Spin-off from vet bill thread: what would you do in this situation?

[Caol_Ila]

Interesting discussion, guys!

I think I’d be way more pissed about hock injections I wasn’t told about and didn’t want than a lousy EPM test. At least for the latter, they’re not injecting anything into your horse. Yikes!

I believe when the vet called me telling me the test results and asking for payment, I may have said something along the lines of, “I didn’t authorize these tests and had no idea it was being done until after the fact.” The vet said I had to pay the bill anyway (I did) and take that up with the BO (I didn’t).

She was aware that this was a temporary situation – just for the summer – and that we would be leaving anyway to go back to uni in Massachusetts. I’d never been an absentee owner before, and I haven’t been since. But that’s neither here nor there – it was more like testing a person for MS because they only write with their right hand! Had this been more of a permanent stable, I probably would have started looking elsewhere, but things being what they were, I thought, screw it, I’m leaving and never coming back anyway.

Gratuitous photo of the horse in question. No’ bad for 23: http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv30/uilleannpiper/IMG_20160222_111307_zpsjrisntm2.jpg

[Ruth0552]

Was this a standard blood draw for the questionable blood test or the more complicated spinal tap that yields better results?

I would think a spinal tap test would cost more than $100 but I would be BEYOND livid if I found out someone did a spinal tap on my horse without my consent.

IMO, the vet was clearly in the wrong here, and should have refused without your consent. Obviously, the BO was clearly off her rocker, and I would have told the two of them to eat the cost one way or another.

[enjoytheride]

[QUOTE=Caol Ila;8948786]
Interesting discussion, guys!

I think I’d be way more pissed about hock injections I wasn’t told about and didn’t want than a lousy EPM test. At least for the latter, they’re not injecting anything into your horse. Yikes!

I believe when the vet called me telling me the test results and asking for payment, I may have said something along the lines of, “I didn’t authorize these tests and had no idea it was being done until after the fact.” The vet said I had to pay the bill anyway (I did) and take that up with the BO (I didn’t).

She was aware that this was a temporary situation – just for the summer – and that we would be leaving anyway to go back to uni in Massachusetts. I’d never been an absentee owner before, and I haven’t been since. But that’s neither here nor there – it was more like testing a person for MS because they only write with their right hand! Had this been more of a permanent stable, I probably would have started looking elsewhere, but things being what they were, I thought, screw it, I’m leaving and never coming back anyway.

Gratuitous photo of the horse in question. No’ bad for 23: http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv30/uilleannpiper/IMG_20160222_111307_zpsjrisntm2.jpg[/QUOTE]

While I understand that a vet still needs to get paid, why are you held responsible? I understand it’s your horse, but if you had specifically told the BM not to do the test, and the vet did it because she believed your BM had permission, then isn’t that between the vet and the BM?

[mvp]

[QUOTE=enjoytheride;8949270]
While I understand that a vet still needs to get paid, why are you held responsible? I understand it’s your horse, but if you had specifically told the BM not to do the test, and the vet did it because she believed your BM had permission, then isn’t that between the vet and the BM?[/QUOTE]

Because the HO is the one who chooses both of her service providers. HO hires vet. HO also hires BO, so the HO has to pay people for their services performed on her horse and take up the lack of communication with the BO separately.

No one who is owed money wants to be caught in a fight between two other people. As the vet, I wouldn’t accept the onus of collecting from a third party, either.

I suppose the person who has the least use for the vet in the future can stiff the vet. But I’m hear to tell you that the vet will expect that to be the HO and try to collect from the HO… not matter who did what wrong.

[IronwoodFarm]

I once had a tenant on my farm who would call the vet for anything…like a bug bite. I think she was lonely. It got bad enough that I sent the vet a letter asking NOT TO COME unless they heard from me. They were welcome to come day and night for the tenant’s horse, but not for any of mine. It was not the arrangement I wanted but it saved me thousand of dollars in needless vet calls.

The tenant moved and took her horse, so the problem was resolved. However, she stayed in the area and continued to use the vet. She ended up stiffing the vet on the bill after he euthanized her horse. She ended up filing for bankruptcy so she never paid that bill. I can see why vet’s want to collect and only give certain clients credit.

[specifiedcupcake]

[QUOTE=beowulf;8948205]
That’s exactly what I was going to say… BTDT, did the same thing… The BO was wrong to call the vet out for testing and was wrong to expect you to pay for it as well. That is a crappy situation to be in and your BO took one too many liberties there…

I had something very similar happen when I was 21… I had just moved out of state to NY and purchased an OTTB - I was boarding him at a gorgeous facility with very subpar care (drunk/crazy fruitbat#1 BO and fruitbat#2 wannabe Clint Anderson BM): I was sucking up the ‘subpar care’ part by just taking care of him myself - to me, the indoor & amenities were worth paying the full board price, and I didn’t mind coming out every morning and night to feed and water him.

Well, I came by after work one day to find a vet I had never met before and a BM, right there with my horse in the aisle and a needle inches from horse’s neck. Me, meekly: “um, what are you doing?” Vet and Bm turn around and they’re surprised to see me: “oh hey Beowulf! We tried reaching you (lies) but all the horses need this shot now… we did everyone else at the barn, so, it’s your guy’s turn…”

We were not in an area where there was cell service, so it’s not like I could have pulled out my (then flip-phone) and searched online or call MY old vet and ask why he needed this shot… So I just conceded to letting the vet give my horse this shot to “prevent strangles”. I knew something was off, didn’t think there even was a shot to prevent strangles, and was really skeptic about how on earth you could nuke strangles if it was already in the body; but I wrongly trusted and assumed this vet that I didn’t know knew what he was talking about and was practicing because he was, well, somewhat competent and educated.

I was floored when I got the bill: the Excede was $95 and he tacked on a $175 ‘emergency’ farm call because it was on a Sunday.

The kicker is, Excede is useless without the booster/second dose (which the vet never gave) and it wouldn’t have done anything to prevent strangles in a host anyway. So I paid $270 for the incompetence of both that vet and my BM.

Needless to say, we left as soon as it became apparent it was not strangles. It still bothers me all these years later…[/QUOTE]

That would bother me for two reasons- antibiotics should not be used prophylactically and Excede in particular is advised to be given in the pectoral muscles because it can make a hole due to being the wrong pH. (My horse has this for a respiratory illness)

[Caol_Ila]

I had never been at a barn before (and haven’t been since) where the BO felt they had the right to make unilateral decisions about treating/testing a horse in non-emergency situations without contacting the owner. And this wasn’t one of these fancy, full training barns where it’s made clear at the outset that they do all aspects of horse care for you. I know those exist. It seemed like a normal boarding barn, until I’d been there for long enough to see that the owner was mad as a hatter.

Ironwood Farm, was the vet in question cute?

There’s a barn down the road from where my horse lives now that I considered moving to. I gave up that idea when my saddler told me that she was once fitting a treed saddle to a horse at aforesaid barn, and the BO went ballistic and said she would not have a horse being fitted with a treed saddle on her property.

They are in every country.

[meupatdoes]

At this point in my life I would simply ask the vet to send along the paperwork where I agreed to the treatment and the pricing. If the BOs behavior gets the vet stiffed once or twice perhaps the vet will be more careful in ascertaining consent. And if the vet gets pissed at BO perhaps BO will learn. Sometimes experience is the best teacher. Especially if I knew I was leaving in a day anyway I would just let them deal with the consequences of their presumptuous behavior; not my responsibility to pick up their tab or smooth over their decisions for them.

Right now my horse is boarded long distance with someone who does a very good job monitoring his care and who certainly advocates for calling the vet when she thinks it’s necessary, but she always asks first and gets the ok. She always communicates well, and I am always happy to pay.
Funny how that works!

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=mvp;8949453]
Because the HO is the one who chooses both of her service providers. HO hires vet. HO also hires BO, so the HO has to pay people for their services performed on her horse and take up the lack of communication with the BO separately.

No one who is owed money wants to be caught in a fight between two other people. As the vet, I wouldn’t accept the onus of collecting from a third party, either.

I suppose the person who has the least use for the vet in the future can stiff the vet. But I’m hear to tell you that the vet will expect that to be the HO and try to collect from the HO… not matter who did what wrong.[/QUOTE]

The vet may well paint this picture for the HO to try to pressure HO into paying, but unless vet can show where HO authorized the work, vet is SOL at least as far as a court is concerned.

Sometines HOs do give BOs authority in the board contract, and sometimes “social pressure” plays a role, ie even if you move barns this will still be one of the only vets in the area, but ultimately if you want to be paid for a service you have to be able to SHOW that the person you want the money from agreed.

Otherwise anyone can just walk up to your horse, pet it a while, and charge you for massage and telepathy services.

If HOs put a little pressure back on the vets to ascertain consent rather than just bending over for any random bill the vets would be a lot more likely to do a quick call or ask to see the BOs authorization first.

[katenreno]

Perhaps this is just my perspective as a veterinary professional (RVT), but I would HIT THE ROOF if I found out a vet had touched my horse without my consent unless it was an emergency. That is grounds for losing their license. Black and white, no gray area to be seen. While yes, I agree that many vets don’t often ask who owns the horse, and they may not know, it is still their legal responsibility to obtain written consent, whether that be in person, or through forms that the owner has signed at the boarding facility. It is the veterinarian’s legal responsibility to personally inspect those forms for consenting signatures prior to commencing treatment, because it is not just about getting paid for their services; it is their license on the line. We tend to be much more lax about this kind of thing in large animal medicine. Most often we get away with it, because “that is how we do/have always done things.” But that doesn’t change the law unfortunately.

Sorry to be the angry dark cloud here, lol. But that is absolutely my opinion. Perhaps it is easier for me to have this opinion because I am out at the barn almost daily. The thought of not being present for any veterinary care, barring an emergency when I am out of town, would never cross my mind. I recognize that some people have routine care done while they are not there. I still stand by my statement that written consent MUST be in place prior to treatment.

[IronwoodFarm]

Completely agree with the above and I am a BO. I would never imagine getting non-emergency vet care for a horse I did not own. I have shot day and float day which my boarders may elect to participate in. But I would never authorize any non-emergency examination or treatment without prior consent.

As posted previously, I lived though unauthorized care on my own horses on my farm. I had to laugh about the OP’s question about the vet being cute. I don’t think I would hurt anyone’s feeling in the practice if I said their cuteness days are long behind them. But they are nice and they will listen, so she called them ALL the time.

Ironically her horse did have Cushings that she spent most of her time denying and then only tested for when the mare had severe anhydrosis and parked herself by the automatic waterer in the blazing summer sun. The mare responded well to Pergolide when prescribed. It was amazing how much better the horse was when my tenant concentrated on basic care for her special needs. Of course that just ramped up her desire to seek other special needs among my horses and hence the vet service ban. I believe she felt I was cruel and unreasonable, but I made it clear that if she called a vet for one of my horses without my consent for a non-emergency, she was paying the vet.

[enjoytheride]

My vet (who is now retired) will not perform any sort of exam on a horse without the authorization of the owner. She will perform an exam, and charge the owner for the exam, but she will not treat for colic or stitch up a wound without the owner’s consent.