I mean, none of us were there, but that’s essentially how he did act, treating the horse as if he was angry at the horse for being a POS. Part of being a good horse professional is not to act out of anger, and his behavior after the horse acted up suggests a sense of “good riddance, get me the hell out of this barn.” I’m assuming the bleeding was bad enough he felt he couldn’t just leave it gush. Turning the horse out also may have been done to give him a “cover up” if it was bad, because, once the horse has been turned out, it’s hard to know exactly how much was from the stand and how much was from turnout.
Part of being a good horse professional is also knowing when your expertise is at its limit, and to say, “call the vet,” or, “call the owner, text a photo, see what she wants to do,” and leave the horse on crossties or in a stall. It sounds like he may have used his persona as a professional and frankly, as a man, to intimidate the two women, who were unsure of their competence, to suggest he knew what he was doing (even though he didn’t, regarding wound treatment). The owner’s mother seems not to have any knowledge, and even if the property owner knows something…well, alas, I’ve known many very frail, elderly women who do own their own horses, but I wouldn’t trust them to supervise a horse during a farrier appointment.
But again, horse cases, legally speaking, are difficult enough to prove, and so many balls regarding responsibility were dropped I don’t think it’s possible to recoup costs. Again, I obviously am just guessing from the OP’s original post, but to me the farrier’s actions suggest bending over backward to minimize his liability in all of this, rather than doing what’s best for the horse.