Justice for Otis

Mar. 14, 2021

Our Pets Deserve Rights & Protection: As All Living Souls Do!

“If you can negligently kill a living animal and not be liable, but negligently lose a ring and be liable for emotional distress, the systems turned on its head, seems to me.”

In any professional malpractice action it is important to establish a proper standard of care. This is essential for every licensed health care provider.  However, In the case of veterinary malpractice, it becomes unfortunately complicated and one-sided (the majority of the time).

For the attorney, any act of malpractice, negligence, incompetence becomes extremely complex in the context of veterinary malpractice actions.  If a veterinarian harmed or caused your fur baby to pass and you take them to court, it is highly advised you will have the following to consider a) duty; b) breach; c) causation; and d) damages.  For instance, one must determine to whom a duty is owed. Is it the animal, the animal's owner, both, a third party, the public?  In other words, does the veterinarian serve an animal "patient," a human "client," both, a third party, the public? What constitutes breach of duty? How can a plaintiff prove that the damages occurred due to the veterinarian? The questions continue as this issue has not been updated nor revised for an unacceptable length of time.  I do not know of ANY licensed care professional who causes a human patient to die and is able to walk away from it totally clean and in the clear. Can you imagine if a hospital for a child or adult did what these vet clinics/hospitals are doing to our fur babies?!?

 I am fed up with the double standards. Life is life and if you are a licensed health care professional, which INCLUDES veterinarians, then start acting like one and start advocating for your patients’ treatment and health.  You are no longer able to cop out by the technicality of pets being “personal property.”  Personally, if the law and vets are going to continue to see pets as “personal property” then ALL veterinarians must be stripped of their “DR” credentials. Fixing my lamp does not take a doctor nor does my dress that has a hole in it.

The fact of the matter is we are in DESPERATE need for a new common law. STOP calling our pets “property.”  Studies have shown pet parents consider the bond to be equal with a young child. The studies also go on to tell what we already know: pets are considered part of the family. You are darn right they are. Instead of the barbaric “market value” awarded, why not make a ruling of emotional pain and suffering. Can we PLEASE make establishing NEW common laws a priority? Why is this NOT a priority? This is a call to action.  You need to start speaking up pet parents!  The social media platforms that have emerged lately can help make our Voices heard. We can connect and have a voice. Why can’t you channel your passion and frustrations into the right channels?  Do not even get me started on the pet parents that still believe EVERY word their vet says. I was one of those naïve and look at me now.

There are some titles that are being discussed to replace “personal property.” One is “living property” (which I did a blog on already) and now it is being discussed considering pets as "constitutive property. This adjective would be much more fitting for our fur babies as this type of property is "bound up with personhood... and is part of the way we constitute ourselves as continuing personal entities in the world." The loss of this type of property causes pain that cannot be relieved by its replacement.

 The death of a fur baby most definitely may threaten the very way a person constitutes oneself; in losing one's companion animal, one loses a vital part of oneself.  I think we all know exactly what that means and what it feels like.  After all, "constitutive property," by definition, occupies a special place in its owner's heart. I have always said I died when my sweet baby boy did.

Throughout the country, courts are increasingly acknowledging that companion animals have an intrinsic worth greater than that of mere personal property.  The state of Oregon is uniquely trailblazing in this “personal property” distinction. 

The seemingly protective laws that have developed are aimed at protecting humans' property interests in animals instead of the well-being of the animals themselves.  Animal welfare theory requires that we balance the interests of humans and animals in order to decide what constitutes such vague standards as "humane treatment" and "unnecessary suffering."  It is time to end all this chaos.  It is quite simple.  If a veterinarian harms or causes your fur baby to pass then you should have every right to sue for: emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress (if applicable), and loss of companion.  But wait, what about the pet?  We need to get justice for their pain and suffering that the precious fur angel endured. They are the ones that paid the ultimate price. The courts/legal system can be of use for the pet parents if they wish to file a complaint with a state board and/or sue. In today’s world, a practical way to seek justice is through money for damages.  Personally, if I was awarded money I could not keep it. It is blood money to me. I would donate it to animal organizations in Otis’s memory. Again, that is just me personally.  I respect whatever decision you would make if awarded funds.

Veterinarians should not be able to believe that as long as animals are accorded personal property status they are safe from liability for emotional distress damages, etc. as a result of professional malpractice, negligence, or incompetence.  However, with continued advocacy, these days are slowly starting to end.  More and more I hear of families who indeed RECEIVED justice in the courtroom.  Every single victory is a huge win for us ALL.  Veterinarians must be careful to avoid falling into one or more of the following seven common malpractice traps: missed deadlines; conflicts of interest; lack of documentation; substantive error; administrative and clerical error; fee disputes; and bad client relations.

Example] Minnesota Court of Appeals in 1995 observed that "when a pet is lost, its owner frequently cares least about the amount of money it will cost to replace the pet." In 1997, the Vermont Supreme Court stated that "Like most pets, a mixed breed dog's worth is not primarily financial, but emotional; its value derives from the animal's relationship with its human companions."

The public perception of the veterinarian as being compassionate and honest has likely been a factor in keeping the number of veterinary malpractice lawsuits significantly below the number of traditional medical malpractice lawsuits.  As the law expands to allow non-economic damages for pet loss, however, the incidence of veterinary malpractice lawsuits is likely to increase relative to the incidence of traditional medical malpractice lawsuits. This needs to change. Death or serious injury by a veterinarian is becoming a national epidemic.  WE DEMAND CHANGE!

What the public is NOT aware of is how much their veterinarian is harming their fur baby. It starts at the Breeder and continues throughout our pets’ life cycle. From over vaccinating, to dog food tainted with poison, to human medications being given to our babies.  This is causing our beloved pets to live a shorter life span.  I heard a study, that 1 in every 1.83 dogs will develop cancer. That is a HUGE problem but also HUGE profit for veterinarians to “treat.”  The method I have observed is quite simple.  Over vaccinate to the point of causing illness. Then treat the illness with medication. Then, perform surgery on the complications caused by medicines.  Finally, provide hospice care under the phony guise of slow/challenging but hopeful and promising recovery.  Jack pot.  Dr. Robb does an amazing job at advocating and creating awareness of the consequences of over vaccinating.

Now, more than ever veterinarians have the opportunity to provide broader and more comprehensive services to clients who are increasingly likely to invest in their pets' well-being.  Do not be fooled.  The majority of them are just banking on all the money vulnerable pet parents would pay in their hour of darkness. It really is exploitation.  A n example of this exploitation, breach of duty is: the obligation to satisfy a standard of conduct toward another. One must act reasonably in light of apparent risk.  Veterinarians owe to their clients the duty to practice veterinary medicine in such a manner so as to meet the standards expected of the profession.  I do not know about you but that last one was nonexistent in our case. Our veterinarians did not act in accordance with the applicable standard of care. The exact opposite actually.

There are legit reasons why attempting to get justice can seem so impossible.  If you were to take your bad vet to court you need to establish actual, proximate cause of death.  For example, causation is clear if a veterinarian amputates the wrong limb.  Proximate cause is much less obvious in most cases, such as when one or more potentially intervening causes takes place between the veterinarian's actions and the plaintiff’s discovery of the injury. Expert testimony by an outside veterinarian is generally necessary to prove as well as having a necropsy performed. It CAN be done. I have heard of families getting justice in the courts. However, it is a slippery slope and for these reasons : a) animals cannot speak for themselves, b) compared with human medical procedures, few support personnel are present during veterinary medical procedures, lack of eyewitness accounts and other direct evidence is less likely to surface in veterinary malpractice cases than in traditional medical malpractice cases.  Finally, c) documents and records very well could be revised in the best interest of the vet.

Lastly and additionally, veterinarians may be forced into practicing "defensive medicine," employing often costly and unnecessary treatments in order to avoid lawsuits. The media, depending on which outlet, has a view of the vet world and everything that goes on within. The worst thing the media can do is to play to human emotion without carefully researching the facts. It is essential that correct, accurate, and fact checked information is being put out there to the pet parent to review. The public deserves the truth, the public NEEDS the truth. Or does another pet have to pay the ultimate price?