Will definetly interest someone!

vicijp

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 July 2005
Messages
3,305
Location
Herefordshire
www.vicijpricehorses.co.uk
http://www.racingpost.co.uk/news/master....story_id=950911

'WIDELY respected racecourse vet Jenny Hall is being sued for compensation after leading Irish event rider Jayne Doherty paid £186,000 for a horse she now maintains is only worth £1,000.

According to a High Court writ, Glen Corran turned out to have a heart murmur and be lame in all four legs.

Doherty and her husband, Paul, have begun proceedings against Hall, senior vet to the British three-day event team and a partner in the Lambourn-based practice of Hall and Lawrence, claiming she was negligent. Hall is also racecourse vet at Epsom, Kempton and Sandown.

Hall said she did not wish to discuss the legal action beyond saying it is being defended by her insurers.

According to the writ, Hall examined Glen Corran, before the Dohertys' purchase, on October 22, 2003 and found he was suffering from a severe overreach, was lame and had a heart murmur. She told the Dohertys his lameness was caused by the overreach, and recommended she re-vet the horse later, the writ says.

Hall examined him three more times the following month, finding he was lame in his right hindleg, and then his left foreleg, it is alleged.
The Dohertys, of Armagh, Northern Ireland, say they did not buy the horse at the time, but asked Hall to re-vet him in February 2004, and she produced a certificate that stated there were no clinically discoverable signs of disease, injury or physical abnormality, that the x-rays and ultrasound examinations were “all with normal limits”, and that, in her opinion, “the conditions set out above are not likely to prejudice this animal's use” for top-class eventing.

Glen Corran was then bought for £186,000 by the Dohertys, who insured him with Shearwater.

Jayne Doherty came second on Glen Corran at a three-star event in October 2004, but the writ claims that soon after taking delivery of the horse,various vets diagnosed him as being intermittently or permanently lame in all four legs, and not safe or able to compete at the highest level, either now or in the future.

The Dohertys allege they could not claim on their insurance because Shearwater said they had failed to disclose the horse's known past problems. The writ claims Glen Corran has never been able to compete at the highest level eventing, and has needed extensive treatment.'
 
i'm very surprised they still paid that much for him when he'd failed the vet a few times already on a number of problems!
 
poor vet. that's going to make them even more wary of passing horses for top-level eventing. when it comes down to it, it passed her vetting in Feb 04, and was 2nd at a 3star 8 months later, so must have been sound (ish) then.
i hope the judge throws it out of court, or throws it back to the insurers.
 
i totally agree with you. I would never have bought it in the first place having been found to be lame in numerous legs. It was obviously sound when it was finally vetted and then competed for 8 months.
 
What a nightmare, it is going to put vets off completely. I would have to question the wisdom of someone paying that sort of money for something which did seem to have intermittant lameness problems.

I can't understand why the vet is being blamed, they can only judge a horse on the day, and they clearly wanted to buy it or they wouldn't have gone to the expense of having it continually revetted. Hopefully they will still have all the x rays and so long as they are all within the 'normal limits' another vet would be able to confirm they were acceptable and with any luck this claim will not get very far.

As Kerilli says, it mananged a 3*!
 
Its really unfair on the vet- espeically as the case is now in the papers! At the end of the day the buyers did not declare ANY of the horses previous probs when insuring it ( I dread to think how much there premiums were!) and it looks like now are just trying another way to get there money back at the expense of the vet in question. I hope the case gets thrown out!
 
ditto.
the fact is, it is totally impossible for a vet to crystal-ball gaze as to whether the horse will stay sound at top level. any vet who has failed a horse once (and this one seems to have had a litany of problems) has a good case, i hope!
 
Also the prepurchse exam is the vet's "opinion" not fact. You can take it or leave it, they were not under obligation to buy - especially at that price.

I know many vets who fail horses quite easily on prepurchse exams and then buyers ( and owners) give out about the vet and how he failed the horse for little reason - but vets fail horses with one eye out for similar outcomes to this - a buyer who comes back a year later and sues them.

I know many vets who actually wont carry out pre purchase exams and send buyers to strictly equine practices for a pp exam. the risk of sueing is becoming too great - moreso in Britain than in Ireland though!
 
Poor vet. Its not as if the purchasers didn't know that there was a potential problem (as it didn't pass vetting the first time). Hope she manages to defend herself.

This is the girl who has just paid 1 mill for Bruce Davidson's Jam, so £186,000 isn't really v much in comparison to that (hell of a lot to the rest of us though)!!!

Fiona
 
OK so lets get to the heart of the matter here. The buyers knew of potential lameness problems when they bought the horse but did not disclose this to their insurers. When the insurers asked for disclosure from the owner's vet/vetter, the vet gave full and honest disclosure....... The insurers, rightly so, said hold on a minute you haven't been honest with us and spun the claim.

The less than honest insurers then thought, damn it, 186k out of pocket here, lets go after the vet.

The amount of money is irrelevant, I had a horse which I got full LOU, the insurers rightly so, asked for full veterinary history before they coughed up.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I really can't see how the vet is at fault.
 
Top