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

Any mention of Shivers would have had me running for the hills. And whilst the vet may have declared it of no significance, I’m at a loss to understand why he didn’t elaborate on its potential future significance. Having said that, maybe the vet assumed you understood what Shivers was and that you’d proceed (or otherwise) with the purchase, prepared to take the risk.

In your shoes I think I’d be getting legal advice.
 
I would probably complain to the vet that the condition was not fully explained to you - part of the vetting is confirming if there is any issues that may develop identified- for me this is a complaint to the vet and asking that they commit to covering the horse for any future complications or loss of use due to shivers as they advised you it was of no clinical significance. This may sharpen their mind in terms of why it is important to you that this was fully discussed. I would expect any vet to have fully discussed the future clinical implications of shiver with the purchaser. There is some responsibility for the purchaser to ask the vet regarding the condition but it sounds like you did this? And they advised it would definitely be no problem ?
 
paddy555 said:
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.
Click to expand...


He has failed to declare that the condition can be progressive, and in my mind that's a major failing.

The buyer should not have had to ask the questions you are suggesting.

But unless the horse becomes unfit for purpose, I don't think the buyer has any case against him. As far as I know, value of the horse is not part of the vetting. If the condition does not progress to alter the fitness for purpose and the lower value of a shiverer is not part of the vetting, then there is nothing for which the buyer can pursue a claim.
.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
That's perfectly reasonable, I would do the same for any out of area buyer.
.
Click to expand...
yes it is perfectly reasonable if the seller genuinely didnt know about the shivers, maybe i am too suspicious but in my area i know a couple of equine vets who i would steer clear of if i wanted a horse vetted for myself to buy, not because i think they are dodgy, just that i have known them pass horses when i have been there and i saw things which would worry me..
 
I can name at least 5 that would vet a horse on my property and I am in a very rural area of Ireland - equine vets we have plenty, farm animal vets we have plenty. Small animal vets not enough, but the nearest farm animal vet will treat a small pet (dog or cat) in an emergency situation.
 
Mrs Jingle said:
I can name at least 5 that would vet a horse on my property and I am in a very rural area of Ireland - equine vets we have plenty, farm animal vets we have plenty. Small animal vets not enough, but the nearest farm animal vet will treat a small pet (dog or cat) in an emergency situation.
Click to expand...

You don't think it's suspicious that this seller "only" named 5 though, do you?
.
 
ycbm said:
You don't think it's suspicious that this seller "only" named 5 though, do you?
.
Click to expand...

No not at all - If she had named only two then I would be very suspicious if it is in an area that has plenty of equine vets around. I was a little suspicious until the OP told us the seller offered 5 examples, that makes me think seller was not trying to pass her over to a useless vet, there surely couldn't be 5 in one area that are all incompetent lol!
 
Did the vet really say this would absolutely not be a problem though. Or did he just say in his experience it’s unlikely (which is, of course, the experience you are paying him for).

I can’t imagine the vet guaranteed it in any way or categorically said “this will 100% not at any time become an issue”.
 
paddy555 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you've never heard of shivers, the vet whose advice / opinion you asked as you aren't aware of this condition was to pretty much dismiss it as insignificant why we you feel the need to ask him (or Google) further questions?
 
Michen said:
Did the vet really say this would absolutely not be a problem though. Or did he just say in his experience it’s unlikely (which is, of course, the experience you are paying him for).

I can’t imagine the vet guaranteed it in any way or categorically said “this will 100% not at any time become an issue”.
Click to expand...

yes he said it was of no concern and of no significance - he didn’t say, it is likely not a problem. Nor did he refer to even the ‘unlikely’ scenario that it would be a problem. I doubt that in his experience he has never seen or heard of it degenerate. it may be in his experience that it often isn’t a problem, but I would have thought he would be obliged to tell me from his knowledge as a vet that it can have serious implications - he didn’t even say it can be degenerative.
 
cowgirltobe said:
yes he said it was of no concern and of no significance - he didn’t say, it is likely not a problem. Nor did he refer to even the ‘unlikely’ scenario that it would be a problem. I doubt that in his experience he has never seen or heard of it degenerate. it may be in his experience that it often isn’t a problem, but I would have thought he would be obliged to tell me from his knowledge as a vet that it can have serious implications - he didn’t even say it can be degenerative.
Click to expand...

Did you have anyone with you when he said all the above OP, who would be a credible witness and willing to state that in court? If you did I would be getting a second vets opinion and legal advice. I actually feel very, very sorry for you over this. I am sure at some point in my earlier life I probably didnt know what shivers was either - and if I was buying a horse and getting it vetted I would have expected the vet to give me a full explanation of what it was and all scenarios - worse case included.

Why would anyone pay for a vetting if we are expected to have veterinary knowledge of any possible issue found? On the rare occasion I have had a horse vetted I have wanted every minor detail explained to me carefully and with all long term prognosis too and I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable of most usual unsoundness and medical issues that might show on vetting. And to add I have only had a horse vetted if the price ticket was more than I could afford to lose. I think you have been badly let down to be honest.
 
cowgirltobe said:
yes he said it was of no concern and of no significance - he didn’t say, it is likely not a problem. Nor did he refer to even the ‘unlikely’ scenario that it would be a problem. I doubt that in his experience he has never seen or heard of it degenerate. it may be in his experience that it often isn’t a problem, but I would have thought he would be obliged to tell me from his knowledge as a vet that it can have serious implications - he didn’t even say it can be degenerative.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I can totally see your point to be honest. I can also see the vets potential POV.

It’s really tricky as there was a time where we didn’t have the joys of google so whatever info we received had to come from the vet! I do think *most* people would have wanted to understand it further and at least had a look, but should you have had to? Maybe not.

That said I’d just focus on getting your horse insured (it’ll be possible!) and enjoying him.
 
Michen said:
Fair enough. I can totally see your point to be honest. I can also see the vets potential POV.

It’s really tricky as there was a time where we didn’t have the joys of google so whatever info we received had to come from the vet! I do think *most* people would have wanted to understand it further and at least had a look, but should you have had to? Maybe not.

That said I’d just focus on getting your horse insured (it’ll be possible!) and enjoying him.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, I did want to understand his note further, which is why I asked him about it and what the significance was. Even the fact that now in retrospect I know I could have found out more about it means that there was more information about it that I was not told. I just did not expect to have to ‘vet’ the vetting myself!
 
Mrs Jingle said:
Did you have anyone with you when he said all the above OP, who would be a credible witness and willing to state that in court? If you did I would be getting a second vets opinion and legal advice. I actually feel very, very sorry for you over this. I am sure at some point in my earlier life I probably didnt know what shivers was either - and if I was buying a horse and getting it vetted I would have expected the vet to give me a full explanation of what it was and all scenarios - worse case included.

Why would anyone pay for a vetting if we are expected to have veterinary knowledge of any possible issue found? On the rare occasion I have had a horse vetted I have wanted every minor detail explained to me carefully and with all long term prognosis too and I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable of most usual unsoundness and medical issues that might show on vetting. And to add I have only had a horse vetted if the price ticket was more than I could afford to lose. I think you have been badly let down to be honest.
Click to expand...

thanks, it is a sorry situation. My conversation with the vet about it was over the phone so no witnesses, however it is written down on the certificate and further in text messages that it is of no significance after I raised the insurance refusal with him. But I will be getting a second vet’s opinion and look at legal options.

thanks for everyone’s comments.
 
I am really sorry but the vet has not done anything wrong in my opinion and unfortunately you are learning a very hard lesson. I have previously worked in both the insurance and veterinary sectors and the advice is very clear that it is the purchasers responsibility to check that they can insure the horse. Please see the below copied from the BEVA guidelines


‘Insurance
Where possible and if required, the prospective purchaser is advised to confirm that they are able to obtain suitable insurance cover before purchasing the horse.’

There are plenty of high end competition horses competing with shivers, niggles and imperfect radiographs - in fact try finding one that hasn’t got ‘something’. The vet has stated that the horse is fit for purpose which in all respects it is. It is YOUR job to ask further questions if you are uncertain and to check re insurance.

I am very sorry if this sounds harsh.
 
No to be honest, otherwise where would they stop? Anything found can potentially cause further issues whether that be a splint, cataract or radiograph finding etc. I would expect the vet to state if it was no clinical significance, low risk, high risk etc. The vet has stated it is suitable for showjumping and hunting, and in all respects it is. I hate the fact that in this modern world people always want to blame others.
 
piglet2001 said:
I am really sorry but the vet has not done anything wrong in my opinion and unfortunately you are learning a very hard lesson. I have previously worked in both the insurance and veterinary sectors and the advice is very clear that it is the purchasers responsibility to check that they can insure the horse. Please see the below copied from the BEVA guidelines


‘Insurance
Where possible and if required, the prospective purchaser is advised to confirm that they are able to obtain suitable insurance cover before purchasing the horse.’

There are plenty of high end competition horses competing with shivers, niggles and imperfect radiographs - in fact try finding one that hasn’t got ‘something’. The vet has stated that the horse is fit for purpose which in all respects it is. It is YOUR job to ask further questions if you are uncertain and to check re insurance.

I am very sorry if this sounds harsh.
Click to expand...

yes it’s not the vet’s responsibility to make sure I have the insurance.
the insurance refusal is a problem but it’s really a symptom of the issue of a lack of disclosure of significance of the condition - re the horse’s health not just insurance. I did ask further questions of him.
from a lay perspective it seems a bit meaningless to say a horse is fit for purpose right now, not mentioning anything further after further questions, when he also has a symptom of a serious neurological condition.

seems a bit like pointing out a horse has a mild wobble which doesn’t currently affect him but not explaining what wobbling actually is when the buyer has told you they have no experience of that condition. Or saying a sarcoid is a harmless wart with no further implications.
 
piglet2001 said:
I hate the fact that in this modern world people always want to blame others
Click to expand...


So do I. I don't think shivers ranks alongside the other things you have suggested but most vets would still, I think, discuss the implications of them. Like many other people, I wouldn't touch a shiverer with a bargepole and there is a huge value difference between a horse with it and and one without.
.
 
cowgirltobe said:
I see what you are saying, I did want to understand his note further, which is why I asked him about it and what the significance was. Even the fact that now in retrospect I know I could have found out more about it means that there was more information about it that I was not told. I just did not expect to have to ‘vet’ the vetting myself!
Click to expand...

Hi, Really sorry to hear of the problems you've had with your new horse's pre-purchase veterinary inspection - I can understand that it's a really disappointing situation for you, and agree with your comment above ref not having to vet the vetting....

Good luck with your further investigations, but above all I hope you are able to enjoy your new horse and that you have many successful years together - and of course that the vet was correct in his recommendation ref the mild shiver?
 
Have you asked the insurance providers why they will not insure if the vet has said the shiver is not of clinical significance?

If they disagree with the vets observation, they obviously think it is of so great a significance that they will not insure as something is very likely
to go seriously wrong with the horse and treatment will be expensive then perhaps it is something you need to take up with the vet. Maybe ask why something that he felt is clinically insignificant and unlikely to cause a problem is seen as being so serious that the horse is not insurable. Hopefully the vet is correct and the shivers will not cause a problem but now you are in a situation where you may not even be able to get insurance that covers accidents and sadly accidents can happen even to a tough sound horse.

Were you looking for loss of use included in the insurance? If an expensive horse they might not want to take a risk on loss of use but might be willing to do vets fees with exclusions for anything shivers related.

I do know someone who bought a very smart well bred horse at a very discounted price as it had shivers picked up at a vetting. They got about 7k off the original asking price. They have had the horse about 5 years and no problems with soundness at all and I believe the horse is insured. Maybe you were unlucky with the insurance company you chose and others would have been ok.
 
I think I saw this advert on one of the websites and thought no I'd leave alone. For the same reason as the horse I nearly went to view that failed the vetting on a sarcoid. Neither of which issues I'd want to have anything to deal with.

I'm sorry I would try other insurance companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top