Problems with my vet - what should I do?

I think you are entitled to ask the second vet if the injury was new or pre existing, but you have to be aware that the second vet will need to think about how he deals with this in case it goes to court.
Have you tackled your first vet about it, after all presumably second vet was asked to do this as you were getting a second opinion, rather than it just happened to be another vet from same practice.
I recommend you join the BHS gold membership and ask for legal advice which is free to members.
You will need to go back to first vet anyway and discuss it with him when you get the bloods done.
No one wants to go to court and unless you are pretty sure of winning its not a good idea. Even if you win, you are still in a difficult situation.
To my mind you are not to blame if you asked for a five stage vetting, and your vet did not recommend ultra sound, he is the expert, not you.
It is not you fault that you told us some things that were not essential and missed out on essential information.
We all assume a five stage vetting with bloods for a horse of this value and for this purpose. Essentially the vetting is to determine if the horse is fit for purpose.
 
Last edited:
I think it isn't the vet who has been negligent, its the OP. They shelled out a fortune on a horse which they knew had a problem with its leg but didn't pay extra and ask their vet to look at it much more closely. The vet's opinion on the day is all that counts and by their own admission, the OP was satisfied with that opinion. I don't believe anything would come of demanding compo, there is no case. Saying they have a top of the range lorry doesn't exactly help - some would say then in that case they have the money to either keep the horse as a pet, or PTS and replace.
 
fatpiggy said:
I think it isn't the vet who has been negligent, its the OP. They shelled out a fortune on a horse which they knew had a problem with its leg but didn't pay extra and ask their vet to look at it much more closely. The vet's opinion on the day is all that counts and by their own admission, the OP was satisfied with that opinion. I don't believe anything would come of demanding compo, there is no case. Saying they have a top of the range lorry doesn't exactly help - some would say then in that case they have the money to either keep the horse as a pet, or PTS and replace.
Click to expand...
I really feel sorry for people who come on here asking for advice and get told stuff like this, its pathetic.
 
fatpiggy said:
I think it isn't the vet who has been negligent, its the OP. They shelled out a fortune on a horse which they knew had a problem with its leg but didn't pay extra and ask their vet to look at it much more closely. The vet's opinion on the day is all that counts and by their own admission, the OP was satisfied with that opinion. I don't believe anything would come of demanding compo, there is no case. Saying they have a top of the range lorry doesn't exactly help - some would say then in that case they have the money to either keep the horse as a pet, or PTS and replace.
Click to expand...

Wrong fat Piggy! The OP told the vet - the professional - that the horse had had a problem. The Vet - the professional - should have suggested that the leg receive further investigation before he could make his decision.
 
Tnavas said:
Wrong fat Piggy! The OP told the vet - the professional - that the horse had had a problem. The Vet - the professional - should have suggested that the leg receive further investigation before he could make his decision.
Click to expand...

We have only heard one side of the story!
 
My boss has twice bought a horse and had full 5 stage vet rings on them and both time very quickly realised something was wrong. First she went down the legal route but vet insisted horse was fit and sound at time of vetting. Horse had investigations and found to have a pre existing injury, dealer said prove it was pre existing and she couldn't, vet who did vetting still insisted horse was spund when vetted. Insurance company said it was pre existing and so wouldn't pay. Bloods were done and tested but if horse was rested for a 5-7 days it became sound and there was a gap of a week between viewing horse and vetting so probably had been rested. Horse was pts and insurance paid nothing. Next time problems became apparent even quicker, again the vet a different one was adamant horse was sound at vetting and she got nowhere. Luckily this time the dealer she got him from paid for a second opinion and subsequently took horse back and she got her money back. But basically at time of vetting both horses were sound is te eyes of vet so she got nowhere
 
Thanks Bonkers2 and Kamikaze for your support.

I mentioned the equipment merely to show the expense we had undertaken to ensure the horse was looked after and to illustrate why we felt the need to seek compensation.

I have now spoken to the original vet and we have come to an amicable agreement.

Jessie
 
Unfortunately buying a horse is like buying a second hand car there are very few guarantees. I feel your pain and disapointment as I have had similar experiences in my life. Due to my age my current horse will be my last but prior to this I trusted my own experience and used a vet as a back up. There is no certainties in life and some times you get a hard knock but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so keep you chin up.
 
kobi said:
Ultrasound and xrays aren't part of the std 5 stage vetting. If you didn't ask for them as extras then I don't think the vet has done anything wrong. The vet should however have taken bloods as standard. I'd be asking the vet to get these tested as from what you've said it sounds unlikely that the horse would have been sound enough to pass the vetting without some pain killers.
Click to expand...

This. Absolutely. Your vet has done his job. If you had doubts you should have asked for ultrasounds.
 
JessieSalt said:
Thanks Bonkers2 and Kamikaze for your support.

I mentioned the equipment merely to show the expense we had undertaken to ensure the horse was looked after and to illustrate why we felt the need to seek compensation.

I have now spoken to the original vet and we have come to an amicable agreement.

Jessie
Click to expand...

Glad to hear this. Really, we all feel your pain, it is such a disappointing thing to happen. Hope you have better luck next time.
 
Starzaan said:
This. Absolutely. Your vet has done his job. If you had doubts you should have asked for ultrasounds.
Click to expand...

No the vet did not do his job!

The vet was advised that the horse had a problem.

The vet should have then spoken to the buyer and suggested that further examination with X-rays etc be carried out. The vet didn't and declared the horse suitable for the job required. The horse was not. The vet was negligent in providing suitable information to the buyer.

When you have a horse vetted you do so because the vet is more knowledgeable than yourself and better able to spot problems that might affect the suitability of the horse.
 
Thanks everyone for all your advice and comments - we sought legal advice and the solicitor helped us sort things out with the original vet (hopefully our friendship will survive, but naturally the situation was a bit tense for a while). My horse seems to be responding to treatment - we will keep you posted.
 
Tnavas said:
No the vet did not do his job!

The vet was advised that the horse had a problem.

The vet should have then spoken to the buyer and suggested that further examination with X-rays etc be carried out. The vet didn't and declared the horse suitable for the job required. The horse was not. The vet was negligent in providing suitable information to the buyer.

When you have a horse vetted you do so because the vet is more knowledgeable than yourself and better able to spot problems that might affect the suitability of the horse.
Click to expand...

No, the vet was advised that the horse had PREVIOUSLY had a problem, which it was now recovered from. If the horse passed the vetting and there was no sign that it was not fully recovered, I'm not sure why the vet should have recommended x-rays or scans. The buyer could equally have requested them, but didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top