Taking Aust. Vets To Court?

[Nekhbet]

if the drug has been approved for off label use then it is the vets responsibility he uses it correctly. Like using ivermectin for treating mange.

[Staranais]

Need support to get voice out there, wish we could name these bad vets, 2 Vets gave no information on tablets given which turned out to be 'not for use in animals' by the TGA.

I am a little confused because of this statement.

Can you clarify - is the drug labelled 'not for use in animals' or is it that the use in animals is omitted or not shown?

I know a number of dogs on Fludrocortisone (florinef).

It is possible that the particular brand used by the vet was not made for use in animals, but as Aussielover says fludrocortisone is definitely used in dogs.

[~Anne~]

There is a differecne though between off label and a drug actually being labelled 'not for use....' hence why I was trying to clarify this point.

[raz]

Only found 1 Solicitor who will has successfully sued a human doctor. he will take case on. Does anyone know of any solicitors that will take on Vets?

There you go - you said you've found one so why keep asking for another one? Just go and have a consult with him/her.

All the best. It would be really hard to lose a dog and think objectively.

[stormie]

Yep , I believe Anne is right and there is a difference between 'off label' dosing, and using a drug that is made for human use, in animals. As mentioned as an example - Ivermectin is registered for animal use, however it has no registered claim for mange, although it is widely used for this. To use it for mange would be considered 'off label'

Human drugs are commonly used in animals all the time and very legitimately. Florinef is commonly used to treat Addisons disease, and whilst the tablets used are generally the human ones, I believe there is an injection of the same drug which is made for veterinary use?

We commonly prescribe medications for animals that would be considered human medications. I believe the only time in which the human version shouldn't be used, is if there is an animal equivalent. Eg a vet technically shouldn't give a client a script for Mobic (Meloxicam) because there is a registered animal drug, Metacam.

Many of these 'human' medications prove live saving for peoples pets all the time.

If you believe the dosage given was too high, then this may be an issue, either with the vet getting the dose wrong, or someone writing the wrong label. However I don't believe the vet would have anything to answer for, as long as the drug is used for a legitimate reason.

I wanted to mention too, that the words 'over hydrated' may not mean anything more than your dog reaching normal hydration and the fluid rate turned down/stopped. So for example, if a dog presented dehydrated, then a higher than maintenance fluid rate would be used, to rectify the dehydration. Once the dog is back to normal level, continuing on at this higher level would be classed as 'over hydrated', which initially would just be a matter of the dog urinating dilute urine often - sort of similar to if you drank 10 glasses of water in a day when didn't need to.

However it can be a serious problem if the rate remains too high and the fluid cannot be removed as fast as it goes in.

Again, I do not know the full details, but just trying to offer a possible explanation of what it may mean.

I understand you must be terribly upset at the loss of your dog, particularly as you feel there has been negligence. So I second what Raz has said - have the consultation with the Solicitor you have found and hopefully you will be able to get some answers soon.

I wish you all the best.

[Jed]

Graham Nelson, veterinary surgeon mentioned earlier had a problem with a Samoyed (from memory) whose owner visited this forum, and it may well be worth checking the media reports to see if you can find more information.

The Veterinary Registration Board of Qld removed his registration at the time. I have no idea whether it was temporary or permanent, but there is currently no record of him on the register in Qld.

By all means report to the VRB - I believe they are one of the few government bodies who will actually take action if things are amiss.

As for taking the matter to court. AS others have advised, I would be very cautious. Vets do have insurance, and it can be a long difficult battle to take anything to court - and you end up more damaged than when you began.

[spottychick]

Unfortunately I agree it's probably going to be an expensive and difficult process and may not be worth it.

I know how frustrating and heart-breaking it is, I wanted to do the same thing about a vet who behaved towards me and my dog with such callous disdain when I took him in for a sudden "limp" and small lump on his leg. She was in a hurry coz she had a conference to go to and was quite off-hand and rushed about it all. SHe looked at his leg for a minute and said "arthritis". Then went to usher me away. I said "Wait - how can you be sure it's not a tumor?" She sighed and said "You can't - unless you x ray" So I said "So x-ray him!". She did (charged me $400) and said it's just a little arthritis in his lower joint. Sold me some Sasha's, whinged about how I'd parked my car, took my money and waved me off.

She seriously misdiagnosed him, she didn't even get the location of the problem right. If she'd looked properly she would have seen it was CANCER, I later discovered it was treatable at that stage. Anyway, long story short - when I finally found a vet who knew what they were doing it was too late. He was pts 5 months after that first idiotic vet saw him. If she'd taken the proper steps to diagnose his presenting problems he would have been treatable at that stage.

I was so distressed when he died I dearly wanted to do something about the original vet but in the end I realised it wasn't worth it. Hard to prove, yes they lie (she refused to let me have the xrays she took and I almost had to take her to court to get her to send them to my new vet a couple of months later - clearly hiding something. I don't even know if she took any as she wouldn't let me see them at the time), lots of stress etc and money - and anyway - I somehow felt it was all my fault - still do to an extent. So I had to let the issue go. I'd just spent over $3,000 trying to save my darling boy as it was. I was pretty broke by then.

The system totally sucks. I wish I could at least name the cow and stop her from destroying anyone else's beautiful pets.

Good luck with whatever you decide tho and please, if you do go ahead, please keep us informed as it is an issue that's very important to me. I have a deep deep distrust of vets now - especially as I know no-one takes the dodgy ones to task so you can't tell if yours is good or not.

ETA Sorry to be so negative. You might have a better case so you should talk with someone who can give you some good objective advice.

Edited October 21, 2010 by spottychick

[AmandaJ]

What was the diagnoses that resulted in that particular drug being prescribed?

[all that glitters]

I can't speak of the attempt to spey thing, but I'd have thought the removal of the canines would simply have been poor communication, rather than mistreatment. They were obviously a problem to be removed (I cant imagine any vet or nurse wanting to take out 4 healthy canines - its a massive, awful job), so to leave them in and cause pain, would be cruel. But yes, the vet should have consulted the owner before doing so as many owners can be sensitive about it.

The brain damage, well yes, this is awful, but if it was a drug reaction, that's a risk with any GA. It's unfortunately, but a potential risk to any animal receiving any drugs.

Obviously we don't know the full facts or events, but if its just the information stated, I can't imagine a vet could be done for mistreatment of an animal because he removed canines under GA and the cat had a drug reaction.

Take it from 1st hand experience recently vets lie. I have everything in detail & their written response is mostly lies. not turned things around, straight out bluntenly lies to cover up their wrong doings.

I have to agree I aren't looking for the positives in these stories, I'm sure these vets are dodgy as they come

Unfortunately I agree it's probably going to be an expensive and difficult process and may not be worth it.

I know how frustrating and heart-breaking it is, I wanted to do the same thing about a vet who behaved towards me and my dog with such callous disdain when I took him in for a sudden "limp" and small lump on his leg. She was in a hurry coz she had a conference to go to and was quite off-hand and rushed about it all. SHe looked at his leg for a minute and said "arthritis". Then went to usher me away. I said "Wait - how can you be sure it's not a tumor?" She sighed and said "You can't - unless you x ray" So I said "So x-ray him!". She did (charged me $400) and said it's just a little arthritis in his lower joint. Sold me some Sasha's, whinged about how I'd parked my car, took my money and waved me off.

She seriously misdiagnosed him, she didn't even get the location of the problem right. If she'd looked properly she would have seen it was CANCER, I later discovered it was treatable at that stage. Anyway, long story short - when I finally found a vet who knew what they were doing it was too late. He was pts 5 months after that first idiotic vet saw him. If she'd taken the proper steps to diagnose his presenting problems he would have been treatable at that stage.

I was so distressed when he died I dearly wanted to do something about the original vet but in the end I realised it wasn't worth it. Hard to prove, yes they lie (she refused to let me have the xrays she took and I almost had to take her to court to get her to send them to my new vet a couple of months later - clearly hiding something. I don't even know if she took any as she wouldn't let me see them at the time), lots of stress etc and money - and anyway - I somehow felt it was all my fault - still do to an extent. So I had to let the issue go. I'd just spent over $3,000 trying to save my darling boy as it was. I was pretty broke by then.

The system totally sucks. I wish I could at least name the cow and stop her from destroying anyone else's beautiful pets.

Good luck with whatever you decide tho and please, if you do go ahead, please keep us informed as it is an issue that's very important to me. I have a deep deep distrust of vets now - especially as I know no-one takes the dodgy ones to task so you can't tell if yours is good or not.

ETA Sorry to be so negative. You might have a better case so you should talk with someone who can give you some good objective advice.

Ohh thats so sad It sickens me that these 'vets' can practise and keep making money when they are making such DEADLY mistakes

Edited October 21, 2010 by all that glitters

[yap]

Yep , I believe Anne is right and there is a difference between 'off label' dosing, and using a drug that is made for human use, in animals. As mentioned as an example - Ivermectin is registered for animal use, however it has no registered claim for mange, although it is widely used for this. To use it for mange would be considered 'off label'

Human drugs are commonly used in animals all the time and very legitimately. Florinef is commonly used to treat Addisons disease, and whilst the tablets used are generally the human ones, I believe there is an injection of the same drug which is made for veterinary use?

We commonly prescribe medications for animals that would be considered human medications. I believe the only time in which the human version shouldn't be used, is if there is an animal equivalent. Eg a vet technically shouldn't give a client a script for Mobic (Meloxicam) because there is a registered animal drug, Metacam.

Many of these 'human' medications prove live saving for peoples pets all the time.

If you believe the dosage given was too high, then this may be an issue, either with the vet getting the dose wrong, or someone writing the wrong label. However I don't believe the vet would have anything to answer for, as long as the drug is used for a legitimate reason.

I wanted to mention too, that the words 'over hydrated' may not mean anything more than your dog reaching normal hydration and the fluid rate turned down/stopped. So for example, if a dog presented dehydrated, then a higher than maintenance fluid rate would be used, to rectify the dehydration. Once the dog is back to normal level, continuing on at this higher level would be classed as 'over hydrated', which initially would just be a matter of the dog urinating dilute urine often - sort of similar to if you drank 10 glasses of water in a day when didn't need to.

However it can be a serious problem if the rate remains too high and the fluid cannot be removed as fast as it goes in.

Again, I do not know the full details, but just trying to offer a possible explanation of what it may mean.

I understand you must be terribly upset at the loss of your dog, particularly as you feel there has been negligence. So I second what Raz has said - have the consultation with the Solicitor you have found and hopefully you will be able to get some answers soon.

I wish you all the best.

Thanks Stormie,

For really clearing that up,

[Parkeyre]

What was the diagnoses that resulted in that particular drug being prescribed?

Bump

[yap]

I can't speak of the attempt to spey thing, but I'd have thought the removal of the canines would simply have been poor communication, rather than mistreatment. They were obviously a problem to be removed (I cant imagine any vet or nurse wanting to take out 4 healthy canines - its a massive, awful job), so to leave them in and cause pain, would be cruel. But yes, the vet should have consulted the owner before doing so as many owners can be sensitive about it.

The brain damage, well yes, this is awful, but if it was a drug reaction, that's a risk with any GA. It's unfortunately, but a potential risk to any animal receiving any drugs.

Obviously we don't know the full facts or events, but if its just the information stated, I can't imagine a vet could be done for mistreatment of an animal because he removed canines under GA and the cat had a drug reaction.

Take it from 1st hand experience recently vets lie. I have everything in detail & their written response is mostly lies. not turned things around, straight out bluntenly lies to cover up their wrong doings.

I have to agree I aren't looking for the positives in these stories, I'm sure these vets are dodgy as they come

Unfortunately I agree it's probably going to be an expensive and difficult process and may not be worth it.

I know how frustrating and heart-breaking it is, I wanted to do the same thing about a vet who behaved towards me and my dog with such callous disdain when I took him in for a sudden "limp" and small lump on his leg. She was in a hurry coz she had a conference to go to and was quite off-hand and rushed about it all. SHe looked at his leg for a minute and said "arthritis". Then went to usher me away. I said "Wait - how can you be sure it's not a tumor?" She sighed and said "You can't - unless you x ray" So I said "So x-ray him!". She did (charged me $400) and said it's just a little arthritis in his lower joint. Sold me some Sasha's, whinged about how I'd parked my car, took my money and waved me off.

She seriously misdiagnosed him, she didn't even get the location of the problem right. If she'd looked properly she would have seen it was CANCER, I later discovered it was treatable at that stage. Anyway, long story short - when I finally found a vet who knew what they were doing it was too late. He was pts 5 months after that first idiotic vet saw him. If she'd taken the proper steps to diagnose his presenting problems he would have been treatable at that stage.

I was so distressed when he died I dearly wanted to do something about the original vet but in the end I realised it wasn't worth it. Hard to prove, yes they lie (she refused to let me have the xrays she took and I almost had to take her to court to get her to send them to my new vet a couple of months later - clearly hiding something. I don't even know if she took any as she wouldn't let me see them at the time), lots of stress etc and money - and anyway - I somehow felt it was all my fault - still do to an extent. So I had to let the issue go. I'd just spent over $3,000 trying to save my darling boy as it was. I was pretty broke by then.

The system totally sucks. I wish I could at least name the cow and stop her from destroying anyone else's beautiful pets.

Good luck with whatever you decide tho and please, if you do go ahead, please keep us informed as it is an issue that's very important to me. I have a deep deep distrust of vets now - especially as I know no-one takes the dodgy ones to task so you can't tell if yours is good or not.

ETA Sorry to be so negative. You might have a better case so you should talk with someone who can give you some good objective advice.

Ohh thats so sad It sickens me that these 'vets' can practise and keep making money when they are making such DEADLY mistakes

Thank You Sparkly for sharing that, You have to TELL people & talk it out loud in places like in the supermarket when you are waiting in line to get served where EVERYONE can hear you, word of mouth & DON'T STOP telling people that's the only way at present in Australia you can help others by taking their precious members of their family to them. Not giving up. will keep everyone informed & tell the world.

[poodlefan]

jath:

Thank You Sparkly for sharing that, You have to TELL people & talk it out loud in places like in the supermarket when you are waiting in line to get served where EVERYONE can hear you, word of mouth & DON'T STOP telling people that's the only way at present in Australia you can help others by taking their precious members of their family to them. Not giving up. will keep everyone informed & tell the world.

This could get you into trouble for defamation. Ask you solicitor about it. It would be particularly unwise if you are proceeding with a court case.

[yap]

What was the diagnoses that resulted in that particular drug being prescribed?

Bump

I,m sorry bump i can't go into too much detail until the case is heard but will definetly tell the world when its done.

[yap]

jath:

Thank You Sparkly for sharing that, You have to TELL people & talk it out loud in places like in the supermarket when you are waiting in line to get served where EVERYONE can hear you, word of mouth & DON'T STOP telling people that's the only way at present in Australia you can help others by taking their precious members of their family to them. Not giving up. will keep everyone informed & tell the world.

This could get you into trouble for defamation. Ask you solicitor about it. It would be particularly unwise if you are proceeding with a court case.

Thats the biggest problem with people too affraid to speak up! You can limit what you say just so people hear there's a bad vet out there.

[poodlefan]

jath:

Thank You Sparkly for sharing that, You have to TELL people & talk it out loud in places like in the supermarket when you are waiting in line to get served where EVERYONE can hear you, word of mouth & DON'T STOP telling people that's the only way at present in Australia you can help others by taking their precious members of their family to them. Not giving up. will keep everyone informed & tell the world.

This could get you into trouble for defamation. Ask you solicitor about it. It would be particularly unwise if you are proceeding with a court case.

Thats the biggest problem with people too affraid to speak up! You can limit what you say just so people hear there's a bad vet out there.

On the other hand, people have a right to protect their reputation and livelihoods from deliberate damage by others.

I've said it before. Keep your powder dry and your mouth sealed in public. You do yourself no favours doing this. Your solicitor won't be impressed either.

The matter has yet to make it to hearing and what you consider to be negligence may be found not to be. Don't compound a bad situation by putting yourself in the firing line of a claim for damages against YOU.

[yap]

What was the diagnoses that resulted in that particular drug being prescribed?

Like I said i,m sorry as I can't go into too much detail until the case is heard.

[yap]

jath:

Thank You Sparkly for sharing that, You have to TELL people & talk it out loud in places like in the supermarket when you are waiting in line to get served where EVERYONE can hear you, word of mouth & DON'T STOP telling people that's the only way at present in Australia you can help others by taking their precious members of their family to them. Not giving up. will keep everyone informed & tell the world.

This could get you into trouble for defamation. Ask you solicitor about it. It would be particularly unwise if you are proceeding with a court case.

Thats the biggest problem with people too affraid to speak up! You can limit what you say just so people hear there's a bad vet out there.

On the other hand, people have a right to protect their reputation and livelihoods from deliberate damage by others.

I've said it before. Keep your powder dry and your mouth sealed in public. You do yourself no favours doing this. Your solicitor won't be impressed either.

The matter has yet to make it to hearing and what you consider to be negligence may be found not to be. Don't compound a bad situation by putting yourself in the firing line of a claim for damages against YOU.

[tdierikx]

What was the diagnoses that resulted in that particular drug being prescribed?

Like I said i,m sorry as I can't go into too much detail until the case is heard.

You've already gone into some detail about the treatment and the drugs prescribed - why so coy about what the diagnosis was? Did the dog get treated for Addison's?

T.

[Staranais]

jath:

Thank You Sparkly for sharing that, You have to TELL people & talk it out loud in places like in the supermarket when you are waiting in line to get served where EVERYONE can hear you, word of mouth & DON'T STOP telling people that's the only way at present in Australia you can help others by taking their precious members of their family to them. Not giving up. will keep everyone informed & tell the world.

This could get you into trouble for defamation. Ask you solicitor about it. It would be particularly unwise if you are proceeding with a court case.

Yes, 100% agree. If you're unhappy with the way you or your animal have been treated by a vet, you should speak up - but there are better ways to do it. Make your complaints to the vet themselves, to the vet's boss, to the vet council, and/or to your solicitor. Complaining on an internet forum or complaining loudly to strangers in the supermarket will do nothing at best, at worst it will give the vet a case against you for defamation.