[QUOTE=gumshoe;7714581]
My emphasis was on the location of the auction.[/QUOTE]
Yep…I acknowledged that. Pony is not in the online auction but in a separate private auction. But thanks for pointing it out again in case someone else missed it.
Apart from the legal issues regarding the sale of this pony, what is the liability of the vet that did the pre-purchase exam?
Funds were exchanged. A vetting report allegedly falsified. Would this be insurance fraud?
[QUOTE=Zuri;7714677]
Apart from the legal issues regarding the sale of this pony, what is the liability of the vet that did the pre-purchase exam?
Funds were exchanged. A vetting report allegedly falsified. Would this be insurance fraud?[/QUOTE]
I am wondering this too. I would imagine someone in the Chungunco camp submitted the PPE to the insurance company.
[QUOTE=supernatural;7713897]
There is no doubt that there was Hanky panky going on in the sale for Exclusive…this sounds a lot like the Heritage Farm case where the pony the had laminitis (known) somehow passes the vet and the trusting client trusts the trainer and gets screwed. These people need to stand up against these people (trainers) perpetuating the fraud. Until a few of these people are held accountable for their lies and thievery; nothing will change. It will be business as usual.
In this day and age of the internet it is a lot harder to get away with this kind of fraudulent activity. Happened a lot in the old days and like I said…has been going on with this particular trainer many years ago.
I hope the clients prevail.[/QUOTE]
I think it is too early in the Heritage case to be pointing fingers. Didn’t the Heritage pony show for a full year before going lame? I certainly have no idea about the details, but I’ve been in the business long enough to know that when it comes time for litigation people have a tendency to create their own version of the facts (and the truth usually lies in the middle). As far as I know, there has been no proof that (i) the x-rays showed rotation, or (ii) that the owner wasn’t advised that the pony had lameness related issues. For all we know the owner was advised that the pony had an issue, but agreed to purchase it because the trainer felt the lameness could be managed.
On the other hand, maybe the vet and the trainers are total crooks who duped the unsuspecting pony mom. Only time will tell, but until then we shouldn’t pass judgment.
Let’s make one thing clear the pre purchase exam was in no way falsified by the vet.
The vet, who happens to be my vet and that of many who show at the top levels of the USEF, noted very clearly that the horse started out slightly off in the right front and worked out of it after a few minutes of trotting. She noted very clearly her concerns.
Most horses will flex slightly positive - which was noted. Heck if you flex most of us we would probably come up more than slightly positive.
Bottom line is you have to look at the horse on that day. Clinically it was sound. Vets don’t pass or fail horses. They evaluate them and give their opinion which she did.
We do not know what was and was not relayed to the Chungunco’s at the time of the purchase at this point it is all heresay. I feel buyers should always be present for pre purchase exams or at the very least ask for a copy before writing a check. The Chungunco’s are not new to the horse business so I have my doubts that they were completely in the dark.
Look at the record - the kid showed it once at the spring premiere and was reserve champion.
It showed at Upperville this year and was champion in the locals and the adults so it was showing and winning.
There is definitely more to the story. I don’t see Kim Stewart risking her livelihood for the public auction of a pony. Anyone would know in this digital age it would blow up. Time will tell.
[QUOTE=LFEQS;7715344]
The vet, who happens to be my vet and that of many who show at the top levels of the USEF [/QUOTE]
I ask this genuinely… does she usually put in the PPE that “this horse’s future soundness is in jeopardy”??? Because… I’ve never seen THAT on a PPE for a riding horse that was insured and certified to have no lameness before.
The PPE is dated 2/23/14. Among other things noted is an incision. Also grade 1/5 lameness on a suspensory that ultrasounded abnormal and where there was a history of an injury. The vet characterized him as both ‘off’ and ‘sore’ on that leg. Her words. And she also said “future soundness may be in jeopardy.”
And accompanying that same report, sent at BEST a month later but on its face filled out the day of the PPE– the report to the insurance company says no surgery to the vet’s knowledge (what did she think the incision she noted was from, then?) And under “any lameness” she puts “NA.” In the place to disclose anything else, it’s blank. And there’s a signature certifying the horse is sound.
How can you see a surgical incision and so no prior surgery? How can you see 1/5 lameness, soreness, offness and say there’s nothing to report in terms of lameness and then certify the horse is sound?! I just cannot wrap my head around how those contrary representations can co-exist?!
She did her physical exam and stated her findings. She included X-rays and an ultrasound and stated her interpretation of the data. Which included the statement about “the future soundness of the horse may be in jeopardy”.
Her PPE’s contain her interpretation of the physical exam and any additional diagnostics requested. So in this case yes she made that statement.
Please reread the pre purchase exam. The horse started of slightly uneven a grade 1 out of 5 and “The horse warmed out of this unsoundness quickly. It was not observed again after a few minutes of trotting”. It Remained sound though out the remainder of the exam, through straight line, circles and lead changes. It is not unusually for horses that are in heavy work to start if a little creaky. When I get moving sometimes it takes a few minutes for me to warm up.
The horse was serviceable sound on the day it was vetted and doing his job. And according to the USEF did his job well months after the PPE.
As far as the incision. She had no way of knowing what was done to the horse with out receiving prior medical records. I do feel it would have been appropriate to state there was an incision but she had no knowledge of the reason for the incision.
No vet is ever going to pass a horse they are always caveats in their pre purchase exams. Its called CYA. The horse was in full work and showing at the time of the vet certificate for insurance.
That’s an awfully selective reading of just parts of the PPE report?! By your reasoning, unless a horse is basically dead it can certified sound to the insurance company?! You think the insurance company is likely to agree with your assesment?!
No dog in this fight, but I’ve done a lot of PPEs, including many with a MAJOR lameness clinic (vets have been team and OG vets; one is travellling with the eventing WEG team right now).
I agree with vxf. The “in jeopardy” line is NOT what vets say when a horse flexes off here or there or shows some hock arthritis on films. Let’s not pretend this was a good vetting.
After reading the PPE, if you then read the questions asked on the certificate for insurance and still maintain that the vet answered those questions truthfully… You’re kidding yourself.
There is evidence of an incision. The question reads “If any surgery has been performed, describe the type of surgery and date”. The answer given is “not to my knowledge”. This is disingenuous. The honest and accurate answer would be - evidence of an incision (and the location of the incision) but no information is available on type and date of surgery. If that is the truth.
[QUOTE=LFEQS;7715445]
She did her physical exam and stated her findings. She included X-rays and an ultrasound and stated her interpretation of the data. Which included the statement about “the future soundness of the horse may be in jeopardy”.
Her PPE’s contain her interpretation of the physical exam and any additional diagnostics requested. So in this case yes she made that statement.
Please reread the pre purchase exam. The horse started of slightly uneven a grade 1 out of 5 and “The horse warmed out of this unsoundness quickly. It was not observed again after a few minutes of trotting”. It Remained sound though out the remainder of the exam, through straight line, circles and lead changes. It is not unusually for horses that are in heavy work to start if a little creaky. When I get moving sometimes it takes a few minutes for me to warm up.
The horse was serviceable sound on the day it was vetted and doing his job. And according to the USEF did his job well months after the PPE.
As far as the incision. She had no way of knowing what was done to the horse with out receiving prior medical records. I do feel it would have been appropriate to state there was an incision but she had no knowledge of the reason for the incision.
No vet is ever going to pass a horse they are always caveats in their pre purchase exams. Its called CYA. The horse was in full work and showing at the time of the vet certificate for insurance.[/QUOTE]
Meh… It is really hard to make any conclusions about the vetting. Different people have very different ideas about what is ‘good’ or bad.
I recently turned down a horse that had results on a prepurchase that I was unhappy with. The seller’s rep felt that the vet had been “mostly positive” about the horse. But being 4, initially uneven on hard ground, in both directions, plus a 3/5 coffin flexion plus a spur on the coffin bone shown on radiograph (PLUS a somewhat less than desirably upright foot, trending toward the neighborhood club…) was a ‘no deal’ for me.
That said, plenty of people might have been comfortable with the vetting results. The horse was a tall, very handsome, ‘good egg’ looking pinto warmblood fellow who might have appealed to someone else, despite the somewhat funky foot. l know plenty of horses that would likely yield lengthy ‘vet’ reports, yet they are very functional. Personally, I just don’t want to buy one of those right now.
When I spoke with the vet who did the prepurchase for me, he finished our conversation by saying “he looks like a really nice horse and good luck with him.” I don’t think he felt that the exam counted as a ‘fail.’
In general, the vets are very detailed about every little issue, and they don’t hold back. If one ear is 1/2 cm shorter than the other, it’s probably gonna go on the report… I don’t think you can draw any conclusions from what is written in the report. The vet is going to note every little thing they see. It is up to you to decide if these things are an in issue for you or not.
I don’t know that the problem is with the prepurchase itself, but I have a distinct problem with the PP vet’s answers to the insurance questions. There were better (more accurate) ways to handle those.
Not my circus, not my monkey, but 2 issues:
- Was the horse being insured for mortality or loss of use? I would consider the 1/5 which it worked right out of as an NQR and many horses show that way. I don’t think that such a finding would have been relevant to an insurance company if it was only insuring for mortality. However, if observed, I would (as a buyer) expected the vet to suggest pulling blood, so the buyer would know if any bute/banamine, etc was in the horse’s system. In fact, I always have blood pulled (usually saved at the vets in case an unexpected condition arises in the first 90 days – and only then analyzed) .
The incision, IMO, should have been noted and disclosed to both the potential buyer (agent) and the insurance company, since a horse who has colicked has a higher than average chance of colicking again. HOWEVER, that does not mean that the insurance company would refuse to bind the horse, only that it might refuse to pay out if the horse died as a condition related to the earlier colic, because a pre-existing condition was not noted.
Either way, the insurance company was not put in jeopardy if it bound mortality insurance based on the vet report it received.
I know 2 horses, one in the 70’s and one in the early 80’s who were each blind in one eye and showed successfully. So it was not considered an unsoundness back then.
The rest of it does not meet the smell test, either from the trainer or the vet or the owner’s point of view. – But this is not new. Same old, same old. Yes I am jaded. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And it seems that some people (buyers, agents, vets) never learn that if you tell the truth you do not have to remember what you said.
As an aside: I recently was privy to both sides of a sale/purchase of a horse. ALL parties did the right thing; ALL information was appropriately transmitted and ALL parties were able to make informed decisions based on the honesty of the others involved. — Just thought I would add that since it made me smile
Lord Helpus wrote, “I know 2 horses, one in the 70’s and one in the early 80’s who were each blind in one eye and showed successfully. So it was not considered an unsoundness back then.” Blindness was considered an unsoundness in hunters back then. A horse could be shown in equation and jumpers, but if a judge could tell in the jog a horse was blind in one eye - thrown out of the jog. I was a Stewart for the AHSA in those years.
The horse was noted with an active suspensory lesion at the time of the vetting. Regardless of whether it was “sound” at the time, one would require notation under “other abnormal conditions.” As should the blindness in one eye.
The ethical challenges horse people have never cease to amaze and disgust me.
When was the last time you insured a horse? Major medical is typically included in mortality policies, and that includes both colic/surgical and lameness. So yes, the company was in jeopardy if binding a horse with an active suspensory lesion that was not disclosed, along with the midline incision most likely from a colic surgery.
[QUOTE=wanderlust;7716291]
When was the last time you insured a horse? Major medical is typically included in mortality policies, and that includes both colic/surgical and lameness. So yes, the company was in jeopardy if binding a horse with an active suspensory lesion that was not disclosed, along with the midline incision most likely from a colic surgery.[/QUOTE] Oops. My bad. I was ony thinking about loss of use.
But, to answer your question: I insured a horse that had metasticised cancer and had to be euthanized last winter. The insurance company refused to pay out under major medical AND mortality since the horse had had a minor eye surgery many years ago and the pathology determined it be malignant. I had totally forgotten about this event since it was not a lameness or colic and it slipped my mind, so I did not note it on the insurance application – the insurance company took the position that cancer = cancer. A small node behind the eye 10 years ago = massive internal cancer now.
So the insurance company was still not out any money – major medical, mortality you name it, they would not pay. Non disclosed conditions, excluded conditions, mortality – whatever. The result seems to be the same.
After that I canceled my other policies – no point in wasting $$ that way. There are enough other ways to waste my $$ in horses.
I copied and pasted. Anyone other than me see something wrong with this ad?
[B]
2014 Devon Grand Champion Pony Hunter[/B]
2013 USEF Champion Large Pony
SPELLBOUND
Selling to the highest bidder
at Public Auction
Selling pursuant to Section l6-401 of the Commercial Law Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, a public sale and auction of certain livestock will be held on
Monday, August 15, 2014 at 11:00 am atGlenwillow Farm
6710 Picnic Woods Road
Jefferson, MD 21755
No. The sale being discussed (that appears terribly sketchy) was Exclusive. However, the trainer is auctioning the pony, Spellbound.
[QUOTE=VirginiaBred;7716376]
I copied and pasted. Anyone other than me see something wrong with this ad?
[B]
2014 Devon Grand Champion Pony Hunter[/B]
2013 USEF Champion Large Pony
SPELLBOUND
Selling to the highest bidder
at Public Auction
Selling pursuant to Section l6-401 of the Commercial Law Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, a public sale and auction of certain livestock will be held on
Monday, August 15, 2014 at 11:00 am atGlenwillow Farm
6710 Picnic Woods Road
Jefferson, MD 21755[/QUOTE]
