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

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Guin;7027261]
I’ve been following this thread off and on for a bit. Portia’s outline is excellent. Obviously none of us know what happened, but the part about Dr. Miller’s answer “not having sufficient information” to tell whether there was rotation sounds like an outright lie to me. Dr. Miller sees x-rays > rotation YES or NO. Any decent vet can look at x-rays and determine whether or not there’s rotation![/QUOTE]

Yabbut, was his assigned task to “go look for any degree or rotation in one coffin bone? Both?” What degree of rotation is deemed to make a pony unfit for jumping? For resale?

If this PPE went like most others do, the vet’s job is to evaluate the horse for the intended purpose. So some messy stuff on X-rays or various imperfections are still open to the DVM’s interpretation as far as how it will affect the horse’s utility goes. And that interpretation is open to the buyer and her trainer as well.

[Lord_Helpus]

As an ex-litigation attorney, my guess is that a first year associate is (or should be) in hot water for this complaint. And the 5th year associate who should be reviewing his/her work must have been otherwise engaged.

Citing the law of another state is beyond incompetent and has nothing to do with equine matters. It has to do with giving a fig about the product you are turning out and filing with the court.

Hopefully the law firm will assign an experienced attorney to write the amended complaint. It should be embarrassed about the quality of this one.

Yes, legal documents can be hard to understand. But they should not be filled with errors of law and fact.

PS: Thanks for the good summary, Portia. Nice to see you again; it’s been a long time.

[TheHunterKid90]

[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;7027268]
And that’s cheating by the letter if the law…[/QUOTE]

I completely agree and don’t condone it in any sense. That was the first time I groomed for this particular farm and will certainly be the last. I was just using it as an example that it’s possible.

[Pennywell_Bay]

[QUOTE=TheHunterKid90;7027322]
I completely agree and don’t condone it in any sense. That was the first time I groomed for this particular farm and will certainly be the last. I was just using it as an example that it’s possible.[/QUOTE]

Didn’t mean to be accusatory towards you…

[Sansena]

[QUOTE=Guin;7027261]
I’ve been following this thread off and on for a bit. Portia’s outline is excellent. Obviously none of us know what happened, but the part about Dr. Miller’s answer “not having sufficient information” to tell whether there was rotation sounds like an outright lie to me. Dr. Miller sees x-rays > rotation YES or NO. Any decent vet can look at x-rays and determine whether or not there’s rotation![/QUOTE]

Yabbut: If the customer didn’t allow enough angles to show any angle of rotation, or if the radiographs were supplied to him by another party for him to read, his ‘excuse’ could still be valid, if the technique on the radiographs was wrong and they were just plain old poor images.

[Jeito]

*** Please Read*** I’m the one who made the comment about Dr. Miller’s answer concerning the rotation in the feet, and I made a mistake :o! I had read the answer two days earlier and mixed up paragraphs 1 & 3. You have to match the paragraphs of the answer to the paragraphs of the complaint, and it’s cumbersome. Anyway, when I just checked, I realized the stuff about the rotation of the feet is in paragraph 3 of the answer in which he “denies the allegations in the form alleged.” This is standard legal boilerplate, as is the language in paragraph 1 about not having sufficient information. So, to be clear, he “denies in the form alleged” that (1) the radiographs revealed that the pony had rotation in his feet (paragraph 26 of the complaint), and (2) that he didn’t tell the plaintiff that the pony had rotation in the feet (paragraph 44 of the complaint).

Sorry about any confusion. To me, what’s still significant is that this is not something he denies outright. But there is nothing sinister about the answer. It’s possible that there are no bad guys in this lawsuit.

[Jeito]

I’m usually the one groaning when people post inaccurate information or wrong facts, so I am beating myself up :eek:!

[Zanny]

It’s possible. Allegedly.

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=Sansena;7027373]
Yabbut: If the customer didn’t allow enough angles to show any angle of rotation, or if the radiographs were supplied to him by another party for him to read, his ‘excuse’ could still be valid, if the technique on the radiographs was wrong and they were just plain old poor images.[/QUOTE]

The standard view for evaluating rothation is a plain lateromedial shot.
Can’t imagine it wasn’t part of the PPE if any foot rads were taken.
As for the technique/quality, if your radiographs are crap, you reshoot them.

[APirateLooksAtForty]

Admittedly have only read the first few pages of this thread, but even my Zone 4 trainer charges prices very much in line with these. $100/day for day care and $125 for a lesson are not outrageous. Honestly, in the case of Heritage (and my trainer, too) you get what you pay for … their results (not to mention the fact they are filled to the brim with customers) speak volumes.

The first couple pages of the invoicse, IMHO, are misleading because they are not itemized. Bear in mind the client was also making large sums of money when she was selling these ponies (with Heritage as agent).

[ynl063w]

I get that a lot of people are experiencing some jaw-dropping over the invoices that have been exposed in this case, but let’s face reality here - the owner of the pony is not disputing any of the dollars she’s been charged. Presumably she paid all her bills, and is still at this point not sorry that she did so. The money spent is not the issue here. Her issue is solely with the ethics of the people she feels are involved. To my recollection, she didn’t even mention in her complaint the non-specific HS meds (or whatever). I might be wrong - I skimmed over the document when this thread started and haven’t looked at it since then.

She obviously didn’t mind spending 4 figures on blankets (or HS meds) for the pony (ponies?), so why is this such an issue to those who wouldn’t spend that? This case is about something much more important than that. Even the woman who initiated the case knows that.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;7030911]
To my recollection, she didn’t even mention in her complaint the non-specific HS meds (or whatever). I might be wrong - I skimmed over the document when this thread started and haven’t looked at it since then.[/QUOTE]

It could be the foot blocking which was done to the pony so it could show which she wasn’t told about at the time.

[Zanny]

She is disputing $325K give or take a blanket or two.

[BAC]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;7030911]
I get that a lot of people are experiencing some jaw-dropping over the invoices that have been exposed in this case, but let’s face reality here - the owner of the pony is not disputing any of the dollars she’s been charged. Presumably she paid all her bills, and is still at this point not sorry that she did so. The money spent is not the issue here. Her issue is solely with the ethics of the people she feels are involved. To my recollection, she didn’t even mention in her complaint the non-specific HS meds (or whatever). I might be wrong - I skimmed over the document when this thread started and haven’t looked at it since then.

She obviously didn’t mind spending 4 figures on blankets (or HS meds) for the pony (ponies?), so why is this such an issue to those who wouldn’t spend that? This case is about something much more important than that. Even the woman who initiated the case knows that.[/QUOTE]

you are right as crazy as those prices seem to some, they are right in line with any top, full service show barn in the area (Westchester County) or in nearby CT. People in those programs expect to pay those prices, it’s their money to spend as they want. As you say, the issue here is much bigger than the costs involved.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7030944]
It could be the foot blocking which was done to the pony so it could show which she wasn’t told about at the time.[/QUOTE]

My point is that she does not seem to be disputing any of the CHARGES on the invoices, and it seems she was happy to pay the bills as they appeared on the invoices. Even if the foot blocking actually took place (is there any real evidence for this?), she does’t seem to care that she PAID for it, she cares that it even happened in the first place without her knowledge (so she says; none of us really know) and that if it indeed happened, it would not have been in the PONY’S BEST INTEREST. My understanding is that she’s not concerned about the dollar amount she’s been spending on this pony. She’s upset at the fact that, from what she thought she made clear regarding what she wanted, this pony clearly did not meet her standards from the beginning and that was covered up by those who sold her the pony. Whether or not that is true remains to be seen. We will all have to stay tuned.

There is no evidence to suggest that she felt the need to dispute anything in any of the bills she received from the barn in question. And there is no evidence to suggest she didn’t pay them on time.

[vxf111]

Agree, just pointing out why I keyed in on the horse show meds

[Midge]

[QUOTE=soloudinhere;7017689]
I am really curious to know what a “Meridian stall” is and why it costs $3,125.[/QUOTE]

My guess is it would be the stall at Meridian Farm, if that is the place they stabled at in Wellington.

[leyla25]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;7030911]
I get that a lot of people are experiencing some jaw-dropping over the invoices that have been exposed in this case, but let’s face reality here - the owner of the pony is not disputing any of the dollars she’s been charged. Presumably she paid all her bills, and is still at this point not sorry that she did so. The money spent is not the issue here. Her issue is solely with the ethics of the people she feels are involved. To my recollection, she didn’t even mention in her complaint the non-specific HS meds (or whatever). I might be wrong - I skimmed over the document when this thread started and haven’t looked at it since then.

She obviously didn’t mind spending 4 figures on blankets (or HS meds) for the pony (ponies?), so why is this such an issue to those who wouldn’t spend that? This case is about something much more important than that. Even the woman who initiated the case knows that.[/QUOTE]

This is the best ! except there isn’t much of ethics in the horseshow world especially in the top so I doubt if she will find resolution or win this case.

[Groro]

Insurance?

I haven’t seen anyone mention horse insurance. Surely if a pony cost $175,000, it would be insured! Any insurance policy I have ever seen says that all medications must be administered by a licensed veterinarian. Maybe that is why the drugs cost so much, the vet was giving them! That included vaccinations. Perhaps the insurance companies need to get involved here if “everyone” in the industry is medicating these show horses.

[MrsFitzDarcy_amp_Feliks]

Especially with digital technology. We pay for a “series.” They shoot til they got it right.