A dog owner has received $5000 in compensation following inadequate veterinary care. Photo / 123rf
A dog owner has received $5000 in compensation following inadequate veterinary care. Photo / 123rf
When Brownie the dog was taken to the vet showing signs of pain and bloating his owner suggested it might be pancreatitis, a condition their pet had suffered from before.
But, the vet decided the dog had gorged itself - a decision that has now resulted in a heavy fine for what a tribunal has ruled as sub-standard veterinary care.
The Disputes Tribunal considered the initial treatment provided by the unnamed veterinary clinic as inadequate, and that it contributed to Brownie becoming very ill and needing intensive care and treatment.
The owner has now received $5000 back on an emergency care vet bill and costs which stretched to $9357.
The problems happened in December 2018 when Brownie was taken for treatment at the vet clinic, having been "off colour" for three days and showing signs of pain and bloating.
His owner, a qualified vet nurse, asked staff at the clinic to test Brownie for pancreatitis because he had suffered from the condition before and that his symptoms were similar.
X-rays showed Brownie's stomach was full of blood and the vet determined he had gorged himself. The dog was then admitted to hospital over the weekend, but became increasingly unwell. The dog's owner then asked again for it to be tested for pancreatitis, and blood tests confirmed the condition.
A dog owner has received $5000 in compensation following inadequate veterinary care. Photo / 123rf
Further treatment was administered and a couple of days later Brownie was allowed to go home, but his condition deteriorated the following day. The owner was instructed to collect pain relief medication for him, but the dog had by then become jaundiced, and was taken back to the clinic.
Brownie's owner was then advised to take him for an abdominal scan, but the specialist was unavailable for a few days. The dog's owner then took him for an ultrasound at a different clinic which showed "fulminant pancreatitis with some oedematous areas with risk of abscessation".
Brownie was described by the vet at the clinic as being "very, very sick". He went on to receive intensive care treatment and surgery, and remained in their hospital until December 22, 2018.
Brownie's owner had paid the first vet clinic $622.40 for the dog's care, and was told by the practice manager in January 2019 that the remaining $671 remaining unpaid balance would be waived, but a bill was instead sent some months later for the amount still outstanding.
The dog's owner sought from the Tribunal a declaration of non-liability for the amount plus compensation of $9,357.98 - most of which was for the cost of care at the second clinic.
"I have found that DW Ltd did not act with reasonable care and skill in its treatment of Brownie and therefore UI should not be required to pay the balance of the costs claimed by DW Ltd in its 14 July 2020 invoice," the Tribunal referee said.
The dog's owner also sought compensation for costs, which included petrol for visiting Brownie while in hospital, annual leave, and the Disputes Tribunal fee.
A claim brought against one of the vets personally was dismissed.
In awarding compensation, the Tribunal referee said the law most relevant to the claim was that found in the general law of contract.
"All contracts of this type include an implied term that the services will be provided with reasonable care and skill.
"I have found that DW Ltd did not act with reasonable care and skill in its treatment of Brownie and therefore UI should not be required to pay the balance of the costs claimed by DW Ltd in its 14 July 2020 invoice."
The Tribunal also said the inadequacy of the treatment given to Brownie by DW Ltd had led to the need for further, intensive treatment which resulted in the decision that $5000 in compensation was warranted.
The Tribunal said its view was supported by the findings of a review of the case raised by the dog's owner with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The council's Notification Review Group found in October 2019 that the care and treatment of Brownie "appears to be inadequate in this case".
The extra costs claim by Brownie's owner was dismissed due to lack of evidence to support the dog needed treatment where he was taken, rather than a veterinary practice that was closer.
