Veterinarian Surgical Issue

N

Nutso

Registered User
Messages
640
Looking for some advice in relation to a veterinarian surgical issue.

My dog had surgery last year. Since the surgery, some of the issues he had continued. He was referred to a new veterinary surgeon, who verbally told me there was an overcorrection in his initial surgery. This is not referred to in the report but it does mention the angle of the bone now, which is approximately 30 degrees off where it should be after the initial surgery.

The result is that he will now need a new surgery to correct the initial surgery. I am not usually one to look for compensation, however, this overcorrection has resulted in significant additional costs to me, in dog physio over the last number of months, x-rays, appointments, referrals, time off work, travel costs, insurance excess etc. We are also looking at a further (at least) 6 week recovery period during which our movements will be hindered as the dog will be confined to a crate, only taken out for toileting. All these factors don't even take into consideration the pain and discomfort my dog will go through with a further surgery, but I hope at least at the end of it that he will be more comfortable than before. Thankfully I have insurance to cover the surgery, but it does not cover all the other additional costs. There will also be additional physio and perhaps other recovery requirements post surgery.

What would be the best first step to take in this instance? Would it be advisable to contact the initial vet directly? There is the Veterinary Council of Ireland with whom you can raise a complaint but I don't feel that I want to raise a complaint at this stage.

Thanks in advance for any direction.
 
I presume that the first port of call would be to talk to the first vet?

Further down the line, if you don't get satisfaction, then the Small Claims Court might be an option? Their maximum award is €2k in case that matters here.
https://www.courts.ie/small-claims-procedure

Small claims procedure

The small claims procedure provides an inexpensive, fast and easy way for consumers to resolve disputes without a solicitor. Find out how the procedure operates.
www.citizensinformation.ie www.citizensinformation.ie
 
Nutso said:
He was referred to a new veterinary surgeon,
Click to expand...

By whom?

Nutso said:
who verbally told me there was an overcorrection in his initial surgery.
Click to expand...

I think you should ask the second vet to state this in his report and that the original vet was negligent.

I very much doubt that he will.

I would guess that vets have to make a call when doing an operation. Sometimes they will get it right and sometimes they will get it wrong. It's a matter of judgement.

Brendan
 
Thanks Clubman
I had looked at the small claims court, but I wasn't sure if it would cover this instance

Type of claims dealt with

  • a claim for goods or services bought for private use from someone selling them in the course of a business (consumer claims)
  • a claim for goods or services bought for business use from someone selling them in the course of a business (business claims)
  • a claim for minor damage to property (but excluding personal injuries)
  • a claim for the non-return of a rent deposit for certain kinds of rented properties. For example, a holiday home or a room / flat in a premises where the owner also lives
 
I can't see the first vet being interested in talking - he'll most likely simply point out that all surgery, including dog surgery, is inherently risky - nor the Small Claims Court being able to adjudicate on the merits or otherwise of how a surgical procedure was performed.
 
Nutso said:
Thanks Clubman
I had looked at the small claims court, but I wasn't sure if it would cover this instance
Click to expand...
Why not? You bought a service and are not happy with it?
But I also agree with what @Brendan Burgess said and am not saying that you should rush off to the Small Claims Court necessarily or that your chances of a successful claim are good (I have no idea on that front to be honest).
 
The limit in the Small Claims Court is €2,000.

I doubt it would be suitable for a heavily contested claim like this. I am sure that the OP would need to get expert witnesses to back him up which would be very expensive.

Brendan
 
T McGibney said:
The SCC isn't a "money back if you're not satisfied" service.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that it was?
I pointed the op to info about the process.
It's up to them to decide what to do.
Anybody can take a case to the SCC.
Just because they do says nothing about the merits/strength of their case.
 
ClubMan said:
Where did I say that it was?
I pointed the op to info about the process.
It's up to them to decide what to do.
Anybody can take a case to the SCC.
Just because they do says nothing about the merits/strength of their case.
Click to expand...
The thing I found in my personal experience of going to the SCC is that by the time it takes for the applicant to apply there, for it to deliberate, and then issue its verdict, it can then be a bit late for the applicant to seek redress by other means. In other words, it's not by any means a risk-free procedure.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I am obviously making the very same mistake as Tommy.

Brendan
Click to expand...
I don't understand your point.
The op seems unsure that the SCC accept such a case.
I pointed out that they bought a service and are not happy so why wouldn't the SCC accept a case about it if the op decided to go that route?
I said nothing at all about the merits/strength of their case, the likelihood of success or the possible difficulties involved (e.g. expert witnesses etc.).
 
Brendan Burgess said:
By whom?



I think you should ask the second vet to state this in his report and that the original vet was negligent.

I very much doubt that he will.

I would guess that vets have to make a call when doing an operation. Sometimes they will get it right and sometimes they will get it wrong. It's a matter of judgement.

Brendan
Click to expand...

He was referred to the second surgeon by the surgeon who carried out the first surgery. In fairness, he didn't want to carry out another surgery without first getting a second opinion on the issue. He was also aware the the second surgeon was speaking with me and making me aware of the overcorrection.

In relation to "making a call" it seems the surgery was out by quite a significant margin, so I don't really agree with this. If it was a human, and a human incurred additional costs due to surgery not carried out correctly, would you view it differently? I would assume that vets are also required to carry insurance for these types of issues. The only risks mentioned to me in relation to the surgery were the risks of anaesthesia. I understand that things can sometimes go wrong, but does that mean that he is not at fault?

I don't expect that the first vet would report in black and white, that the first surgeon caused the issue, and "throw him under the bus" so to speak, but I may ask him about it.

It's not an insignificant amount of money and while not yet over €2k, it could easily be well over that, by the time it's all dealt with. It's not money I can afford to lose but I can find it for my dog's sake.

But you have all given me food for thought. I will think some more on it before I make any decisions.
 
T McGibney said:
None. But it was the SCC that was recommended here as an option.
Click to expand...
I never "recommended" it.
I pointed out that it might be one route that could be taken - and certainly only after at least speaking to the the original vet, at that.
 
ClubMan said:
Where did I say that it was?
Click to expand...

You said "You bought a service and you were not happy with it."

It seems clear to me that you think that this is a way to get money back if you are not happy with the service.

And maybe it is. So I don't see what bit you are saying you don't mean.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
You said "You bought a service and you were not happy with it."

It seems clear to me that you think that this is a way to get money back if you are not happy with the service.
Click to expand...
No, you're inferring something that I did not say.
You need to look at the context.
Op posted:
Nutso said:
Thanks Clubman
I had looked at the small claims court, but I wasn't sure if it would cover this instance
...
Click to expand...
And I replied to this specific point:
ClubMan said:
Why not? You bought a service and are not happy with it?
But I also agree with what @Brendan Burgess said and am not saying that you should rush off to the Small Claims Court necessarily or that your chances of a successful claim are good (I have no idea on that front to be honest).
Click to expand...
People interpreting this as me "recommending" the SCC as some sort of guaranteed "money back" service are simply inferring stuff that's not there.
 
Nutso said:
He was referred to the second surgeon by the surgeon who carried out the first surgery. In fairness, he didn't want to carry out another surgery without first getting a second opinion on the issue. He was also aware the the second surgeon was speaking with me and making me aware of the overcorrection.

In relation to "making a call" it seems the surgery was out by quite a significant margin, so I don't really agree with this. If it was a human, and a human incurred additional costs due to surgery not carried out correctly, would you view it differently?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't view it any differently if it were a human. Doctors make judgment calls all the time. A lot of the time, they call it wrong and they get sued. If I had my way, they would not be sued like this.

I have found doctors referring people for X-rays and unnecessary further procedures and specialists as they don't want to be sued for making a wrong call.

I make judgement calls all the time and I get most of them right. Some I get way wrong. It's not negligence - it's being human.

He sounds very reasonable in referring the case to a second vet.

Is the second vet a specialist of some sort?

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top