# Problems with my vet - what should I do?



## JessieSalt (16 January 2015)

Hi everyone, 

I'm new here and was told I can post my veterinary question here. Thanks.
---
I've always liked my vet. Despite living in Surrey he comes from the same part of Lancashire as me and has often gone to great lengths to make both me and my horses feel comfortable. Once or twice he has even looked after my dogs when I have been away eventing and on holidays.

So, it is not without sadness and some trepidation that I ask the question: has he committed vet negligence? (I'm not going to name and shame him here as I'm worried about any potential backlash.)

I bought a horse a few months ago from a couple of sisters down in East Sussex where I live. They said he'd had a bit of leg trouble and had recently had a couple of months in which some unexplained niggle' left him a little lame'.  But he was a beautiful horse to look at  he had everything you would normally hope for  and he made for a good ride. So, after making a couple of inspections myself I had him looked at by my vet who, following the pre-purchase veterinary examination, uttered the fateful words, He's in peak condition. You'd struggle to find a fitter horse outside of the Grand National.'What about the niggle?' I asked.Oh that,' he said. Probably just a muscular injury. It's healed now as far as I can tell.  You'll be able to compete on this horse.'

So, I parted with quite a hefty sum and took the horse home in our newly-acquired top-of-the range horse box.

However, it was only two weeks after purchase that we noticed some things were not right  the horse was clearly uncomfortable with weight bearing and had even once tried to throw my husband (Our daughter Sam is not allowed to ride and has to stick with our lovable Shetland 'Chet'). So, I again visited my vet and, after twice being reassured that everything was fine I had him looked at by another vet.

After a really exhaustive check-up he said he had found things on ultrasound which hadn't shown up on x-rays.He told me the horse has a distal sesamoidean ligament injury which has caused the whole structural apparatus of the leg to become unviable and there are accompanying avulsion fractures too. He said it was one of the worst injuries of its kind he'd ever seen. His words were, 'He doesn't have the weight bearing ability to carry a leprechaun, let alone a grown man.'

This was terrible news to me. Not only had I invested thousands of pounds on a horse that was unfit to ride and new equipment to transport him, but I would now struggle to even sell the horse. Should my vet have carried out an ultrasound in the first place? Shouldn't it have been done as part of the pre-purchase exam? I asked the vet giving a second opinion what he thought?

He said, I wouldn't like to say. But based on what you told me the previous owners had mentioned his history. I like to think that I would have performed an ultrasound.'

Now I'm left with the question of whether I should sue my vet for vet negligence. What's more, he has been a friend for nearly a decade. What would you do? Should I instruct a professional negligence lawyer? 

Please let me know. I've done a bit of research already and have discovered that I have three years to claim. I don't want to do anything rash but, equally, I don't want to be afraid of pursuing my rights either. Please help, advice appreciated.

Jessie


----------



## kobi (16 January 2015)

Ultrasound and xrays aren't part of the std 5 stage vetting. If you didn't ask for them as extras then I don't think the vet has done anything wrong. The vet should however have taken bloods as standard. I'd be asking the vet to get these tested as from what you've said it sounds unlikely that the horse would have been sound enough to pass the vetting without some pain killers.


----------



## PorkChop (16 January 2015)

kobi said:



			Ultrasound and xrays aren't part of the std 5 stage vetting. If you didn't ask for them as extras then I don't think the vet has done anything wrong. The vet should however have taken bloods as standard. I'd be asking the vet to get these tested as from what you've said it sounds unlikely that the horse would have been sound enough to pass the vetting without some pain killers.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this - he certainly does not sound negligent - is the horse insured?


----------



## Doormouse (16 January 2015)

kobi said:



			Ultrasound and xrays aren't part of the std 5 stage vetting. If you didn't ask for them as extras then I don't think the vet has done anything wrong. The vet should however have taken bloods as standard. I'd be asking the vet to get these tested as from what you've said it sounds unlikely that the horse would have been sound enough to pass the vetting without some pain killers.
		
Click to expand...

I would agree with this. If the horse was indeed sound enough to pass a 5 stage vetting and then 2 weeks later unable to weight bare you would have to think he was on painkillers for the vetting. Having been told the history, I do think that a good vet would have been very painstaking with that leg but to be fair he may have been and I'm afraid due to all the modern scanning equipment, long gone are the vets who could diagnose tendon and ligament injuries without it.


----------



## twiggy2 (16 January 2015)

there are different levels of pre-purchase exam, non of them include xrays and ultrasound as standard-YOU knew about the previous history with regards to the horses lameness and chose not to request the extra diagnostic exams. Bloods are not always taken as standard and are never taken in a 2 stage vetting unless requested.
A vetting is the vets opinion on the horses condition and soundness on the day of examination, you did not notice a problem for 2 weeks and pain relief and anti inflammatories would have been out of the system long before that, your vet gave his opinion nothing more. 
your relationship with the vet and your 'top of the range' lorry are not relevant to your question-just sounds like bad luck to me-have you spoken to your vet?


----------



## twiggy2 (16 January 2015)

Doormouse said:



			I would agree with this. If the horse was indeed sound enough to pass a 5 stage vetting and then 2 weeks later unable to weight bare you would have to think he was on painkillers for the vetting. Having been told the history, I do think that a good vet would have been very painstaking with that leg but to be fair he may have been and I'm afraid due to all the modern scanning equipment, long gone are the vets who could diagnose tendon and ligament injuries without it.
		
Click to expand...

I cant see in the original post where a 5 stage vetting was mentioned or the horse being non weight bearing-please correct me if I have missed it but the OP has included lots of irrelevant 'facts'andmissed out a lot of relevant ones


----------



## bluebellfreddy (16 January 2015)

I agree that it does not sound negligent from what you have said. I would not expect x-rays and ultrasound at a 5* stage vetting. Unless you ask for x-rays. If you have had him out since he might have suggested ultrasound as well as the x-rays but he that could have been his next thought had you asked again.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 January 2015)

Was the horse ridden when you had him vetted? Was it a 5 stage vetting?


----------



## Doormouse (16 January 2015)

twiggy2 said:



			I cant see in the original post where a 5 stage vetting was mentioned or the horse being non weight bearing-please correct me if I have missed it but the OP has included lots of irrelevant 'facts'andmissed out a lot of relevant ones
		
Click to expand...

As you say, no actual mention of what type of vetting, I just assumed from the OP's comment that she paid a lot for the horse she would have had a 5 stage. She does say that she went back to this vet when she noticed the problems and he assured her that there was nothing wrong which does sound a bit suprising.


----------



## Andalucian (16 January 2015)

I agree, vet doesn't sound negligent here. If you're paying over £5k for a horse, I think X-rays should be sought, especially as the seller indicated that there was some recent lameness.  If he's insured, claim for total loss of use now.

You can't sell him on, he's a retired companion from what the second opinion vet has told you, so it's a total financial loss I fear.


----------



## HaffiesRock (16 January 2015)

I also agree that the vet hasn't done anything wrong.

Did the second vet state the injury is old? I apologise if you did say this.


----------



## Maesfen (16 January 2015)

kobi said:



			Ultrasound and xrays aren't part of the std 5 stage vetting. If you didn't ask for them as extras then I don't think the vet has done anything wrong. The vet should however have taken bloods as standard. I'd be asking the vet to get these tested as from what you've said it sounds unlikely that the horse would have been sound enough to pass the vetting without some pain killers.
		
Click to expand...


Agree with this; vet did an adequate vet check for what you asked him to do so you have no comeback, besides, the vetting is only applicable for the day it was done unless you had bloods done; it is only a guide.  
You knew yourself that the horse had a leg problem so with so much money involved, why did you not ask for a thorough workout with scans, ultrasounds, even thermal imaging and take it from there?  Better to have wasted a bit of money then than what is happening now I would have thought.
To have shelled out a lot of money on a horse with a leg, I'm sorry, but it appears they saw you coming.


----------



## popsdosh (16 January 2015)

All that money on a box and no insurance ?? I would be very careful about making the vet so identifiable as it may be you ending up the wrong side of a lawsuit!


----------



## TGM (16 January 2015)

I think your problem is, by your own admission, you didn't notice a problem with the horse until two weeks after purchase, so there is the possibility that the injury has occurred since you bought the horse.  Did you buy from a dealer or from a private owner?


----------



## Moomin1 (16 January 2015)

So the previous owner/seller actually told you the horse had an unexplained lameness, yet you didn't request that it be investigated further on the vetting etc?  I'm afraid I would say the blame lies with yourself rather than your vet, who sounds like they have been a good friend and vet to you in the past.  More fool you.


----------



## Equi (16 January 2015)

Have to agree. Vet gave an opinion, that is all.


----------



## NellRosk (16 January 2015)

Moomin1 said:



			So the previous owner/seller actually told you the horse had an unexplained lameness, yet you didn't request that it be investigated further on the vetting etc?  I'm afraid I would say the blame lies with yourself rather than your vet, who sounds like they have been a good friend and vet to you in the past.  More fool you.
		
Click to expand...

This. And I have to say he sounds like a good (and useful!) friend so wouldn't fall out over it. Is the horse insured? Were bloods taken and have these been tested to see if he was doped?


----------



## Boulty (16 January 2015)

From what you've said no he doesn't sound like he has been negligent as an u/s scan would not be a routine part of a vetting so I wouldn't expect this to be carried out unless specifically asked for. Correct me if i'm wrong but I don't think x-rays are necessarily done as part of a vetting either unless horse is very high value.   If the horse was sound on the day of the vetting then I guess vet had no need to suggest additional tests although perhaps if you'd been very concerned re previous lameness then maybe ways of investigating for anything sinister before buying should have been discussed.   If you had bloods taken at time of vetting I'd definitely be getting them tested.

From the sounds of it second vet had to do a bit of digging to find the problem so again he's not necessarily been negligent by saying he can't find anything (Although if horse was obviously lame and he said it wasn't then that is another matter)

I'd say you've not got enough of a case for all the fallout that would occur if you did try to sue. if horse is insured then i'd advise going down to path of trying to claim for loss of use if signs of lameness appeared after cooling off period.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 January 2015)

As others have said X-rays and ultra sound are not part of the standard five stage vetting .
You knew the horse had been lame did you tell the vet ? did you ask him to give his opinion ?
Did you ask the previous owners what caused then lameness and what investigations had been done ?
Where there any external clues on the affected leg .
And what sort of work schedule had the horse had in the year prior to purchase .
I think it's likely the vet was not negligent and you have been unlucky the previous owners told you the horse had past lameness issues so they covered them selves .


----------



## milos (16 January 2015)

So sad to hear about your new horse as above X-ray and ultra sound are not part of a five stage vetting. Did you get bloods done as they usually are (not sure if you have to request them) if so I'd consider getting them checked to see if the horse was in any pain killers the day of the vetting. The trouble with a vetting is the vet is only looking at the horse on one day so on that day the horse may have been sound and hence passed b y the vet. They owners could have had it sat in a field for a month or two resting for all you know and then hey it's good for that day on a vetting. Was it definitely in full work when you bought it? You could have taken it home and it galloped round the field and set off or worsened it's niggle.  So although vettings are important I always do them thy are not unfortunately fail safe. They are only valid for that day. If you know and value this vets opinion and they are a equine vet specialist then I really wouldn't blame them. I would look more to the old owners. Did they have any treatment for the horse did you speak to there vets re the horses history? As harsh as this next bit sounds I'd be looking at the choice you made in the horse! Maybe not good buying a horse with  prior undiagnosed lameness issues. I've been stung before so hey no better than you in that sense! I have learnt the hard way!


----------



## Meowy Catkin (16 January 2015)

If blood was taken during the vetting, you need to get it tested ASAP.


----------



## Orangehorse (16 January 2015)

This is very sad for you, and also suprising that a leg problem did not become apparent at the 5* vetting.  When I have had a vetting the horse has been galloped and galloped (one owner said she was stiff the next day) to really make them work to test their heart and then stand in the stable and trotted up again afterwards.  I have had bloods taken but never requested x rays or anything else.

I think it would be a good idea to get the blood tested, as it does seem strange that such an injury did not show up.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (16 January 2015)

As others have said, x-rays and ultra-sound scans are no t usually part of the pre-purchase vetting.  I don't understand why you bought a horse with undiagnosed lameness issues but it would appear that the horse could have been sound on the day of purchase and something has happened while the horse has been with you to exacerbate the intermittent 'niggle'.
I certainly don't think your vet friend was negligent and doubt that you have a case against him.  however if you are not happy, you should use a different vet in future.


----------



## lhotse (16 January 2015)

Wow, three pages of replies and not one further post from the OP. Think this is a wind up to be honest. Why does it matter if you have a 'top of the range' horsebox? I smell a billy goat trapping over someone's bridge!!


----------



## Tnavas (16 January 2015)

kobi said:



			Ultrasound and xrays aren't part of the std 5 stage vetting. If you didn't ask for them as extras then I don't think the vet has done anything wrong. The vet should however have taken bloods as standard. I'd be asking the vet to get these tested as from what you've said it sounds unlikely that the horse would have been sound enough to pass the vetting without some pain killers.
		
Click to expand...

Although - having been told the horse has had a problem the vet should have suggested that the horse be scanned, Xrayed etc.

Vets are insured for these sort of things and I do know of a good friend who took a vet to court and won the case, the vet was not put out by the situation and apologised to her personally. The horse had had a stifle operation and the vet missed it. The horse went severely unsound only a few weeks after she bought it.

OP - Did you vet take bloods? If so have they still got them? As you could have the blood tested for drugs and if positive you can sue the sellers of the horse for disguising the unsoundness.

Good Luck.


----------



## nuttychestnut (16 January 2015)

lhotse said:



			Wow, three pages of replies and not one further post from the OP. Think this is a wind up to be honest. Why does it matter if you have a 'top of the range' horsebox? I smell a billy goat trapping over someone's bridge!!
		
Click to expand...

This ^^
Also the injury may not be covered under insurance as it should have been noted on the vetting. I thought pre-existing conditions were not covered.


----------



## popsdosh (17 January 2015)

lhotse said:



			Wow, three pages of replies and not one further post from the OP. Think this is a wind up to be honest. Why does it matter if you have a 'top of the range' horsebox? I smell a billy goat trapping over someone's bridge!!
		
Click to expand...

I had wondered as it just seemed to much .however if you read other post they have gone a long way round to cover themselves.However only mention a pony in those post.


----------



## lhotse (17 January 2015)

Yep, read other posts. All seemed to point to the fact that she was going to post on this page though.


----------



## popsdosh (17 January 2015)

lhotse said:



			Yep, read other posts. All seemed to point to the fact that she was going to post on this page though.
		
Click to expand...

Nice to have that much time on your hands!! Probably out polishing the horsebox though.


----------



## JessieSalt (19 January 2015)

Thanks for all the replies, I am a bit overwhelmed as I have never posted on a forum before.  Sorry If I went into too much detail, but I wanted to put in as much info as possible. I am still unsure what to do, but I am going to try to find out more about the blood testing.  It is interesting to hear your thoughts on the use of pain killers and sad that this sort of thing has happened to others before me. We have put the horse onto a treatment and rehabilitation plan, as advised by the second vet, and things are looking good. At least he is not in pain.  I'll keep you posted.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (19 January 2015)

I think you are entitled to ask the second vet if the injury was new or pre existing, but you have to be aware that the second vet will need to think about how he deals with this in case it goes to court.
Have you tackled your first vet about it, after all presumably second vet was asked to do this as you were getting a second opinion, rather than it just happened to be another vet from same practice.
I recommend you join the BHS gold membership and ask for legal advice which is free to members.
You will need to go back to first vet anyway and discuss it with him when you get the bloods done. 
No one wants to go to court and unless you are pretty sure of winning its not a good idea. Even if you win, you are still in a difficult situation. 
To my mind you are not to blame if you asked for a five stage vetting, and your vet did not recommend ultra sound, he is the expert, not you.
It is not you fault that you told us some things that were not essential and missed out on essential information.
We all assume a five stage vetting with bloods for a horse of this value and for this purpose. Essentially the vetting is to determine if the horse is fit for purpose.


----------



## fatpiggy (19 January 2015)

I think it isn't the vet who has been negligent, its the OP.  They shelled out a fortune on a horse which they knew had a problem with its leg but didn't pay extra and ask their vet to look at it much more closely.  The vet's opinion on the day is all that counts and by their own admission, the OP was satisfied with that opinion.  I don't believe anything would come of demanding compo, there is no case.  Saying they have a top of the range lorry doesn't exactly help - some would say then in that case they have the money to either keep the horse as a pet, or PTS and replace.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (19 January 2015)

fatpiggy said:



			I think it isn't the vet who has been negligent, its the OP.  They shelled out a fortune on a horse which they knew had a problem with its leg but didn't pay extra and ask their vet to look at it much more closely.  The vet's opinion on the day is all that counts and by their own admission, the OP was satisfied with that opinion.  I don't believe anything would come of demanding compo, there is no case.  Saying they have a top of the range lorry doesn't exactly help - some would say then in that case they have the money to either keep the horse as a pet, or PTS and replace.
		
Click to expand...

I really feel sorry for people who come on here asking for advice and get told stuff like this, its pathetic.


----------



## Tnavas (19 January 2015)

fatpiggy said:



			I think it isn't the vet who has been negligent, its the OP.  They shelled out a fortune on a horse which they knew had a problem with its leg but didn't pay extra and ask their vet to look at it much more closely.  The vet's opinion on the day is all that counts and by their own admission, the OP was satisfied with that opinion.  I don't believe anything would come of demanding compo, there is no case.  Saying they have a top of the range lorry doesn't exactly help - some would say then in that case they have the money to either keep the horse as a pet, or PTS and replace.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong fat Piggy! The OP told the vet - the professional - that the horse had had a problem. The Vet - the professional - should have suggested that the leg receive further investigation before he could make his decision.


----------



## popsdosh (19 January 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			I really feel sorry for people who come on here asking for advice and get told stuff like this, its pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

But true! at the end of the day you have to be realistic. Still think its odd


----------



## popsdosh (19 January 2015)

Tnavas said:



			Wrong fat Piggy! The OP told the vet - the professional - that the horse had had a problem. The Vet - the professional - should have suggested that the leg receive further investigation before he could make his decision.
		
Click to expand...

We have only heard one side of the story!


----------



## doodle (19 January 2015)

My boss has twice bought a horse and had full 5 stage vet rings on them and both time very quickly realised something was wrong. First she went down the legal route but vet insisted horse was fit and sound at time of vetting. Horse had investigations and found to have a pre existing injury, dealer said prove it was pre existing and she couldn't, vet who did vetting still insisted horse was spund when vetted. Insurance company said it was pre existing and so wouldn't pay. Bloods were done and tested but if horse was rested for a 5-7 days it became sound and there was a gap of a week between viewing horse and vetting so probably had been rested. Horse was pts and insurance paid nothing. Next time problems became apparent even quicker, again the vet a different one was adamant horse was sound at vetting and she got nowhere. Luckily this time the dealer she got him from paid for a second opinion and subsequently took horse back and she got her money back. But basically at time of vetting both horses were sound is te eyes of vet so she got nowhere


----------



## JessieSalt (19 January 2015)

Thanks Bonkers2 and Kamikaze for your support.

I mentioned the equipment merely to show the expense we had undertaken to ensure the horse was looked after and to illustrate why we felt the need to seek compensation.

I have now spoken to the original vet and we have come to an amicable agreement.

Jessie


----------



## culteuchar (19 January 2015)

Unfortunately buying a horse is like buying a second hand car there are very few guarantees. I feel your pain and disapointment as I have had similar experiences in my life. Due to my age my current horse will be my last but prior to this I trusted my own experience and used a vet as a back up. There is no certainties in life and some times you get a hard knock but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so keep you chin up.


----------



## Starzaan (19 January 2015)

kobi said:



			Ultrasound and xrays aren't part of the std 5 stage vetting. If you didn't ask for them as extras then I don't think the vet has done anything wrong. The vet should however have taken bloods as standard. I'd be asking the vet to get these tested as from what you've said it sounds unlikely that the horse would have been sound enough to pass the vetting without some pain killers.
		
Click to expand...

This. Absolutely. Your vet has done his job. If you had doubts you should have asked for ultrasounds.


----------



## Orangehorse (19 January 2015)

JessieSalt said:



			Thanks Bonkers2 and Kamikaze for your support.

I mentioned the equipment merely to show the expense we had undertaken to ensure the horse was looked after and to illustrate why we felt the need to seek compensation.

I have now spoken to the original vet and we have come to an amicable agreement.

Jessie
		
Click to expand...

Glad to hear this.  Really, we all feel your pain, it is such a disappointing thing to happen.  Hope you have better luck next time.


----------



## Goldenstar (19 January 2015)

OP I am glad you have got it sorted .
Better luck next time .


----------



## Tnavas (20 January 2015)

Starzaan said:



			This. Absolutely. Your vet has done his job. If you had doubts you should have asked for ultrasounds.
		
Click to expand...

No the vet did not do his job!

The vet was advised that the horse had a problem.

The vet should have then spoken to the buyer and suggested that further examination with X-rays etc be carried out. The vet didn't and declared the horse suitable for the job required. The horse was not. The vet was negligent in providing suitable information to the buyer.

When you have a horse vetted you do so because the vet is more knowledgeable than yourself and better able to spot problems that might affect the suitability of the horse.


----------



## JessieSalt (27 January 2015)

Thanks everyone for all your advice and comments - we sought legal advice and the solicitor helped us sort things out with the original vet (hopefully our friendship will survive, but naturally the situation was a bit tense for a while). My horse seems to be responding to treatment - we will keep you posted.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (27 January 2015)

Thanks for the update. I hope the horse continues to improve.


----------



## HashRouge (27 January 2015)

Tnavas said:



			No the vet did not do his job!

The vet was advised that the horse had a problem.

The vet should have then spoken to the buyer and suggested that further examination with X-rays etc be carried out. The vet didn't and declared the horse suitable for the job required. The horse was not. The vet was negligent in providing suitable information to the buyer.

When you have a horse vetted you do so because the vet is more knowledgeable than yourself and better able to spot problems that might affect the suitability of the horse.
		
Click to expand...

No, the vet was advised that the horse had PREVIOUSLY had a problem, which it was now recovered from. If the horse passed the vetting and there was no sign that it was not fully recovered, I'm not sure why the vet should have recommended x-rays or scans. The buyer could equally have requested them, but didn't.


----------

