# Pet Owner Sues Vet - Toronto



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

The plaintiff specifically stated to the receptionist she wanted Colombo only to be vaccinated with the rabies shot until his underlying condition (chronic diarrhea) was resolved,” her claim says.

At the March 3 appointment, she was “shocked to find out her dog had been vaccinated regardless with a full range of shots” — distemper, hepatitis, parvovirus, parainfluenza, Bordetella, as well as rabies, according to her claim. 




Pet owner sues vets for pain and suffering over dog’s death | Toronto Star

Under existing laws, owners generally can sue only for the value of pets as property and for vet bills, but Ontario courts have begun awarding damages for mental and emotional distress, Walker says.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

I don't understand why they would give the shots after being told not to. Is it an honest mistake or a case of "we know better than you". Sad


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

Good for her! I almost had this experience, luckily I asked to see the vaccine before it was given and caught it on time. Absolutely enraged.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

IMHO, sounds like a distraught owner that lost a sick, geriatric patient and is looking to place blame on everyone but either old age or even herself.

The dog is having ongoing diarrhea. Not acute, didn't just start. Sounds like she ASSUMES it's a kibble change, but doesn't seek medical treatment. Then despite the diarrhea she calls a clinic in February to schedule an appointment for early May, just wellness exam. Once again no obvious concern or rush even though diarrhea had been going on for who knows how long. 

At that point she tells a receptionist over the phone she just wants rabies. Now, I can easily see how a clerical error could of occurred and receptionist just wrote down vaccine appointment instead of rabies only appointment. Keep in mind these vaccines were a year overdue. Obviously many don't believe they should be done right on time, but let's assume that if she wasn't going in for vaccines then it is very likely she simply did not take the dog in at all for an annual exam. That's just assuming, but a very valid assumption.

If vaccines were overdue for a year, why suddenly does she even need to give rabies if the dog is having concerning diarrhea that she has not seen a vet for? And why, when she went in, did she not physically tell the vet that she only wanted rabies? An exam would of been done. Just because you told a receptionist on the phone how many days ago, why wouldn't you just clarify it with the actual person giving the vaccines? The article makes it sound clearly like she only stated in the phone call that she wanted rabies only. I mean we're human, mistakes happen.

If a dog was overdue for all vaccines, and was then scheduled a wellness appointment for core vaccines, it would of been completely reasonable for a vet to give the 2 (or 3 if you count kennel cough) vaccines. I agree a vaccine shouldn't be given if an animal is sick. But perhaps the dog physically looked well otherwise and if the owner is convinced it WAS diet change, then vaccines may not be completely contraindicated. 

If more vaccines were given and she was truly that appalled, why was concern not raised at the time of check out? Why instead did she wait until some illness happened at a largely later time, and decide to point fingers at this one incidence? I mean if diarrhea truly WAS food related, then really there should of been no immune related problem with given vaccines. No bacterial or viral infection, etc... Just a GI system upset at a food change. Inflammation can obviously lead to some increased WBC activity. 

After vaccines, she waits a WEEK to call back and say she's concerned that her dog has now been having diarrhea for who knows how long, along with other serious sounding symptoms. Why was your dog not taken back in much sooner? After another 11 long days, the dog is examined. Then again, after a few more weeks, own says she calls because dog is drastically deteriorating. It is not until another 5 days later that the dog is admitted to an emergency hospital. At this point her dog had been ill for 3 months. If she was so frustrated with her vet, why didn't she go somewhere else? 2 months later the dog is euthanized.

Following her prior treatment history, or rather *lack of treatment*, who knows how much treatment was actually given? I've dealt with pneumonia cases that have been ongoing for 6 months because owner didn't want to keep coming in for rechecks, and kept trying to wean the dog off the antibiotics on her own. And in no way would vaccines really cause aspiration pneumonia. Owner makes no obvious mention of vomiting immediately following vaccination. The dog could of inhaled some water while drinking and gotten aspiration pneumonia. Maybe they went swimming. Who knows??

As far as retinal degeneration, it is idiopathic. No known cause. Some believe it may be immune related, so yes theoretically could of been caused by the vaccines. But again would of had nothing to do with the initial diarrhea owner was concerned about. If the dog didn't have diarrhea and owner had all vaccines done and dog became blind, what would she of blamed then? German shepherds are prone to many eye disorders, and this was a geriatric patient that had who knows what health problems.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

It's really really sad this happened. I feel bad for her. And no one knows the whole story unless we look at actual medical records and client contacts. But from this article sounds like a sick dog with an owner that didn't thoroughly follow through and seek appropriate medical treatment, and a geriatric patient died from an illness that can be hard to treat and require a VERY long (months) treatment plan. I think expecting her vet to pay 25,000$ is RIDICULOUS because there is no evidence those vaccines caused this, and seems very unlikely they did


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

And you know what, yes, the recioptionist that took the call should of better notated that owner said RABIES ONLY. That is the fault of the clinic. But a 25,000$ fault? REALLY? For aspiration pneumonia a quarter of a year later that likely did NOT result from the vaccines? Now this isn't a disease that the dog has a weakened immune system from vaccines and caught. It is caught when something physically is inhaled into the lungs and then causes pneumonia because the lungs are a prime breeding ground and now have this bacteria filled substance in them. And yes, you can tell if it's aspiration pneumonia from the lung pattern and bronchial tubes on xray.


----------



## Courtney (Feb 12, 2010)

Wild Wolf said:


> Good for her! I almost had this experience, luckily I asked to see the vaccine before it was given and caught it on time. Absolutely enraged.


I also always double check because I don't follow the vets vaccine protocol. One time they were going to give a cocktail after it was clearly discussed what he was going to get.

There's a darn reason this women did not want those vaccines given. This is really sad and a reality for dogs who should not be given vaccine cocktails.

Regarding the lawsuit...how is she going to prove it? Was it in writing what she wanted the dog to have? If not, not sure where this lawsuit is going to go.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

Very sad. The dog should have been vaccinated per the owner's request. I can see this going either way. Not sure the owner has enough proof the vaccine caused the death of the dog.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

It's always heartbreaking to lose our dogs, no doubt about it. But I wonder how it was even possible to have this happen. If you take your dog in for a shot, and you see more than one needle, isn't that a big clue? My vet staggers shots, so for me it's a non-issue. Or is this a case of what happens when you hand the leash over to a tech? Which is something I would never do.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

My vet always gives me an invoice with all vaccines/treatments listed out on it BEFORE proceeding with the things. I have to sign it and agree to all the things I see on there...if you think about it, a customer could easily watch the dog get all the vaccines, then turn around and claim that they didn't want some of them and refuse to pay for them...what's the vet to do then?

Sometimes consumers just don't take enough responsibility at the time of the visit or purchase and then want to blame everyone else. It's the same thing that happens on this forum when someone gets a puppy and then cries about how its unhealthy and blames it all on the breeder even though they found the dog in the newspaper or on CL and didn't do any research.

I'm never afraid to tell my vet "no." And I always ask to see invoices before I pay so that I can see the detailed breakdown of the charges and question anything that's on there.

This sounds a lot like a malpractice suit...someone dies and a lawyer goes through every single treatment/decision, and is able to Monday morning quarterback what the doctor chose to do and then try to take them to court over their decisions.


----------



## trcy (Mar 1, 2013)

At the shot clinic I have to sign off on the shots before they are given. The shot clinic is at my vets office. For an offcie call I don't, but they always tell me beforehand and because its a vet I always ask the cost of what they are doing. 

It's sad she decided to put her dog to sleep, but if I was in that situation before any shots were given I would have had the dog in for the diarrhea condition.


----------



## Swifty (May 11, 2013)

trcy said:


> It's sad she decided to put her dog to sleep, but if I was in that situation before any shots were given I would have had the dog in for the diarrhea condition.


Aye, it struck me as strange that she was so far behind on her shots and that the vet didn't seem to be involved in the diarrhea problem. It wasn't until after the shots that suddenly she decided that the diarrhea needed to be addressed and that was when the dog was taken to the emergency clinic.

The underlying condition appears to have been a lot more serious than the owner would seem to believe.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Swifty said:


> Aye, it struck me as strange that she was so far behind on her shots and that the vet didn't seem to be involved in the diarrhea problem.


So far behind on shots says who? All that the article says is that vaccines were "nearly a year overdue." Unless they took a titer to prove (or theoretically prove) a low perceived immunity, such a claim of "overdue" is completely unsubstantiated. Having very recently (today, actually) dealt with vets pushing lots of vaccines- I'm pretty sick of the lack of evidence based testing in regards to vaccines. I saw nothing in the article that specifically stated the dog had a low titer to substantiate the claim of "overdue."

I'd be outraged if they gave a vaccine I had stated I didn't want. I hope she wins.


----------



## Swifty (May 11, 2013)

wildo said:


> So far behind on shots says who? All that the article says is that vaccines were "nearly a year overdue." Unless they took a titer to prove (or theoretically prove) a low perceived immunity, such a claim of "overdue" is completely unsubstantiated. Having very recently (today, actually) dealt with vets pushing lots of vaccines- I'm pretty sick of the lack of evidence based testing in regards to vaccines. I saw nothing in the article that specifically stated the dog had a low titer to substantiate the claim of "overdue."
> 
> I'd be outraged if they gave a vaccine I had stated I didn't want. I hope she wins.


Well, I look at it sort of like the 'oil change every so many miles' for cars. It probably isn't needed at all whenever the conventional wisdom says it is, but unless you know enough about cars to make the judgement call for yourself then it is an indicator of how much attention is being paid.

Did she ignore the yearly vaccines because she knows about dogs and their health or did she ignore the yearly vaccines because she is lazy (or some other reason)? Since the diarrhea seems to have been an indicator of something serious that she did not involve the vet in, I'm leaning towards her not knowing as much as she may think she does or she _should have_ let her dog's health care provider know of health problems her dog was having prior to the 'wellness visit'.


----------



## FlyAway (Jul 17, 2012)

I had a vet who wanted to vaccinate my sick dog, I stopped seeing that vet.


----------



## Courtney (Feb 12, 2010)

Yeah, the overdue comments mean nothing to me.

I get reminder cards all the time saying Rusty is "overdue" but again I don't follow the protocol of the vets office so he's always going to be overdue.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

Anubis_Star said:


> And you know what, yes, the recioptionist that took the call should of better notated that owner said RABIES ONLY. That is the fault of the clinic. But a 25,000$ fault? REALLY? For aspiration pneumonia a quarter of a year later that likely did NOT result from the vaccines? Now this isn't a disease that the dog has a weakened immune system from vaccines and caught. It is caught when something physically is inhaled into the lungs and then causes pneumonia because the lungs are a prime breeding ground and now have this bacteria filled substance in them. And yes, you can tell if it's aspiration pneumonia from the lung pattern and bronchial tubes on xray.


Something inhaled into the lungs? ....Like...intranasal bortadella vaccine?

Signs of illness don't have to manefest overnight to be considered caused - just the mere act of bringing in a sick, immuno compromised dog 6 more times to the vet puts it at risk - now the article (newspaper) would have been edited for space, so who knows what issues were also dealt witha nd more abx. scripted to further add to the declining condition that lead to pneumonia exacerbating.

So, quite possible they are directly responsible AND negligent


----------



## autopsy_survivor (Apr 2, 2013)

Every clinic I've taken my dogs to always asks me if I want Bordetella because it's an "optional" (not core) vaccine, regardless of whether they've had it before or not. Also, after the first bordetella vaccine, they've always given the injection rather than the intranasal unless you specifically ask for intranasal (which I do, because I'm generally getting it within a shorter time period of needing it - boarding, etc). 

There are a few things that stick out to me with this case, many of which were mentioned already. I feel that because she's a paralegal, she knows how to better word things than the average person and therefore can make it seem like it was entirely the clinic's fault when there may be more blame to herself. Perhaps she's feeling guilty and feels that by suing the clinic that guilt will go away, or perhaps she's seen the recent increase of cases being awarded damages above the "value" of the pet and thought, "Hey, I had to euthanize my dog, maybe I can get in on this". 

There isn't much for her to lose here, she either wins or loses. It's the clinic that this is really going to hurt and probably already has. If you saw an article about something like this going on at a clinic that you use, would you be likely go to back there? I really don't think people think things like this through hard enough before going ahead - she's potentially ruining the reputation of the clinic, the doctors and the other staff. If they are not to blame and did everything correctly, it's the livelihood of several people that's at risk. 

Whenever I get a call requesting something like this at work, I make a note in the patient's file and on the actual appointment in the scheduling program, but I still ask the owners to mention it to the vet/techs when they're in the appointment just incase. 

With all that being said - people lie, they twist words or simply misinterpret things. They also rely on Google and forums way too much. We have people that come in with pets that are in distress or pretty far gone because the owner did some research on Google or asked on a forum, came to the conclusion that the problem wasn't serious and tried a bunch of home remedies for awhile before they realized that maybe their pet should see an actual vet. I'm not saying that forums and internet searches can't be a great resource, they just shouldn't be the only one. 

The timeline for everything with this case is fishy too - why wait so long? I doubt that when she first called the receptionist said that everything was fine - they most likely advised an exam. Of course we can't know this for sure, but I have a feeling that she declined recheck exams and testing until it was potentially too late. 

Just my two cents...


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I think it will be very hard to medically make a connection between the vaccinations and the final illness.

My personal opinion is that it is ultimately the pet owners responsibility to discuss and ensure the animal is getting ONLY what was asked for. Go over the paperwork twice, discuss with the vet, ask the vet tech what they are doing, do not let your animal be taken in back unless you are confident everyone is on the same page.

A couple years ago I went in for a yearly check for Jax. They had already listed that she was to get a yearly vaccination, including the Lepto she is allergic to, before I walked thru the door. After a garbled visit, where the vet tech was arguing with me over vaccinations being "overdue", I refused to let them take her in the back. They had to be reminded twice to do a HW/tick check. I was furious by the time I left and wrote a long letter to the office manager. And because of that, they no longer fill out the paperwork for clients beforehand. They go over it when the client is there to ensure the animal is only receiving what the owner wants. 

Either that are they have a warning written in all my charts in BIG letters to not rattle the crazy lady! That might be the case too.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

I would think if she called Feb. 11th and told at the time NOT to do other noted vaccines and that the diarrhea was the reason...If the clinic had some concerns with the diarrhea (likely asked the usual questions - blood, dehydrated any vomiting, etc.) then they would have moved up the annual wellness exam and not waited to schedule until March 3 (about 3 weeks), and perhaps the diarrhea was intermittent soft stool as a bunch of us are aware of and deal with on this forum...

Still have to consider that they gave the vaccine cocktail after stating it was a year overdue (this clinic may still run on a yearly protocol) even though she said no, and even if the client wasn't the wiser - it was up to the VET CLINIC to advise AGAINST, do to the diarrhea AND the insert in the vaccines provided by the Manufacturer/drug company.

Rosedale is a very hoity toity area - multimillion dollar homes - banks have mantraps as you walk in - means you cannot enter or exit the bank without the one door locking before the other one unlocks of the vestibule
entrance


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

When I called, I specifically stated no vaccinations for that visit. But the message from the receptionist to the tech didn't happen. Another tech told me it's common practice in vet offices to fill out the paperwork ahead of time based on the reason for the visit to save time during the visit.

People screw up, even with the best intentions. It's just best to not take for granted that everyone got the message.

I agree that it is up to the vet clinic to advise against vaccinations when other issues are present. They don't vaccinate babies (people) when they are sick and other living creatures should have the same protocol.

But in the end, it's your animal and your heart that will be broken. So, ultimately, it's the owner's responsibility to be informed and speak for their animal.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

Swifty said:


> Aye, it struck me as strange that she was so far behind on her shots and that the vet didn't seem to be involved in the diarrhea problem. It wasn't until after the shots that suddenly she decided that the diarrhea needed to be addressed and that was when the dog was taken to the emergency clinic.
> 
> The underlying condition appears to have been a lot more serious than the owner would seem to believe.


 
As Wildo said - what overdue shots? It is NOT up to the vet to decide when, what or if you should even have them - it is up to the pet owner to decide - it is up to the vet to advise and to advise against where req'd (do to illness)...

From Kris L. Christines thread...

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...-vaccination-guidelines-new-puppy-owners.html

^^^click here for the full link to noted below

*2013 World Small Animal Veterinary Association VACCINATION GUIDELINES FOR NEW puppy OWNERS *

2. The WSAVA also states that the last puppy vaccine against the core diseases should be given at 14-16 weeks of age. This is because, before this time, the mother passes immunity to her puppies, and this ‘maternal immunity’ can prevent the vaccine from working. 

3. A high percentage (98%) of core puppy vaccines given between 14-16 weeks of age will provide immunity against parvovirus, distemper and adenovirus for many years, and probably for the life of the animal . 

6. The WSAVA supports the use of titre testing. ...."

So, there would be no overdue vaccines and no need for the cocktail if the vet clinic wasn't so trigger happy - and as for Rabies - same applies - do not give to sick animal


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

GatorBytes said:


> and as for Rabies - same applies - do not give to sick animal


This is a really, really tough one. Indiana (my state) does not have a medical exemption. While I 100% trust my dog around any new born, infant, toddler, young child, teen, adult, senior- you name it- *if* she were to bite someone, it'd be a death sentence without proof of rabies.

I don't anticipate EVER needing to prove rabies vaccination, but after considerable fret and contemplation, I went ahead with the shot. It absolutely sucks when stupid BS law stands in the way of the health of your dog. What do you do?? How do you make the choice?

Like I said- I trust the training/socialization I put into her completely- but I also take her EVERYWHERE I can and let anyone and everyone pet her.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

wildo said:


> This is a really, really tough one. Indiana (my state) does not have a medical exemption.


Well hopefully with the new guidelines from the WSAVA - Indiana may follow suit in time


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Why didnt this woman take her dog in much sooner??? This dog had diarrhea for obviously close to a month because of kibble change? That doesnt seem odd to anyone? then the dog continues to go downhill and is sick for MONTHS before actually hospitalized. As well the article is obviously biased towards the owner and makes point to mention specific dates. Therefor im going to believe that those dates indicate a large lapse in between contact with her vet.

She had a SICK dog, a geriatric dog already immune compromised because of age. She blatantly IGNORED potentially seriously symptoms because obviously she has a hidden medical degree and knew that the dog would have diarrhea for a month because of food change. Obviously everyone and their mother knows better because your vet is just out to screw you for money. Yes the vet clinic screwed up. But dont ignore her choices because of that. 

The woman wasnt very proactive either. Mentioned in a phone call 3 weeks earlier and thats it? Didnt actually tell her vet? Likely watched the vet give the shots? Didnt take the dog in for the diarrhea, but obviously that's the clinics fault as well because im sure they didn't try to get her to come in earlier. Owners never argue and push things off. 

Im also going to assume, again just an assumption so may be wrong, but not only is injectable bordetell still the usual one given, but because aspiration pneumonia is involved im going to guess they would of blatantly pointed out intranasal as the cause if it was the one given. As well intranasal is meant to absorb in the lining of the trachea. Its one fine mist, Not really enough spray in the vaccine to even reach the lungs (as well it is sterile until given). Aspiration pneumonia is caused when a good amount of fluid or other object collects in usually the right middle lung lobe. because the trachea is so fast absorbing, I dont think the intranasal spray could even reach the right middle lung lobe!

As far as vaccines being overdue - to me given this womans obviously lack of care towards prompt veterinary care, its not the fact that she didnt vaccinate that bothers me because i dont give most vaccines, as I said before its probably a pretty good sign that she didnt even go in for a wellness exam at all. I mean obviously shes not good at telling her vet no to vaccines so if she had gone in the dog probably would of been vaccinated. Who knows what kind of health problems and 11+ yr old large breed dog has??

Why cant blame be put to where it belongs? Sorry your dog died, maybe you shouldnt of ignored diarrhea for a month? The dog probably had other gi upset, vomited, aspirated some, got pneumonia, was 11 yrs old, you do the math. Expecting an 11 yr old dog to pull through pneumonia is like expecting your grandmother to overcome pneumonia. A little unlikely, unfortunately.

25,000 $ is RIDICULOUS. It will probably cost jobs and livelihood, and I am willing to put down anything i have that these vaccines did NOT cause this problem! Be angry at yourself dont blame others. Pets get old, they get sick, they die. This isn't a 4 yr old healthy young dog that died right after vaccines. This is an old dog that had health problems long BEFORE the vaccines and was sick for MONTHS before owner tried aggressive treatment

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

This is a very appropriate concern.



wildo said:


> This is a really, really tough one. Indiana (my state) does not have a medical exemption. While I 100% trust my dog around any new born, infant, toddler, young child, teen, adult, senior- you name it- *if* she were to bite someone, it'd be a death sentence without proof of rabies.


Or just biting YOU by accident (play/tug/missed target, separating dogs in a squabble).



> I don't anticipate EVER needing to prove rabies vaccination,


I didn't either....until I did!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I can see both sides of this. I'm glad that I don't have to argue with my vets or repeat myself constantly about what vaccines my dogs will or won't get (and I'm not nearly as minimal or anti-vaccine as many people here, but I never do bordetella, I don't do combos for puppies every time, and I don't vaccinate dogs over a certain age).

But on the flip side I do agree that *given the circumstances of the dog's death* $25K is excessive. This is why our doctors cost so much, the insane amount of malpractice insurance they need to carry. Sounds like vets won't be much far behind....


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

Anubis_Star said:


> *25,000 $ is RIDICULOUS*. It will probably cost jobs and livelihood,





Liesje said:


> I can see both sides of this. But on the flip side I do agree that *given the circumstances of the dog's death* *$25K is excessive*.


25 G's is too much? Until it's your dog (and I mean this in soft spoken voice - not a challenge)

Although Liesje you do say *given the circumstances* and I am sure the authour has had her article edited - $7000 was spent - the symptoms of diarrhea can go on and on WITH (or b/c of) vet treatment - there is no backstory as to how this was handled by the vet - could have been a food change sold by the vet - the problem is she dealt with it 7-8 times, visits, calls only to be told the dog was in perfect health and her concerns were ignored - much like her request to NOT vaccinate her ill dog until the diarrhea was resolved - THE VET NEVER SHOULD HAVE DONE IT - PERIOD (i am only caps locking cuz, anubus had made some blanket assumptions and put them in caps)
Peace


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

But of ALL the vaccines to give an old dog that's already sick....why rabies? Honestly NONE of it makes any sense to me.

I recently had a dog at the vet three times to try to diagnose and treat some sort of reaction and guess what....had been vaccinated several weeks prior but I'm not sitting here suing my vet.

If she wasn't happy with the care why go back 7-8 times? Find a new vet if you are not happy with the service or demand more answers.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

Anubis_Star said:


> IMHO, sounds like a distraught owner that lost a sick, geriatric patient and is looking to place blame on everyone but either old age or even herself.
> 
> The dog is having ongoing diarrhea. Not acute, didn't just start. Sounds like she ASSUMES it's a kibble change, but doesn't seek medical treatment. Then despite the diarrhea she calls a clinic in February to schedule an appointment for early May, *just wellness exam*. Once again no obvious concern or rush even though diarrhea had been going on for who knows how long.
> 
> ...


*HUH*

Anubus you are a vet tech - I hope you listen to pet owners concerns and read charts better then you read articles (and other members posts) - She was back at the vet the next day over the diarrhea that perhaps went explosive (I will speculate as you have been) after the vaccine...

Now being on the other end of the spectrum, with a chronic diarrhea dog, a vet selling vaccines, food and meds. steroids, and jabbing my dog who had just got sick from a third round of abx. for itchy skin (diahrrea running concurrently and steadily prior to abx.) and trying to sell me flea prevention in JANUARY b/c I lived in an apt. building and allergy tests...My dogs weight had also exploded likely due to the vaccines the year prior - THYROID...

Now WHY would my vet jab a dog with chronic diarrhea (meds wouldn't resolve - nothing found on fecel tests, nothing fixed by revolution that he had been on for 8 months) and itchyskinitis after 3 rounds of abx. (last making him vomit) and after coming off revolution.

What they didn't promote was blood work - not yet, "it could wait".


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

Here's my question. When she took the dog in for the appointment how did she not notice them giving MULTIPLE SHOTS?!?


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> Here's my question. When she took the dog in for the appointment how did she not notice them giving MULTIPLE SHOTS?!?


As someone noted - they may have taken the dog away from the owner - maybe to draw blood for the wellness exam. Maybe teh dog was kenneled for the day to do whatever (many members on here have left their dog to be attnded to do to work restrictions) She is a paralegal - probably couldn't get time off work (all speculative)

Again - it's newspaper article - likely edited out or the reporter didn't ask.


Still shouldn't have done any vaccine until they resolved the issue and blood work came back (if done as part of wellness exam - but my exp. a wellness check incl. bloods vs. a check up - or feel up as I call it)


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

You see it on this forum all the time people belly aching about the cost of vet care.....well watch it sky rocket as things like this begin to happen.....vets will need to insure themselves for more and more and will have to pass on the cost.
Sure vets should be held accountable but $25000 is crazy. The lady didn't care enough to take the dog to the vet to have the illness seen to but all of a sudden needs $25000 to make her feel better. 
We won't have vets soon......they won't be able to afford the liability.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Some clinics take the dog out back to take blood or give shots. They feel owners make their dogs nervous. 

Cujo had seizures and I said no to the Parvo/Distemper 5-way, and I say no to Lepto on all my dogs and on him, who was my parents' dog. My dad was just going in to get blood work, but he was about a year over due on his shots, and I had told my dad to let them due rabies only. 

Well, they told my dad that they understood I don't want to do the lepto, but for Cujo, he should have it. And they did them all. the five-way, the rabies, and the lepto. He suffered from 3 days' worth of seizures afterwards. It was awful. Both parents agreed no more shots for him, ever. My vet, when I mentioned it, acted like it wasn't related, she just said, "oh well, that will happen." Baloney!

But whatever. Not all vets believe what is true. And my dad listened to the vet and agreed with the vet until he saw with his own eyes. And most of us do. 

But even so, I think the 25k for pain and suffering will only drive the cost of veterinary care beyond the means of ordinary middle class, like medical treatment without insurance for humans is. We pay mainly for mal-practice insurance. It would be a whole lot cheaper if that wasn't factored in. 

Why do we want that to happen with dogs too. 

I feel bad that her dog died because of something she did or did not allow to happen, that in most probability DID affect her dog. Her dog was elderly. She should have put her foot down, and demanded only the one vaccination, and she should sue for the cost of the veterinary treatment afterwards if they did not follow her directions. 

But suing for pain in suffering is trying to make a buck off your poor dog's bones, and making it more and more difficult for everyone who will want to have a pet. Right now, if you want to take your dog in for shots, it will cost $30 - $75. If people start sueing left and right for pain and suffering, the insurance companies are going to drive their insurance up to the point where we will be paying $2-4 hundred dollars to walk through the door with our pets. 

Vets DO make mistakes. Most of them are not out of malevolence. Most of them are honest mistakes.


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

Well I hope this woman realized prior to the vaccine that humans do make errors. I hope she DOUBLE or even TRIPLE checked that she in fact wanted the rabies vac. ONLY when she arrived and verbalized this to the vetrenarian. Never rely on one person to transmit a vital message that needs to be passed on, especially the receptionist who is in fact NOT the vet. I'm sorry but $25,000 seems a little rediculous to me. I am not sure why the vet vaccinated a sick dog, but unless she can PROVE that the vaccines directly caused the death, $25,000 seems laughable to me. $25 THOUSAND!? Really? Idk but I deal with 'people' all the time and it sounds like she is trying to point a finger without solid proof and take it as far as she can. Sure, something happened that she didn't like, but the dog was clearly sick BEFORE the vacc. so you cannot dismiss that the dog was simply on his way out. I cannot stand people like that. JMO.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

GatorBytes said:


> *HUH*
> 
> Anubus you are a vet tech - I hope you listen to pet owners concerns and read charts better then you read articles (and other members posts) - She was back at the vet the next day over the diarrhea that perhaps went explosive (I will speculate as you have been) after the vaccine...
> 
> ...


HUH

I hope after all this time and quoting me YOU can read well enough to spell my name right.

Even after the next appointment which yes you are right I misread, she still waited a week to call back and even longer to seek further treatment.

Why is she not at fault for having a dog that is having diarrhea for a month before seeing a vet? Why does that not concern you? She assumes its the diet but how does she know? Does she hold a medical degree?

Point is there is ZERO proof the vaccines contributed to the dogs death. There is obvious proof that she failed to provide immediate care for a problem that could of signalled serious disease processes. Under the legal system how can she be awarded 25,000 $? Is that what our law system or canadas should come to? Well it might of happened so sure we'll rule in favor of it?

Btw if your vet sucked so much why didnt you go to a different one?

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

I don't think we can make any fair judgments without hearing all the facts and the vet's side of the story.


----------



## Swifty (May 11, 2013)

Anubis_Star said:


> Even after the next appointment which yes you are right I misread, she still waited a week to call back and even longer to seek further treatment.
> 
> Why is she not at fault for having a dog that is having diarrhea for a month before seeing a vet? Why does that not concern you? She assumes its the diet but how does she know? Does she hold a medical degree?


This is bothering me as well. Her dog is having diarrhea and, from what I'm gathering from the article, her vet wasn't involved in treating it since the lady was assuming it was from changing kibble. Then, apparently after years of no rabies vaccine she now wants the vaccine and comes in _the day after_ all worried about the diarrhea?

She was obviously comfortable with going without the yearly shots, so why suddenly get it while her dog is sick? It's not like she went every year around the same time so it was routine or something.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

Anubis_Star said:


> HUH
> 
> I hope after all this time and quoting me YOU can read well enough to *spell my name right.*
> 
> ...


My bad, didn't mean to mispell - I suckj at typing...

As for comment (sorry I meant to say no disrespect - was in a hurry to finish post as I had started it), reading articles and posts - only said as you have acknowledged yourself in posts and said as much (oops - I should read the whole post before answering)...not trying to start a war...just seems to be a double standard in your post that vaccines shouldn't be a concern if it is food related - which may be what the vet has been telling her and maybe b/c of vet food - so why the urgency or seen as neglect on her part - you are assuming on her part in defence of the line of work you are in - I get that.

As for the vet I used and noted - I did change vets - and considered suing when my dog who also got a rabies shot as I was told ALL shots AND rabies were fine to be given despite the abx. steroid shot, diarrhea and itchyskin and itchy ears with hair loss - my dog started seeing imaginary ghosts in corners of the ceiling - no reflections, no sunlight, no shadows


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

I agree with you as well on some points. Especially about your own dog - sounds like medical treatment in that case was horrendous 

It just honestly doesn't sound like this woman was diligent enough with her dog's symptoms, and looking for someone to blame after she lost her pet. It doesnt sound like she personally told the vet only rabies, just a receptionist on the phone days before the appointment. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

Yeah, if something outrages someone so much that they feel the need to sue someone over, they are not going to wait and 'see what happens'. Sorry but I'm not buying it one bit- she just wants someone to blame IMO. And yes, it is very sad that the dog passed away, but it's impossible to point fingers when the dog was sick to begin with. SHE is the one who brought the dog through the vet office's doors for vaccination. Who is she to say what vaccination actually contributed to the death of the dog- if AT ALL. Maybe it was the Rabies.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

PupperLove said:


> Yeah, if something outrages someone so much that they feel the need to sue someone over, they are not going to wait and 'see what happens'. Sorry but I'm not buying it one bit- she just wants someone to blame IMO. And yes, it is very sad that the dog passed away, but it's impossible to point fingers when the dog was sick to begin with. SHE is the one who brought the dog through the vet office's doors for vaccination. Who is she to say what vaccination actually contributed to the death of the dog- if AT ALL. Maybe it was the Rabies.


 
Yes! Maybe it was the rabies, which as I already mentioned - the vet should have advised against - now somehow it has been speculated that she was negligent and should have taken the dog in sooner - well how can you say that, if this was the annual wellness exam and if she called and was advised that she was "overdue" on vax. (all) - she may have been in yr. before and declined vax. do to AGE of the dog...they may have put pressure on about the rabies (as this is hot subject on this forum - maybe she's on here) "law" and she may have addressed concerns about the diarrhea and got the first available app. MAYBE it was the vets food, maybe chronic diarrhea meant on and off - not explosive - but managed (GSD x after all and we know their troubles) 

25 g's is a pennies in Rosedale


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

So I am confused. Are people actually thinking that vaccinations caused the dogs pneumonia??

Really?

And where you live should have zero impact in the " worth" of the loss. I live in a small town, does that mean my dogs are " worth" less in a lawsuit. I don't care where she lives or what is a lot of money in her area. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

For some people diarrhea is liquid poo -- the dog can dehydrate fast with liquid poo. Liquid poo is impossible for a dog to control, so keeping a dog as a housepet for a month with liquid poo and doing nothing, no vet seems a bit insane. For other people, diarrhea is mush-poo. Mush-poo is simply ordinary poo with a higher quantity of liquid in it. It is not impossible for a dog to control, and while picking it out of the grass or concrete is more difficult, it is not something you couldn't manage for a while. Mush-poo seems to be a symptom of over-feeding, and of changing kibbles. 

I think most of us, when we change kibbles, if the poo becomes a bit mushy, we do not rush to the vet. Or at least I don't. In fact, diarrhea here gets the following treatment:
1. 24 hour fast
2. 1/2 kibble, 2x first day.
If poo comes out good, end, else go to 3.
3. add 1 tablespoon pumpkin to 1/3 kibble, 2x next two days.
If poo comes out good go to 4. else go to 5. 
4. increase food until calorie of old food and new food are similar, if kibble remains good, done.
5. call vet and get the dosage and type of diarrhea meds. 
If that doesn't work in a day, then off to the vet. 

So I might be a couple of days before actually seeking veterinary care for diarrhea, but usually it clears right up. The only reason I put step five in there, is because I have had a vet prescribe pepto bismal for a dog, and another tell me to use kaopeptate. Usually I don't have to do pumpkin. Usually the 24 hour fast works, and going back on the kibble is fine.

So maybe this was mush-poo which can be more of a chronic issue, and it can definitely be related to a change in kibble.

Now, as I understand it, the whole reason we pay for an office exam when we get shots, is that the dog is supposed to be healthy before getting shots. The vet is supposed to give the dog an examination, else they should not vaccinate the dog. In that respect, maybe the woman has a point. They should not have vaccinated for anything, including rabies when the dog was not well. 

But it should not be a 25k point, whether or not it is doable for the vet/clinic. 

The dog was 11. Renal failure really isn't that out of the question for an old dog. Pumping vaccinations into a dog experiencing renal failure probably wouldn't help. In fact, the vaccinations in the old and sick dog probably did hasten the inevitable. That's sad. It's awful. I am sure the owner feels terrible. 

But if you offered me 25k to inject any of my dogs with something that would cause renal failure, I would tell you to go shove your head in the toilet. 25k will not bring the dog back. It will not make the dog's demise less grusome. It will not change any of the facts in the case. If you cared about your dog, it will not alleviate the pain and suffering of having lost you elderly dog that didn't probably have much longer to live in any case, but who can tell?

It sounds more like the woman is looking for punitive damages. The vet did something grossly wrong and she wants to punish him so that he will think twice before he vaccinates another ill dog, or tries to vaccinate a dog differently from its owner's wishes.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

gsdsar said:


> So I am confused. Are people actually thinking that vaccinations caused the dogs pneumonia??
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


Isn't pneumonia often a secondary condition that actually kills you after a prolonged disease ravishes you? I mean, people don't generally die of aids, they die of pneumonia. Being bed-ridden can cause you to have pneumonia because you are not getting up and moving about. A severe vaccine reaction can cause a dog to become ravished to where pneumonia can set in and kill the dog.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

selzer said:


> It sounds more like the woman is looking for punitive damages. The vet did something grossly wrong and she wants to punish him *so that he will think twice before he vaccinates another ill dog, or tries to vaccinate a dog differently from its owner's wishes*.


NOW THAT is a sound comment!


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

selzer said:


> Isn't pneumonia often a secondary condition that actually kills you after a prolonged disease ravishes you? I mean, people don't generally die of aids, they die of pneumonia. Being bed-ridden can cause you to have pneumonia because you are not getting up and moving about. A severe vaccine reaction can cause a dog to become ravished to where pneumonia can set in and kill the dog.


No, ASPIRATION pneumonia is when infection sets in after a contaminated substance is aspirated and collects in the lungs. Commonly happens with dogs drinking too fast, swimming, vomiting

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

gsdsar said:


> So I am confused. Are people actually thinking that vaccinations caused the dogs pneumonia??
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


Vaccinating a sick and/or aging dog suppressing the immune system - yes pneumonia could happen - being vax.'d with bortadella - sure - many rescue stories on here about kennel cough gone too far...

as for the worth comment - not sure if you mean my comment about Rosedale and pennies, however, that was in respect to others noting that here lawsuit if successful and others follow suit, then that could drive up Vet visit costs and insurance...and other poster said would hurt their biz...my point is that this "clinic" is in the elite-ist of neighbourhoods...

You cannot put a price on pain/suffering from loss - however small claims can and it's 25 g's


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

The vaccine did NOT cause this dog to aspirate

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

But how can you tell that the vaccinations did not cause vomiting? Vomiting can cause the aspiration. 

I think she will have a hard time proving that vaccinating the sick elderly dog contributed to its demise, even if I believe it is possible. 

Gatorbytes, I am sorry, but I don't think the woman should get punitive damages. I think that when we award punitive damages in the name of pain and suffering, we are actually driving our own costs for vet bills up, probably beyond what 90% of this board will be able to pay. Do we really want that? 

Dogs live typically from 10-14 years. The one thing the shelter, or the pet store, or the breeder can guaranty is that barring some type of accident or attack, the dog will get a disease and ultimately require euthanasia or it will die without the benefit of being humanely put down. 

Even with 2-3 dogs, most of us can point to some incident where we felt our dog was not treated properly at a vet. We do not have to be right to feel that way. And when our beloved pet dies, we may be looking at anyone besides ourselves to blame. If people think they can get a few thou or get $25 thou by sueing the vet that took care of the dog, well some of them will do it because they truly believe that something was done improperly, and others will do it because they can. And the outcome is that dog ownership goes back to being something only the very wealthy can do.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

Kayos and Havoc said:


> Very sad. The dog should have been vaccinated per the owner's request. I can see this going either way. Not sure the owner has enough proof the vaccine caused the death of the dog.


This is how I feel too!!!

My vet doesn't like to vaccinate the senior Hooligans for anything except rabies which is required by law. She wanted an exemption for Mac so we did a titer on him ... surprisingly he failed the titer test so he had to have the vaccination.


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

Isn't the standard of care and the instruction from the vaccine manufacturers that the dog should be healthy at the time of the vaccination? Shouldn't that be the standard of care. I see too many vets vaccinating sick animals.

My own healthy puppy had a severe reaction that needed emergency care after receiving a combo shot. He was premedicated and received the boosters a month apart for the rest of his life. I had to fight for the one vaccine at a time over and over. He was titered whenever possible.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

GatorBytes said:


> Still have to consider that they gave the vaccine cocktail after stating it was a year overdue (this clinic may still run on a yearly protocol) even though she said no, and even if the client wasn't the wiser - it was up to the VET CLINIC to advise AGAINST, do to the diarrhea AND the insert in the vaccines provided by the Manufacturer/drug company.





RebelGSD said:


> Isn't the standard of care and the instruction from the vaccine manufacturers that the dog should be healthy at the time of the vaccination? Shouldn't that be the standard of care. I see too many vets vaccinating sick animals.
> 
> My own healthy puppy had a severe reaction that needed emergency care after receiving a combo shot. He was premedicated and received the boosters a month apart for the rest of his life. I had to fight for the one vaccine at a time over and over. He was titered whenever possible.


Which is what I have been saying

Oh - as well, what arycrest said - vaccinating senior was another red flag


----------

