# Failed vetting



## Pabby52 (18 July 2017)

Advice needed please! I've just had a vetting done on a horse and it failed due to vet finding a small splint which caused mild discomfort with pressure. Owners advised to rest him and vet is going back out to reassess and if sound I can have him revetted. The vet stressed it was a small splint, probably caused by a knock but as we're first time buyers I just wondered what the more experienced horse owners would advise? Should we still go ahead with the sale? My daughter wants to do a bit of RC/PC low level with him. Thoughts appreciated. Thanks


----------



## Hoof_Prints (18 July 2017)

Personally, I would walk away. I have, and would buy a horse with an old settled splint as they generally cause no issues. Two of my horses had splints so large you could see them from a distance! However,  I wouldn't go near one that hasn't settled yet. I had a pony pop a teeny splint and she was checked by the vet as 100% sound a week later, not even reacting to pressure; the following week she was on 3 legs and had to be off work for 3 months, then gradually brought back in to work. She is now completely sound but it was a long process of 6 months in total. Chances are the horse will be fine after rest, but it's a bit of a gamble for you and some splints can end up problematic depending on their location.


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (18 July 2017)

How old was the horse OP? And what sort of work was it in before developing the splint?  And what's the asking price? 

As poster above has said, I'd be cautious, especially if you're a first time buyer and want to get your first horse-purchase "right".

Who is paying for the second vetting?? You are liable to be in the position of sending good money after bad if you're not careful with this one...... a second vetting may prove inconclusive, and (vets being vets!) it may well be recommended that further investigations are necessary, which are going to be costly, and if you're not careful you are going to be asked to stump up for that - unless you get it in writing from the seller that they will pay!! 

If the splint is anywhere near a joint such as knee or fetlock then I'd walk away pretty damn quick: I travelled for an hour each way to see a very nice horse which was good in all respect, except, except, it had a splint near to its fetlock. Seller hadn't told me before I'd set out. I ran my hand down its leg, and found it. Seller said she "hadn't thought to mention it as it wasn't causing any problems". I walked away from that one  

On the other hand...... IF the splint is somewhere where it wont' cause much difficulty, and IF you are prepared for the fact that it might be unsightly, AND the uncertainty of whether it will settle OK or not and cause future unsoundness, then you could always put in a very cheeky offer to the seller and see what they do about it. It might just be a minor issue and might well settle OK and never cause any problem. But do bear in mind that if you wish to go for showing classes then you may find yourself moved down the line. And if you ever wish to sell the horse it might not be what a potential buyer wants to see. BUT, you might just get a jolly nice horse for a very keen price!! But TBH that is a bit of a gamble and one you might not wish to take. 

But personally, if I was a first-time buyer, I'm afraid I'd be inclined to walk away on this one if there's any doubt. Yes vets are rigorous to a fault in finding a problem at a vetting, but you could have the heartbreak of buying a really nice horse that will have soundness issues, or at the very least, uncertainty in that respect.

Walk away and look for something else is my advice. Sorry, tough choice, and won't be easy, I know, I'm horse-hunting at the moment and during the past year I've fallen in love with two horses which have failed vettings, its a real bummer.


----------



## ycbm (18 July 2017)

I would happily buy a horse with a cold hard splint. They are as common as common. I don't think I've ever owned three horsesat the same time without at least one of them having a splint.

The problem with this one is it's not cold and hard, it's active.

Most splints either cause no lameness, or are done and dusted with four weeks rest and never cause an issue again.

If you really like the horse I would wait until the horse is sound and if your vet then agrees, buy it. Be aware that the leg will probably be excluded from insurance for one year and you may need your vet to help get the exclusion removed.


----------



## ihatework (18 July 2017)

Don't buy while active. 
But tell the buyers you would still be interested when the splint settles down, keep looking at others in the interim


----------



## Equi (18 July 2017)

My YO horse threw a splint, he is now totally fine and in full work. It depends how far you want to go - you can't show a horse with a split in any conformation type classes or the like. Be fine for jumping classes etc.  If its only for pc/rc it will most likely be okay providing it passes the 2nd vetting. Probably want to knock a bit off the price tho!


----------



## ycbm (18 July 2017)

equi said:



			My YO horse threw a splint, he is now totally fine and in full work. It depends how far you want to go - you can't show a horse with a split in any conformation type classes or the like. Be fine for jumping classes etc.  If its only for pc/rc it will most likely be okay providing it passes the 2nd vetting. Probably want to knock a bit off the price tho!
		
Click to expand...

Good point!  I never even  thought about showing, cos I never do it.


----------



## ihatework (18 July 2017)

equi said:



			My YO horse threw a splint, he is now totally fine and in full work. It depends how far you want to go - you can't show a horse with a split in any conformation type classes or the like. Be fine for jumping classes etc.  If its only for pc/rc it will most likely be okay providing it passes the 2nd vetting. Probably want to knock a bit off the price tho!
		
Click to expand...

You can show a horse with a splint, just at county+ you would be marked down.
For a first horse a splint really should be very low down on the priority list, and if type and temprement are right there should be no reason to knock the price down really (provided the splint settles easily).


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (18 July 2017)

Pabby52 said:



			Advice needed please! I've just had a vetting done on a horse and it failed due to vet finding a small splint which caused mild discomfort with pressure. Owners advised to rest him and vet is going back out to reassess and if sound I can have him revetted. The vet stressed it was a small splint, probably caused by a knock but as we're first time buyers I just wondered what the more experienced horse owners would advise? Should we still go ahead with the sale? My daughter wants to do a bit of RC/PC low level with him. Thoughts appreciated. Thanks
		
Click to expand...

My horse had a splint in the vetting it was picked up, causes her no issues.  MY second horse got a splint, self inflicted -  quick course of dmso and all fine, never caused her any problem through her life.  


 If you really like this horse  - I would and have re tested and if OK in the next vetting and that was the only thing, I would carry on with the purchase if you like the horse.

ATEOTD  the splint is the old  toes all equines have, they are not needed and my friends horse got kicked and shattered her splint bone and had it surgically removed and after that caused no more issues.    http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/horse-care/vet-advice/understanding-splints-48104


----------



## Pabby52 (18 July 2017)

Thanks for the replies! He's 9 years old and has done low level RC/PC; hacking etc in the past, and that's all we want to do with him. The vet, although she failed him, played the splint issue down tbh. She said it was tiny (you can't see it) and it's not near the joint. She also didn't think it would cause him any problems in the future. The owners have been riding him oblivious to the fact he had one!  I'll see what the vet says this week about his soundness - so gutting as he's a perfect match for my daughter - has a wonderful temperament &#128522;


----------



## Pabby52 (18 July 2017)

He's 9yrs old and has done low level PC and hacking mainly. Really gutted as he's a great horse otherwise.


----------



## Pabby52 (18 July 2017)

Yes already spoken to the vet about insurance and she said they'd exclude that particular splint so if it flared up again we'd be liable. Shall see what the vet says when she's reassessed him In terms of his soundness. Gutted as we thought we'd found the "one"!


----------



## ycbm (18 July 2017)

Pabby52 said:



			Yes already spoken to the vet about insurance and she said they'd exclude that particular splint so if it flared up again we'd be liable. Shall see what the vet says when she's reassessed him In terms of his soundness. Gutted as we thought we'd found the "one"!
		
Click to expand...

They will almost certainly exclude the whole leg, not just the splint.


----------



## Pabby52 (18 July 2017)

ycbm said:



			They will almost certainly exclude the whole leg, not just the splint.
		
Click to expand...


Really?  ....more to think about then!


----------



## ihatework (18 July 2017)

Pabby52 said:



			Really?  ....more to think about then!
		
Click to expand...

Unlikely. I'd lay money you will find a company that would put a clause along the lines of 'claims relating directly or indirectly to splint'. And you could quite likely get it removed after a year if no further issue. But definitely worth checking out insurance status before proceeding with a purchase.


----------



## claret09 (18 July 2017)

he sounds perfect. generally splints, especially tiny ones are no problem. I am sure he will be exactly what you want. don't forget vets fail huge numbers of horses who go on to do exactly what their owners want them to do. they are covering themselves from litigation and they need point out what might go wrong


----------



## scats (19 July 2017)

Splints are funny things.  They either crop up competletely unnoticed, having never caused a problem when active, they might cause a bit of tenderness or lameness for a week or so while active.. or, occasionally, they can cause a significant issue while they are forming which leads to the horse needing a substantial amount of time off.

If it has formed and is hard and causing no issue, I wouldn't let it put me off, if it's actively forming at the moment, I might be tempted to re-vet in a couple of weeks.


----------



## ycbm (19 July 2017)

ihatework said:



			Unlikely. I'd lay money you will find a company that would put a clause along the lines of 'claims relating directly or indirectly to splint'. And you could quite likely get it removed after a year if no further issue. But definitely worth checking out insurance status before proceeding with a purchase.
		
Click to expand...

The splint will never be covered, whether it is excluded specifically or not, because it's a pre existing condition. 


And then if even if you can get that wording, you have to argue with them, and probably lose, that the pulled check ligament wasn't affected by the splint, or the strained suspensory wasn't because the horse has been favouring the splint. Even if you can get that wording you aren't in clear water with an insurance company, from reports we've had so often on the forum.

Safer, I think, to assume that most of the leg will be excluded.


----------



## ihatework (19 July 2017)

ycbm said:



			The splint will never be covered, whether it is excluded specifically or not, because it's a pre existing condition. 


And then if even if you can get that wording, you have to argue with them, and probably lose, that the pulled check ligament wasn't affected by the splint, or the strained suspensory wasn't because the horse has been favouring the splint. Even if you can get that wording you aren't in clear water with an insurance company, from reports we've had so often on the forum.

Safer, I think, to assume that most of the leg will be excluded.
		
Click to expand...

Funny. Because I have achieved exactly what I have written. But I will bow to your superior knowledge because I know you are always right


----------



## ycbm (19 July 2017)

ihatework said:



			Funny. Because I have achieved exactly what I have written. But I will bow to your superior knowledge because I know you are always right
		
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I have annoyed you, but there really is no need to be nasty, I'm trying to help the OP, and this forum is littered with threads about insurance companies not paying out for the slightest excuse. 


You have had the splint removed from exclusion. Have you tried to claim on it when it went sore again later?

I'd be interested to know what condition the insurance company allowed you to claim on worth a leg that had an active exclusion for a splint. It would help others if you can tell us, and who you were insured with?


----------



## Pabby52 (19 July 2017)

claret09 said:



			he sounds perfect. generally splints, especially tiny ones are no problem. I am sure he will be exactly what you want. don't forget vets fail huge numbers of horses who go on to do exactly what their owners want them to do. they are covering themselves from litigation and they need point out what might go wrong
		
Click to expand...

Ah thank you. We've definitely clicked with him and even the vet commented on what a dude he was lol. The vet is checking him tomorrow to see if he's sound and we can continue with the vetting process if we want


----------



## Pabby52 (19 July 2017)

scats said:



			Splints are funny things.  They either crop up competletely unnoticed, having never caused a problem when active, they might cause a bit of tenderness or lameness for a week or so while active.. or, occasionally, they can cause a significant issue while they are forming which leads to the horse needing a substantial amount of time off.

If it has formed and is hard and causing no issue, I wouldn't let it put me off, if it's actively forming at the moment, I might be tempted to re-vet in a couple of weeks.
		
Click to expand...

The vet showed me where it was and it was a very small hard lump. No heat coming from it either so will see what happens tomorrow. Thank you &#55357;&#56842;


----------



## ihatework (19 July 2017)

OP, it sounds like your vet is practical and on the case with this so I&#8217;d just follow their advice. Good luck with the re-vetting and looking forwards to hearing all about your hopefully new purchase!

I&#8217;m sure you know, or if not your vet has explained to you, that a splint is just a bony lump. There are a number of reasons why a horse might develop a splint. It could be that they have just bashed themselves and they have a localised bone reaction. It might be that they have done too much work on hard ground and the bone reaction is as a result of concussion (this is more common in younger horses). Another cause can be if the limb has bad conformation or the feet are out of balance, this can put stress on the limb and sometimes the horse will lay down extra bone. The first one and to a certain extent the second one are less of a concern. The splint should harden off and usually won&#8217;t cause an issue in the future, often over time the splint will decrease in size too. The third one would raise a little more concern for me, but equally there will be plenty of examples of horses who do a good job as a leisure horse despite this.

Just to give you 3 examples of my own horses who have had splints and been insured.

Horse 1 I purchased with a whopper of a splint (think half a golf ball) mid cannon bone. Horse was insured with PetPlan and the splint rather than the limb was specifically excluded. The horse in his duration with me (3 years) suffered no ill effects from the splint. The exclusion was removed by Petplan after 12 months following a vet note. I would not read too much into this as a relevant example as this was quite a long time ago and insurance has changed since. These days I would expect the exclusion to remain but I would not expect a limb exclusion.

Horse 2 I purchased with a medium sized splint mid cannon. Horse was insured with NFU and the splint rather than the limb was specifically excluded (as was hind limb PSD). Within 2 months of ownership the horse had managed to bash the splint and it flaired up. This was not covered by insurance and treatment involved a vet visit, topical steroid carried by DMSO and rest. The cost was approximately equivalent to an insurance excess fee. The splint never troubled the horse again once it was settled. After initial policy was taken out NFU countrywide updated their smallprint to something along the lines of &#8216;any pre existing condition will be excluded&#8217; and did not note specific incidents. This horse ended up being a walking vet bill and post splint had claims paid out on navicular syndrome and sesmoidian ligament desmitis, without quibble, on the limb that had the splint.

Horse 3 was purchased with clean limbs. At some stage horse bashed itself and developed a small splint. This was not declared to the insurance company at the time as it was so insignificant and did not involve a vet visit. At a later date the vet performed an unrelated lameness work up and on their clinical history noted the presence of the splint. Insurance company (KBIS) paid the unrelated investigation and applied an additional splint specific exclusion. This I challenged and they informed me that it could be removed after 12 months with a vet note. I never got around to doing it as by then the splint had virtually reabsorbed.

Horse 4 was purchased with clean limbs and within a week horse bashed itself and developed a small splint. I insured horse after this incident (horse was not vetted) and used 3 counties brokers. I declared the small splint and when I received my policy document there was no exclusion noted. This was literally in the last 3-4 months.

But in the interest of fairness and balance I'm sure YMBC will be able to provide examples of her own horses whereby splints and exclusions have been a problem.

The one real flag/caution I would say is if your vet comments on foot balance or suchlike being out - then an exclusion on foot balance can really hit a few things hard. All sorts of soft tissue injuries could be deemed related and also the splint could be related / secondary to the foot balance.


----------



## ester (19 July 2017)

It sounds like the sort of situation,  where the vet thinks the horse is actually otherwise fine, will be fine and the splint won't cause any issues. But it is impossible for them to pass it with an active splint going on that is sore on palpation.  Did they complete the whole vetting?


----------



## ycbm (19 July 2017)

But in the interest of fairness and balance I'm sure YMBC will be able to provide examples of her own horses whereby splints and exclusions have been a problem.
		
Click to expand...

I don't insure, partly because of exclusions talked about frequently on this forum. So I have no personal experience. But it seems that you do not have any experience of making a claim on a leg which has an *active* exclusion for a splint?

So I will stick to my advice to the OP, that if she insures the horse and has an exclusion for a splint, that she would likely face quite a battle to get a payout on, for example, a tendon strain, while that exclusion is in place. So, in  her shoes, I would err on the side of caution and start from the belief that the whole leg is pretty much excluded even if only the splint is mentioned.  Because it's my impression that's how insurance companies are these days. 


Happy, as I say in my signature, to be politely corrected by anyone with actual examples from real life.


----------



## Pabby52 (19 July 2017)

ihatework said:



			OP, it sounds like your vet is practical and on the case with this so I&#8217;d just follow their advice. Good luck with the re-vetting and looking forwards to hearing all about your hopefully new purchase!
G
I&#8217;m sure you know, or if not your vet has explained to you, that a splint is just a bony lump. There are a number of reasons why a horse might develop a splint. It could be that they have just bashed themselves and they have a localised bone reaction. It might be that they have done too much work on hard ground and the bone reaction is as a result of concussion (this is more common in younger horses). Another cause can be if the limb has bad conformation or the feet are out of balance, this can put stress on the limb and sometimes the horse will lay down extra bone. The first one and to a certain extent the second one are less of a concern. The splint should harden off and usually won&#8217;t cause an issue in the future, often over time the splint will decrease in size too. The third one would raise a little more concern for me, but equally there will be plenty of examples of horses who do a good job as a leisure horse despite this.

Just to give you 3 examples of my own horses who have had splints and been insured.

Horse 1 I purchased with a whopper of a splint (think half a golf ball) mid cannon bone. Horse was insured with PetPlan and the splint rather than the limb was specifically excluded. The horse in his duration with me (3 years) suffered no ill effects from the splint. The exclusion was removed by Petplan after 12 months following a vet note. I would not read too much into this as a relevant example as this was quite a long time ago and insurance has changed since. These days I would expect the exclusion to remain but I would not expect a limb exclusion.

Horse 2 I purchased with a medium sized splint mid cannon. Horse was insured with NFU and the splint rather than the limb was specifically excluded (as was hind limb PSD). Within 2 months of ownership the horse had managed to bash the splint and it flaired up. This was not covered by insurance and treatment involved a vet visit, topical steroid carried by DMSO and rest. The cost was approximately equivalent to an insurance excess fee. The splint never troubled the horse again once it was settled. After initial policy was taken out NFU countrywide updated their smallprint to something along the lines of &#8216;any pre existing condition will be excluded&#8217; and did not note specific incidents. This horse ended up being a walking vet bill and post splint had claims paid out on navicular syndrome and sesmoidian ligament desmitis, without quibble, on the limb that had the splint.

Horse 3 was purchased with clean limbs. At some stage horse bashed itself and developed a small splint. This was not declared to the insurance company at the time as it was so insignificant and did not involve a vet visit. At a later date the vet performed an unrelated lameness work up and on their clinical history noted the presence of the splint. Insurance company (KBIS) paid the unrelated investigation and applied an additional splint specific exclusion. This I challenged and they informed me that it could be removed after 12 months with a vet note. I never got around to doing it as by then the splint had virtually reabsorbed.

Horse 4 was purchased with clean limbs and within a week horse bashed itself and developed a small splint. I insured horse after this incident (horse was not vetted) and used 3 counties brokers. I declared the small splint and when I received my policy document there was no exclusion noted. This was literally in the last 3-4 months.

But in the interest of fairness and balance I'm sure YMBC will be able to provide examples of her own horses whereby splints and exclusions have been a problem.

The one real flag/caution I would say is if your vet comments on foot balance or suchlike being out - then an exclusion on foot balance can really hit a few things hard. All sorts of soft tissue injuries could be deemed related and also the splint could be related / secondary to the foot balance.
		
Click to expand...

You're obviously the person to speak to about splints lol! I did google the causes and noted the confirmation issue which I spoke to the vet about but she said said he had good confirmation and didn't think that was the cause. He was in need of a new set of shoes as she said he'd had a lot of growth so that may have also been an issue. Her guess was he'd knocked his leg. I will update tomorrow after her visit as to what she thinks. Thank you!


----------



## Pabby52 (19 July 2017)

ester said:



			It sounds like the sort of situation,  where the vet thinks the horse is actually otherwise fine, will be fine and the splint won't cause any issues. But it is impossible for them to pass it with an active splint going on that is sore on palpation.  Did they complete the whole vetting?
		
Click to expand...

No I paid for a 5 stage vetting but she only did the 2 stage as she had to stop due to him showing signs of lameness. Recommended 10 days rest and she's reassessing him tomorrow. If he's sound I can then get him revetted. We'll see what tomorrow brings


----------



## Pabby52 (19 July 2017)

ycbm said:



			I don't insure, partly because of exclusions talked about frequently on this forum. So I have no personal experience. But it seems that you do not have any experience of making a claim on a leg which has an *active* exclusion for a splint?

So I will stick to my advice to the OP, that if she insures the horse and has an exclusion for a splint, that she would likely face quite a battle to get a payout on, for example, a tendon strain, while that exclusion is in place. So, in  her shoes, I would err on the side of caution and start from the belief that the whole leg is pretty much excluded even if only the splint is mentioned.  Because it's my impression that's how insurance companies are these days. 


Happy, as I say in my signature, to be politely corrected by anyone with actual examples from real life.
		
Click to expand...

Just on the insurance issue - I've had a nose around and I'm not sure I'll even have to declare it as his asking price is below 5k and looking at the policies, they only ask for vetting certificates if over 5k - is that right?


----------



## ycbm (19 July 2017)

Pabby52 said:



			Just on the insurance issue - I've had a nose around and I'm not sure I'll even have to declare it as his asking price is below 5k and looking at the policies, they only ask for vetting certificates if over 5k - is that right?
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether you declare it or not, I'm afraid. It's a pre existing condition and you can't claim on it. Also, if you don't declare it and then claim for something else on that leg, you risk the whole thing getting confused and complicated if the vet puts it in the claim papers. In your shoes, I would declare it  as an inactive splint of she passes the vet this time, get the exclusion removed after a year of they put one on, and then forget it. 

I've had more than a dozen horses in the last forty years throw splints and none of them have caused a problem for longer than three weeks. 

You might like to know, though, that some splints simply will not resolve until the horse is rested. So if your seller has not rested the horse, it still might not pass. Fingers crossed, they've done the right thing to get a sale, and you get what sounds like a lovely horse. Good luck!


----------



## Pabby52 (19 July 2017)

ycbm said:



			It doesn't matter whether you declare it or not, I'm afraid. It's a pre existing condition and you can't claim on it. Also, if you don't declare it and then claim for something else on that leg, you risk the whole thing getting confused and complicated if the vet puts it in the claim papers. In your shoes, I would declare it  as an inactive splint of she passes the vet this time, get the exclusion removed after a year of they put one on, and then forget it. 

I've had more than a dozen horses in the last forty years throw splints and none of them have caused a problem for longer than three weeks. 

You might like to know, though, that some splints simply will not resolve until the horse is rested. So if your seller has not rested the horse, it still might not pass. Fingers crossed, they've done the right thing to get a sale, and you get what sounds like a lovely horse. Good luck!
		
Click to expand...

Ah fair enough - I'll update when I've had the vet visit


----------



## ihatework (19 July 2017)

ycbm said:



			I don't insure, partly because of exclusions talked about frequently on this forum. So I have no personal experience. But it seems that you do not have any experience of making a claim on a leg which has an *active* exclusion for a splint?

So I will stick to my advice to the OP, that if she insures the horse and has an exclusion for a splint, that she would likely face quite a battle to get a payout on, for example, a tendon strain, while that exclusion is in place. So, in  her shoes, I would err on the side of caution and start from the belief that the whole leg is pretty much excluded even if only the splint is mentioned.  Because it's my impression that's how insurance companies are these days. 


Happy, as I say in my signature, to be politely corrected by anyone with actual examples from real life.
		
Click to expand...

Yawn. Horse 2


----------



## ycbm (19 July 2017)

ihatework said:



			Yawn. Horse 2
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for boring you, but you haven't come up with the example I asked for. 

Horse two did not have an active exclusion on a splint. It had the normal 'all pre existing conditions excluded clause' that  I believe all insurance policies now have.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with an example of a completely trouble free claim for some other lameness having been paid out on a leg with an active, specific,  exclusion for a splint. 

I wouldn't be surprised if someone can, from one of the better insurers, but insurance seems so darned picky these days that I wouldn't be surprised if no-one can. 

In the meantime, surely it would be safer for the OP to assume the worst if she is going to buy the horse after other posters have told her to walk away altogether?

I've no idea what I've done to annoy you, ihatework. Can you please either put me on user ignore or just keep things civil?


----------



## ihatework (19 July 2017)

Done. User ignore being activated.
Haven't got time to keep wasting my breath correcting your inaccuracies.


----------



## ycbm (19 July 2017)

ihatework said:



			Done. User ignore being activated.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you.


----------

