So here’s the story:
1. Person takes sick pet to vet.
2. Person cannot afford care/diagnostics, so vet makes best guess as to condition.
3. In lieu of euthanasia, vet offers to take pet and whatever happens, happens.
4. Pet gets better with care. Hooray!
5. Vet finds good home for pet. Updates Person 1 expecting her to be happy the pet is alive and well. (uh oh)
6. Person 1 wants dog back. Vet says, OK, pay the costs we incurred, and you can have her.
7. Person 1 refuses, then sues.
I cannot tell you how often this happens, unfortunately. This is one of the reasons so many vets are hesitant to take in relinquishments at all. We wouldn’t do it if we didn’t think we had some sort of chance at saving the dog or cat and were willing to eat the costs of care to give it a go; yet when the pet makes their miraculous recovery, boom, the owner wants their pet back. I think the offer was very reasonable in this case- pay for the expenses incurred, and you can have the pet. Basically, here- take this lottery ticket, but you only have to pay me if you win.
Hurlbut said Heitmiller was not able to make a diagnosis without further tests, so she presented as many options as she could to Bergstrom, including taking the puppy home to monitor it.
And the owner still wasn’t happy. She claims the vet made a misdiagnosis (a word to the wise- any diagnosis at all is difficult when owners decline all diagnostic tests) therefore, the vet should reimburse her.
Hurlbut said his office manager did offer to return the puppy to Bergstrom if she would pay for the care the puppy had received when Heitmiller took it home, but Bergstrom refused. From Bergstrom’s perspective, since she had already paid $220 for veterinary care, she said she thought it was ridiculous that she would be asked to pay more.
From my perspective, I pay my gas company $50 a month. When my bill arrived for $100 I thought that was ridiculous since I had already paid $50. Strangely enough they didn’t like my argument that I should be able to dictate what my bill is. If I want my power back on I need to pay the rest of the bill.
We had a string of unfortunate incidences at my prior place of employment at an ER. It wound up being Relinquishment as Insurance: I only pay and take the pet back if the pet survives. Otherwise, I owe nothing. It got to the point where our relinquishment form stated clearly “You will NOT receive any updates on your pet once relinquished.” It was amazing how many people who absolutely couldn’t afford $400 on the 50/50 chance a pet would make it would suddenly find $700 on the 100% chance of survival. That is not how it’s supposed to work.
And there is that tired old misdiagnosis argument- geez doc, if you had properly diagnosed the pet to begin with I would have paid it! Surely if you have told me with 100% certainty your diagnosis and prognosis based on the physical exam which was the only thing I had allowed you to do, then I would have agreed to everything. This is your fault.
I have taken in exactly one relinquishment in my career. Mulan. It breaks my heart, but stories like this have made me emotionally and financially unwilling to risk this outcome.
And the unfortunate result is, next time a similar case presents to this vet, the puppy will probably be euthanized.
It sounds like she might have been a BYB (she seemed upset she couldn’t sell the puppy) so it makes it so much worse in my mind. I get wanting to see a positive outcome as a result of the money you pay but if the chance is for a positive outcome to happen, man up and pay already. Or sign the pet over.
I hope the vet practice just makes it a policy to never update the previous owner but alas, you’re probably right. Sigh…
It makes me sick that vets have to have a relinquishment policy at all. Why is there even a decision to be made? How can someone not opt for treatment for their pet. *sigh*
I hope that hateful woman loses her lawsuit, and has to pay everyone’s legal fees!
I may be missing something, but my take on the relinqueshment as described in this article is that the pet owner cannot afford to pay for care so the vet says we will treat the pet if you give it to us, or we will minimally treat the pet, and if the pet makes a miraculous recovery, we will put it up for adoption? How does the vet get paid by doing that? Does a prospective adopter pay the vet bills? If not what is the problem with giving the pet back to the owner who could not afford to pay for treatment at that time? Is it because the owner may not be able to care for the pet in general because they cannot afford the treatment? Can someone explain a little more about the relinquishing process, and why if an animal makes a recovery the owner should not have there pet back? thanks.
I suppose it depends on the practice, but most vets who take in relinquishments do it because there is a very adoptable pet with a treatable condition, that the owner cannot afford to treat- and the vet cannot bear to euthanize so they eat the cost of treating the pet. Sometimes they get paid, sometimes not.
“If the animal makes a recovery, why shouldn’t the owner have the pet back?” Why should I treat a pet for free and then give a pet back to someone who cannot afford to treat it? They’ll be back again in a year the next time something happens expecting the same. The person to whom the pet is adopted will be expected to be able and willing to provide necessary care.
I want to be more sympathetic- I have tried, but when you are confronted with this sort of thing on a daily basis you quickly realize that you can sympathize yourself out of business very quickly if you help everyone who feels they deserve it.
It’s fascinating reading the comments to that article. At least the majority of readers seem to have some sense.
Elephant- I had to stop reading the comments.
WOW. i’m just constantly amazed upon hearing these stories. thanks for the info bc i had no idea people were now sueing their vets!
I (and most vets I know) have liability insurance. Lawsuits are not uncommon, and the threat of lawsuits are very common.
People like this make me ANGRY. When Chase was diagnosed with Hemangiosarcoma and needed an emergency splenectomy… did we have that money just laying around? Of course not. That was $3,000 – three days before Christmas (!!!) – that we just didn’t have. However, I found a way to do it. I scrounged up some credit cards and put that $3,000 over three different ones. It would never have crossed my mind to put him to sleep (even though he only lived two months after the fact and we had to do this anyway, sigh.) or give him up. When I took him in as a puppy, I chose to take on that responsibility. He was MY dog, my child, if you will. I would do whatever I could for his best interest, not pick and choose on what I think I could pay for or not pay for, depending on the healthy or not healthy outcome. Ugh! And then how dare she try to sue, when this vet took on the cost and time to save this puppies life. If she has that many dogs, what is she going to do if one of them happens to break a leg? Come down with cancer? Eat a rock?
I know there are some people who go through hard times and what not, so I don’t want to have this come out as a blanket statement, but this really gets my blood boiling.
Yeah… The ER and day practices I work for have relinquishment policies… but the owners are NOT allowed to know what happens AT ALL after they sign over their pet. Less heartache that way. In my opinion, previous owners shouldn’t know what happens to their pet… Or situations like this arise. Trust me, I wish we could offer payment plans, but we as vet clinics are in a financial crisis as well — mortgages, staff salaries, equipment repairs and updates, inventory, etc… We have bills to pay too. The number of people who “stiff” us on the bill has caused our clinic to require full payment up front… or there will be no clinic left for them to bring their animals to. We don’t have insurance companies to help subsidize the cost of pet health care. Pet insurance doesn’t pay us directly, it reimburses owners, so from a cost perspective, it does us little good (though it does help make it easier for owners to afford the diagnostics and treatments recommended, which has a happy side effect of increasing our revenue).
Ok, I’m stepping off my soapbox now. Dr. Jessica, I feel for you and all our colleagues placed in a similar position. Thank goodness for PLIT.
Jamie- I understand tough times too. Who doesn’t, right? *sigh* People like this make it not in our best interests to be sympathetic, so everyone suffers.
Megan- Yup, layoffs are everywhere, and now we’re expected to help people out (which we try to do) at our own expense (which we simply can’t). I get when people can’t do things, but don’t demand that I do it for you, for free.
My father in law was talking to me yesterday about his dad and the local dentist back in the 50s. He paid $10 a month for 10 years on some work the guy did on his family. I can’t even imagine trying to do that these days.
I had seen a similar piece on some tabloid TV show (inside edition or something similar) about a POOR POOR old lady who took her puppy to the ER where it was diagnosed with parvo. She couldn’t afford the recommended treatment and was offered outpatient care vs euth vs turn pet over. She turned pet over, it was treated and survived and a tech adopted it. When the previous owner found out she sued the TECH over ownership of the dog. The tech could not afford to defend herself in court because she had just paid out 1200 bucks to take care of the puppy herself (at employee charge rate) and ended up having to give the dog back. I was hopping hopping mad when I saw that story. Not only did the lady get free care but the tech who footed the bill lost out on all accounts.
My sister (a tech at my hosp) took a surrender from a guy who couldn’t afford referral for a fractured radius/ulna, couldn’t keep the dog exercise restricted or keep appointments for cast changes. When it turned to a non-union he couldn’t bear to have a three-legged dog so he turned him over. Mel paid nearly $1000 to have bone grafting, casting, etc, done and in the end also for an amputation. Months after the amputation the owner called the clinic asking for his dog back, since it was now healthy and he could ‘take care of it’. He couldn’t get why we wouldn’t let him have it back… ? So as if that weren’t enough, the guy had his young daughter write us a sad sad sad letter about how horribly much she missed HER PUPPY. Her puppy that her daddy GAVE UP and who is now living pain free in a cushy cushy home.
I hate relinquishments. So far in my first year of practice I have managed not to have to take one that survived… But it’s just a total mine field…
Sara, you mention in the end amputation was only choice after the grafting failed. Any more, when I see a dog come into rescue with a badly mangled leg or torn acl, I vote for amputation. From a rescue stand point, the dog still has a good quality of life without having to endure multiple surgeries, castings and the like while not straining the limited rescue funds.
The woman suing is an idiot. She’s breeding dogs, yet doesn’t have the smarts to know that with every litter there are risks. One such risk is a puppy in distress as she found out. If she’s not willing to pay for diagnostics to determine the cause of the distress, then she should be willing to lose a puppy; in this case she did but she’s got a bad taste in her mouth. That should be the end of the story. The paperwork clearly shows she was given 4 options. She clearly made a bad decision. Boo hoo. Go back and make sure the rest of your puppies are healthy.
Here’s a sad story, of a rat terrier who would have had any number of people step up and pay for the vet care it needed: Amish puppy millers in Michigan see their dogs as livestock. Medical care by a professional is extremely rare for their dogs. A pregnant ratty got loose, was hit by a car damaging a leg. The Amish owner took the dog into a barn and chopped the leg off with an axe, bound it and left the dog in the barn. The next day, when a rescue person arrived to pick the dog up (release of the dog had been arranged a few days earlier), the dog was dead. She had bled to death. The dog would have survived the hbc if the breeder had called and said she needs to go now.
OMG Lisa…that quite literally made me sick to my stomach. 🙁
The rescuer who has taken dogs from this breeder before is heartbroken, distraught and enraged. The go-between between the rescuer and the breeder is now under instructions not to wait, if this guy calls, she is to go right away and get whatever it is he is turning over.
I’m surprised they allow their “unwanted” pets into rescue at all- I suppose they will do whatever costs them the least. I never knew about the big Amish puppy mills until a year or two ago- pretty surprising.
Is it common that the former owner sues, do you know? I wonder how many successfully get their pets back? It sickening. They didn’t want to pay for the care or man up and take the responsibility but want the dog after it’s been fixed. What the hell.
Stupid woman.
Going back to the first post, what the poster wrote does not include pertinent parts of the story as I can tell…we are still very confused as to the whole surrendering of pets policy. Some of the comments on this subject seem very biased. There are at least two sides to every story….
Of course there are. To be honest the original article seems a bit biased towards the owner. There is no official relinquishment policy. It depends on the individual veterinarian.