurance, it’s also about not being informed of what the significance of a shiver is. I could have turned to google at the point it was raised by him, but to be honest I did not because he told me it was unimportant, and that was why I had sought an expert opinion in the first place in the form of a vet as to potential issues rather than having to resort to the opinion of google, which, can throw up all sorts of things you wouldn’t necessarily know were accurate or not especially not re the horse in question. I didn’t think I had any need to question the vet that it was of no significance.
Re the insurance, I had the insurance already lined up with the 5* certificate and full X-rays, but didn’t check specifically with the insurers before purchase that any the note would result in refusal - more fool me in retrospect - I had expected at most that any notes on the certificate might generate exclusions because prior to the vetting I had asked the vet the impact of findings on insurance which would not fail him but were noted and that is what he said. It was not mentioned after the vetting that the shiver finding would generate an exclusion and had no idea it could result in insurance refusal. Effect on value was not mentioned either. Thanks for all the comments, all the views much appreciated.

To e fair to the vet, I would have expected the back legs and nervous system to be excluded, as the vet noticed a prior issue, but I have never heard of this meaning the insurance being refused in its entirety. I am not surprised the vet was taken aback by that.

I would go back to the insurance company and query that, as it may be crossed wired. They may mean that the condition is excluded, not that insurance is refused per se. It is important that you do this, as a refusal to insure has long term implications in other areas of your life, like car insurance and house insurance.

 

[cowgirltobe]

I think at that stage I would have either negotiated the purchase price or thought very carefully about whether to go ahead at all.
the vet might lean that way, but he did not tell me there were the other possibilities too!
it wasn’t my vet, and it wasn’t the vet the seller actually uses himself for his horses, but he was one of the recommendations the seller made to me as I am not from that area.

 

[paddy555]

Yes quite I did have a discussion with the vet about it and he was emphatic that it was of no significance. I told the vet in that discussion that I had no experience of a horse that had a shiver. I didn’t understand that the mild occurrence of a shiver in the hinds could necessarily progress to that or be an issue and it certainly wasn’t mentioned. You are right I will never make such a mistake again!

you asked his opinion and he gave you an answer. He thought it unimportant so why would he say anything else. You could have asked how would I know if it progressed, how much would it cost to test, is there treatment, what would be the worst case scenario etc etc. Without that he may well have thought you were happy with his opinion. You could have asked will this be noted on the insurance and result in an exclusion? will I have a problem getting insurance.

It was also your choice to accept the vet's opinion. You could have asked for a 2nd vetting.
As for value then that is between you and the seller. I don't think it is up to the vet to advise if you should renegotiate the price.



It is a sad situation OP that it has spoilt your enjoyment of your new horse but to simply answer your question I cannot see any recourse. I'm not sure you vet has done anything wrong or there is anything to challenge him on. He hasn't given you incorrect advice, hasn't not advised you of a situation. What would you want from him? Your horse could still be hunting in 15 years time quite happily. His opinion could be spot on.

 

[splashgirl45]

i am sorry you are having this problem but the last vet i would use would be one recommended by the seller. i know its done now but for future reference, if anyone is buying a horse out of area get recommendations for that area from the vet you will be using once you have the horse, or on this forum from someone who is in the area... i am a little concerned that you took the advice of the seller.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

i am a little concerned that you took the advice of the seller.

This had crossed my mind too. Many years a go when I lived in the UK, there was a particular vet in the area who was notoriously useless at vetting even though he was an equine vet. He had passed a good few horses as sound that clearly were not, and missed out on obvious things like COPD. Back then all this suing and internet checking of course was not a thing that it is now.

I used to sell a small number of horses back then and always hoped the buyer would use him even when I was 100 per cent confident the horses were OK! My views were shared with other people selling in the area, if you wanted a decent vet for your own horse don't get him in, but if you are selling a horse, just hope buyer does use him!

Not all vets are great. In any profession you get both the fantastic and the useless. I will not comment on the vet in this case, as I do not know anything about him, or the area, or the horse that was bought. In hindsight a bit of research on the vet might have been useful. But what is done is done.

 

[cowgirltobe]

Yes I see that. the seller gave me about 5 different names of vets so I had thought it unlikely with that amount of options he was selecting them on the basis they would be favourable to him - but perhaps that was overly optimistic.