Rich Pankowski, DVM; Veterinary Surgical Specialists

August 5, 2009        

It’s always nice to be able to share the good news and the successful results that come from our work at Veterinary Surgical Specialists. We post things here on line and hang news paper clippings in our office. Sometimes we even get on television, like back in June of 2009 when DR Craig was able to rebuild the face of homeless “Noah,” wounded by a gunshot wound. “Noah” came in for a recheck this week, wagging his tail with a new owner in tow looking like that event was long behind him. Those of you who we have had the privilege of meeting and treating your pets know that our motivation for being here is out of love and concern for the dogs and cats you entrust to our care.

Unfortunately, things don’t always go well and sometimes we are unsuccessful helping pets with bad diseases. The VSS staff all have pets at home, and we are all deeply bonded and know how devastating the loss of a best friend can be. Recently, VSS was in the news with what looked to be a story about how we might not have done such a good job and claims were made that some sort of malpractice was committed. There was a lot left out of the newspaper. I would like to share a few general facts and you can form your own opinion if you wish.

The case before the 4th District Court of Appeals was whether a pet owner can bring a suit and obtain monetary damages above the pet’s property value against a veterinarian for emotional distressed resulting from the death of the pet by some wrong doing of the veterinarian. The Court found that no; an owner cannot seek such damages. Among other things, the court stated such cases would over burden the court system and would so negatively affect the ability of the veterinarian to provide affordable health care for the pet population that no such damages could be sought. The Court was never asked if any misdeed had actually occurred in this case.

The particulars of this case were never argued in court. No depositions were taken; no arguments about how the case was handled were ever made. VSS was never able to defend the treatment or the management of this case. The owner in question was apprised of the risks of the procedure, and signed an acknowledgment of a willingness to accept these risks.  This was a technically difficult procedure on a fragile patient who multiple veterinarians had passed on treating for years due to the nature of the case.  We elected to accept the risk with an informed client. We could have passed on the case as well, but we didn’t and we tried to help. Unfortunately we lost at the risk we took, and grief sometimes clouds judgment and leads to blame.

We will continue to take on the difficult cases for you and your pets. A case like “Noah” helps, but doesn’t completely mitigate the pain that comes from losing that one patient you reached to help, but could not.

Rich Pankowski, DVM

Hospital Administrator

Veterinary Surgical Specialists