Posted on 10/04/2009 9:49:00 AM PDT by Daffynition
SARASOTA COUNTY - Like many dog owners, Ila Abis views her dogs as "her children."
When her two German shepherds got sick after getting heartworm shots from a veterinarian, one so badly she had to euthanize it, she could not speak for a week.
But her real shock came when she wanted to sue the vet and discovered Florida law values dogs in a much different way: not as a cherished family member, but as simple property, like a table or book.
While some Florida laws give pets more legal standing -- such as allowing them to be primary beneficiaries of trust accounts or providing criminal penalties for abusing them -- the state does not let owners seek emotional damages if they think a veterinarian's error leaves their pet injured or dead.
"This is wrong on so many levels," said Abis, who found an attorney who shares her feelings on the law and filed a veterinary malpractice lawsuit.
Abis wants to change that law. A judge threw out her lawsuit in 2005. But Abis' case got new life last month when an appeals court ruled she could once again pursue some of her claims against the vet.
She has little chance of success.
Florida law sees no difference between a vet committing malpractice on an animal purchased for $50 and someone breaking a $50 chair, said Abis' attorney, Barry Silver of Boca Raton.
"The love and attention and the bond between the human and that companion animal means zero," Silver said. "If you were to go and try to get compensation, you might be looking for $50, $100 or no dollars if you picked it up off the street."
At the same time, a lawsuit can take thousands of dollars to litigate. Silver says he will file these types of vet malpractice lawsuits until the law changes.
The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a pet owner can collect damages if the animal is injured in a malicious act, such as when a garbage man killed a dog by throwing a trash can on top of it, and then laughed.
In another case a veterinarian left a dog on top of a heating pad until it died.
Both those cases involved maliciousness and resulted in legal damages.
The facts in Abis' case are less severe. She says vet Ronni Tudin of Bee Ridge Animal Clinic gave her pets a shot of ProHeart 6 without telling her about all the dangerous side effects.
For Abis, the worst part is that Tudin got a letter three months before her dogs got the shot that warned of the shot's dangers.
Tudin says he treated the dogs appropriately, and even helped test to see if the shots caused the health problems and pushed the manufacturer to settle with Abis, his attorney David Shapiro said.
The manufacturer denied the shots caused the problems, but paid Abis $8,363 as a "customer service" gesture for a replacement dog. Abis says she took the money because she needed a service dog to serve as protection in her work as a process server.
But her lawsuit seeks damages above the cost of her dog.
Vets depend on the emotional attachment for income, but if something goes wrong they can claim the pet is only property, said David Favre, a professor at Michigan State University College of Law and Editor-in-Chief of the site www.animallaw.info.
"It's the ultimate contradiction for veterinarians," Favre said.
Only a handful of states allow for emotional damages in veterinary malpractice claims, Favre said.
A ruling in a Wisconsin case is known as the best public policy discussion. While the justices there thought owners should have some recourse, allowing dog owners to sue for emotional damages would open the door too far, the court found.
If vet malpractice were allowed, anybody with any relation to an animal could seek any amount of money, the ruling said. Ultimately, the court decided it is up to state legislators to decide how to handle it.
I’m a hardcore animal lover, but this is quite a bit too far.
I understand the whole emotional bond thing, and pets being part of the family. I’m not sure what the solution is. Would this woman have let a medical doctor give her actual child a shot without researching the potential side effects? I’m just curious.
| From the desk of cc2k: |
‘Tis a slippery slope.
What if the animal were service dog? Is that animal “worth” more than a K-9? Where does it end?
If the heartworm shot is the one I am thinking of, then the client was fully explained the possible side effects and a thorough pre-treatment profile was accomplished upon the animal. The Heartworm shot has been reintroduced to the veterinary community as a prevention but has a myriad of stipulations before it is used. Then, after all of the testing, the client has to sign a release stating that they are aware of possible complications that are unforeseen by the veterinarian. This is why I don’t use it....let someone else take the risk, there are safer heartworm preventatives out there but the client has to treat once a month, not six as per the heartworm prevention inject able. IMO, if the stuff for six months has a dangerous side effect, why use it when there are safer drugs? Prolly cus’ folks are lazy and want to just do it every six months for the convenience.
Pets are not children.
Father of five chldren.
owner of three pets...four if you count my frog.
Thanks ‘Doug ...once again, the voice of reason.
I am sure that a “process server” does need a service/guard dog. LOL!
As the court would then view her as ‘property’, that’s one heck a of piece of real estate!
We have 4 service dogs. 3 Jack Russel Terriers and a Black Mouth Cur. Our doorbell is faulty and only makes a small noise, but the dogs tell us when someone is at the door. They also tell us when a storm is coming, when the garbage truck is coming, lawn crew, mailman etc. Very helpful for letting us know when squirrels or rabbits are in the yard. The 3 little ones sleep on the foot or our bed and the big one in the corner of our bedroom. No one is going to sneak up on us at night. LOL!
Daffynition wrote:
‘Tis a slippery slope.
What if the animal were service dog? Is that animal “worth” more than a K-9? Where does it end?
Good question. I guess my position is that life precious. More than just precious, actually priceless in every sense of that word, including the literal sense.
My objection is to the entire concept of monetizing life. Someone (or someone’s pet) died. That’s bad. I get it. And if there is a person who was negligent or who actively caused the death, that person should be punished. But the whole concept that this entitles someone to get paid is wrong. It leads to the bargaining process where the decedent’s “loved one(s)” (and their lawyers) and the perpetrator(s) (and their lawyers) haggle over the price of the life that was lost. I find that whole exercise offensive.
| From the desk of cc2k: |
If they were cheaper or easier to obtain, I'd have a couple of them.
I saw where one lawyer said that vets depend upon emotional attachment for their income. This lawyer hasn't a clue. What may be true for many other areas, it is not applicable for a majority of my clients. 90% (IMO) of my clients want the cheapest and bottom line when it comes to the care of their animals. Many cases I deal with is a do the best for the least amount of cost or else just euthanize the animal. Large animal clients are almost 99% cost versus benefit. If the bill meets or exceeds what they believe or want to spend, it gets a gunshot. Most of the large animal owners I deal with will do the deed themselves and not pay for a barbiturate overdose administered death.
About the only thing more offensive being the notion that the life was of no value.
LOL! Not quite like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.