That pony lawsuit...OMG you have to see those Heritage Invoices

[busylady]

If this case actually makes it to trial it could present a very interesting legal question concerning a trainer/agent’s liability for offering opinions or “professional judgment” concerning PPE results. Take this very common scenario:
Buyer, not a knowledgeable horseman, has vet perform PPE.
PPE discloses an issue, but horse is sound.
Buyer asks trainer/agent whether horse should be purchased. Buyer/agent looks at all the factors (age, price, skill, particulars of the issue, etc.) and says yes.
Down the road, after much success, issue turns into lameness.

Should the trainer/agent be liable for advising the client to purchase the animal?

In considering this, put aside factual issues specific to the Heritage case related to whether or not the trainer/agent disclosed the PPE issue.

For now I think Heritage’s legal team is on the right path. I previously commented, before Heritage responded, that the causes of action in the complaint didn’t seem appropriate against Heritage because Heritage wasn’t the seller. My guess is the complaint will be re-filed with new causes particular to Heritage’s duty as agent.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;7022101]
IIf the Dildabanians chose him [the PPE vet], that’s one thing. If Heritage selected the vet and arranged for the PPE without disclosing a client’s name and has a longstanding relationship with THAT vet, the vet would have no way of knowing that there was a client behind Heritage. Wouldn’t one want to know if Heritage had used that vet previously for horses on ITS OWN account? And who actually paid him? Looking at it from the vet’s point of view, that could be crucial as to his own duties.[/QUOTE]

Why?

Look, if the buyers and agent agreed on what the agent’s duties were, AND if they agreed on the basic minimum in that relationship— the the agent is on the buyer’s side-- why would it be a problem if the agent recommended a PPE vet? Why would it be a problem if the agent had a good and long-standing relationship with the vet? In fact, I’d want my agent-- who is using his expertise on my behalf-- to help me choose a vet if I didn’t know how to do that on my own.

IMO, the vet is just tangled in a dispute that’s actually between the buyer and agent.

I think the vet knows full well what his responsibilities are to the buyer on a PPE. After all, the PPE “ritual” and the roles played by the buyer, seller and expert in it are old and well-known to all. I suspect there is plenty of litigation in the history of PPEs and vets that instruct those guys on how to perform their duties to avoid lawsuits.

vxf111’s point about the limits of the agent agreement is well taken. (Maybe that agreement specified that the agent was not supposed to get in between the buyer and vet in terms of communicating information or offering an opinion on the PPE).

But why make that the vet’s responsibility to figure out? If his services are engaged by someone who claims to be representing a buyer (and someone on the buyer/agent’s side pays him), why would he expect that the agent was screwing the buyer? That seems unreasonable to me and makes a DVM responsible for protecting a buyer not only from dishonesty on the seller’s part (which we all know about), but also from his own agent.

I do think the PPE results belong to whomever bought them. That could be the agent. But if you were an agent who wanted to prove that you were fulfilling your duty to your client, wouldn’t you pass all of that information on to her?

[vineyridge]

Because in a long standing relationship with someone with many PPEs, the vet might have come to understand what that person finds manageable in a less than perfect PPE and what is not. If the buyer has different standards, the vet should be apprised of that; and if the buyer sets up the PPE, the vet knows it’s the buyer’s standards that should prevail.

One of the claims in the complaint (IIRC) is that Buyer asked to see the xrays from the PPE. Either Buyer owns them, or Buyer doesn’t and vet has no obligation to Buyer.

[AlexS]

I’m confused, although that happens fairly often.
The bill of sale, clearly shows Heritage was not the seller. And also clearly shows pony was sold ‘as is’.
So shouldn’t the complaint be against the vet? Or is the issue that Heritage received the xray results, and didn’t pass them along to the buyer?

[vxf111]

I know the complaint and motion aren’t really easy to read (they truly aren’t). But a lot of questions on this thread might be answered by: trying to read them; and/or reading some of the posts where people who have read them try to summarize the allegations and responses.

[Instant_Karma]

MOTHER OF GOD!!!

[doublesstable]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7022131]
I have admitted the complaint is not a model of clarity. I disagree with your reading nonetheless. In the motion to dismiss, Heritage is asserting that they were not the SELLER and that all the complaint’s claims are only valid against the SELLER. I do not read the motion to raise the argument that the sale pre-dates the buyer being a Heritage client OR that Heritage was uninvolved in the purchase.[/QUOTE]

And of course Heritage is taking that approach. It’s law 101 for a motion to dismiss. Point the finger and hope it works. If the motion is successful, the “as is” contract is valid and the buyer has nothing. (would be my guess)

I do wonder if we see a judge that will support the motion to dismiss due to the fact the buyer signed the “as is” purchase agreement. But saying that, if xrays were done showing a rotation prior to purchase; who “paid” for those xrays and if it was the buyer paying, why didn’t they get those xrays?

[chunky_munky]

I think it is pretty customary for PPE vets to keep the xrays so they don’t get lost or messed with. Generally they will go over them at the time they are taken with buyer, agent or both. I think they keep them mostly for any issue that might present afterward. My experience is they will make you another copy if you want them, and charge you for them. In reality a buyer has little use for them (what, like hang them up on the wall ?) unless and issue arises in which case the vet better have them. The average layman doesn’t know what they are looking at on xrays without someone pointing out the issues. The buyer pays for the PPE and the xrays and should be able to access them if necessary.

[doublesstable]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;7022950]
I think it is pretty customary for PPE vets to keep the xrays so they don’t get lost or messed with. Generally they will go over them at the time they are taken with buyer, agent or both. I think they keep them mostly for any issue that might present afterward. My experience is they will make you another copy if you want them, and charge you for them. In reality a buyer has little use for them (what, like hang them up on the wall ?) unless and issue arises in which case the vet better have them. The average layman doesn’t know what they are looking at on xrays without someone pointing out the issues. The buyer pays for the PPE and the xrays and should be able to access them if necessary.[/QUOTE]

I always get mine on a disk just in case. I may move my horse and have another vet and need reference. Sometimes vets retire and it’s difficult to get the xrays. That’s just how I roll;

But what I wanted to point out is, if those xrays were “purchased” by the “buyer”, the buyer should be able to get them for this litigation. Maybe she already has them if in fact she paid for them. If the facts are; xrays done for PPE paid for by the buyer, and vet and/or broker/agent which would be Heritage did not disclose a rotation seen in xrays and will not produce xrays for the buyer who paid for the xrays then you have another problem. I didn’t read where the buyer paid for them or not and I didn’t read if anyone has the xrays with evidence of a rotation.

Interesting case. Curious how it plays out…

[chunky_munky]

Not sure, but there was some reference that there have been a number of vets that have examined them which would imply that vet has released them. Not 100% sure, but it sounded that way.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=doublesstable;7022926]
And of course Heritage is taking that approach. It’s law 101 for a motion to dismiss. Point the finger and hope it works. If the motion is successful, the “as is” contract is valid and the buyer has nothing. (would be my guess) [/QUOTE]

And in Heritage’s defense… the complaint ain’t a model of clarity and if it’s intended to have a breach of fiduciary duty count, it’s not styled expressly.

[doublesstable]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7022977]
And in Heritage’s defense… the complaint ain’t a model of clarity and if it’s intended to have a breach of fiduciary duty count, it’s not styled expressly.[/QUOTE]

:lol: well isn’t that a lawyers MO to confuse the rest of us?

[vxf111]

I’m mildly annoyed because here’s ONE TIME the lay horsey public is engaged in a civil case… and 75% of the people who want to try and understand can’t understand the pleadings. It is not always this confusing.

[doublesstable]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7022992]
I’m mildly annoyed because here’s ONE TIME the lay horsey public is engaged in a civil case… and 75% of the people who want to try and understand can’t understand the pleadings. It is not always this confusing.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, didn’t mean to annoy… I do understand a majority of what I have read but I work with attorneys quite a bit…

My comment was a joke responding to your comment of the complaint being unclear…

It is an interesting case. I am going to follow it as I can and see what evidence comes forward. I think because of some missing pieces at this point is where it has become confusing.

[vxf111]

I’m not annoyed at YOU at ALL DSS. I am annoyed at the “quality” of the pleadings. Murpy’s law, this might be the only time someone ever reads a complaint… and this one is hard to understand.

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;7022950]
I think it is pretty customary for PPE vets to keep the xrays so they don’t get lost or messed with. Generally they will go over them at the time they are taken with buyer, agent or both. I think they keep them mostly for any issue that might present afterward. My experience is they will make you another copy if you want them, and charge you for them. In reality a buyer has little use for them (what, like hang them up on the wall ?) unless and issue arises in which case the vet better have them. The average layman doesn’t know what they are looking at on xrays without someone pointing out the issues. The buyer pays for the PPE and the xrays and should be able to access them if necessary.[/QUOTE]

It is a legal requirement for the DVM to keep radiographs. They are part of the medical record.
The client is entitled to copies, upon request, for a reasonable duplication charge.

[doublesstable]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7023002]
I’m not annoyed at YOU at ALL DSS. I am annoyed at the “quality” of the pleadings. Murpy’s law, this might be the only time someone ever reads a complaint… and this one is hard to understand.[/QUOTE]

Yes agreed. I think it’s good that this has become public. Very interesting case for the horse community.

[Zanny]

from Rate My Horse PRO FB page “Barbara Dildabanian- I do want to say that the single most important point is simple… In the pre-purchase exam report it was not disclosed that there was any evidence of prior laminitis or rotation. Since finding out( from our ex trainers best friend) that this pony suffered from laminitis , it was then and only then we looked at all the pre purchase reports, radiographs and vet history of the year and realized that the initial radiographs showed rotation in both feet. Four independent vets CONFIRMED this finding from the initial X-rays taken.”

[asterix]

Having just done several PPEs with a two different reputable sport horse vets - I absolutely expect a disc with the X-rays, at no charge, from the vet if I buy the horse in question. This is standard practice with the vets I use. It’s part of the package, and of course I want them - down the road, any issue the horse has may benefit from a review of these films ( and last time I sold a horse, I provided the. 5 year old PPE X-rays to the buyer for review as part of HER PPE). Last horse I bought was in a different state - unlikely to go back for a lameness workup in 3 years, will simply bring disc to my regular vet.
Having trouble imagining why it is hard to believe a client would want the films.

[chunky_munky]

From my ex trainers best friend ??? Oh my…