If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"..."unique' value to the owner"
A nearby animal hospital has been sued numerous times for malpractice;
today a judgment for $39,000, the highest yet awarded for a dog, was entered against one of the vets. The jury determined the market value of the dog was $10, the compensation for the vet bills,$9,000. The remainder was for the animal's 'unique value to the owner'. This is new ground. You can read the story he http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5505072.story The LATimes is subscription; if this doesn't work, I'll copy it for you. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote in message
... A nearby animal hospital has been sued numerous times for malpractice; today a judgment for $39,000, the highest yet awarded for a dog, was entered against one of the vets. The jury determined the market value of the dog was $10, the compensation for the vet bills,$9,000. The remainder was for the animal's 'unique value to the owner'. This is new ground. You can read the story he http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5505072.story The LATimes is subscription; if this doesn't work, I'll copy it for you. I think there's both a pro & con to this. The pro is that it places more value on a pet as a family member. However the con is that precedent is now set for high-dollar lawsuits across the country. Guess what happens when doctors & vets get sued? Insurance premiums go up (and generally they go up *alot*) and the increased cost gets passed to the consumer. The more vets who are sued, the higher the cost of the insurance. This equates to even higher costs for vet care. -- Tara |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote in message
... A nearby animal hospital has been sued numerous times for malpractice; today a judgment for $39,000, the highest yet awarded for a dog, was entered against one of the vets. The jury determined the market value of the dog was $10, the compensation for the vet bills,$9,000. The remainder was for the animal's 'unique value to the owner'. This is new ground. You can read the story he http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5505072.story The LATimes is subscription; if this doesn't work, I'll copy it for you. I think there's both a pro & con to this. The pro is that it places more value on a pet as a family member. However the con is that precedent is now set for high-dollar lawsuits across the country. Guess what happens when doctors & vets get sued? Insurance premiums go up (and generally they go up *alot*) and the increased cost gets passed to the consumer. The more vets who are sued, the higher the cost of the insurance. This equates to even higher costs for vet care. -- Tara |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote in message
... A nearby animal hospital has been sued numerous times for malpractice; today a judgment for $39,000, the highest yet awarded for a dog, was entered against one of the vets. The jury determined the market value of the dog was $10, the compensation for the vet bills,$9,000. The remainder was for the animal's 'unique value to the owner'. This is new ground. You can read the story he http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5505072.story The LATimes is subscription; if this doesn't work, I'll copy it for you. I think there's both a pro & con to this. The pro is that it places more value on a pet as a family member. However the con is that precedent is now set for high-dollar lawsuits across the country. Guess what happens when doctors & vets get sued? Insurance premiums go up (and generally they go up *alot*) and the increased cost gets passed to the consumer. The more vets who are sued, the higher the cost of the insurance. This equates to even higher costs for vet care. -- Tara |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote in message
... A nearby animal hospital has been sued numerous times for malpractice; today a judgment for $39,000, the highest yet awarded for a dog, was entered against one of the vets. The jury determined the market value of the dog was $10, the compensation for the vet bills,$9,000. The remainder was for the animal's 'unique value to the owner'. This is new ground. You can read the story he http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5505072.story The LATimes is subscription; if this doesn't work, I'll copy it for you. I think there's both a pro & con to this. The pro is that it places more value on a pet as a family member. However the con is that precedent is now set for high-dollar lawsuits across the country. Guess what happens when doctors & vets get sued? Insurance premiums go up (and generally they go up *alot*) and the increased cost gets passed to the consumer. The more vets who are sued, the higher the cost of the insurance. This equates to even higher costs for vet care. -- Tara |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Here ya go, diddy
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D A man who sued his Fountain Valley veterinarian for malpractice has been awarded nearly $39,000 for the death of his dog. Five years and $375,000 in attorney's fees later, Marc Bluestone, 61, of Sherman Oaks, persuaded a Superior Court jury in Santa Ana that his dog's veterinarian, Craig Bergstrom, was guilty of malpractice. =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0Bluestone said he brought Shane, a Labrador mix, to the nationally renowned All-Care Animal Referral Center in Fountain Valley to treat the dog's persistent seizures in January 1999. Bluestone said he spent $24,000 on the illness and complications, but Shane still died. The jury on Friday cleared the animal clinic of wrongdoing ? as well as another veterinarian who treated the dog, Robert L. Rooks ? but agreed that Bergstrom was liable for the dog's death. Jurors ordered the veterinarian to compensate Bluestone $9,000 for the veterinary bills and $30,000 for the dog's "unique" value to his owner. R.Q. Shupe, the veterinarian's attorney, said he has asked for a new trial and a court order invalidating the jury's verdict, arguing that Shane had no "unique" value. "The defense finds this to be an interesting verdict," Shupe said. The dog "was 3 years old, a mutt ? there was nothing unique about it." Although All-Care, which handles about 30,000 cases annually, has faced malpractice lawsuits in the past, previous cases have been handled in small claims court, according to Cliff Roberts, an attorney for All-Care. Noting that placing a high value on the loss of a pet is becoming increasingly common, Terri Macellero, Bluestone's attorney, said that the verdict reflects jurors' willingness to regard pets as far more than property. "The law is recognizing the value of an animal to their guardian," Macellero said. "The jury said that somebody loves this dog." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Here ya go, diddy
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D A man who sued his Fountain Valley veterinarian for malpractice has been awarded nearly $39,000 for the death of his dog. Five years and $375,000 in attorney's fees later, Marc Bluestone, 61, of Sherman Oaks, persuaded a Superior Court jury in Santa Ana that his dog's veterinarian, Craig Bergstrom, was guilty of malpractice. =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0Bluestone said he brought Shane, a Labrador mix, to the nationally renowned All-Care Animal Referral Center in Fountain Valley to treat the dog's persistent seizures in January 1999. Bluestone said he spent $24,000 on the illness and complications, but Shane still died. The jury on Friday cleared the animal clinic of wrongdoing ? as well as another veterinarian who treated the dog, Robert L. Rooks ? but agreed that Bergstrom was liable for the dog's death. Jurors ordered the veterinarian to compensate Bluestone $9,000 for the veterinary bills and $30,000 for the dog's "unique" value to his owner. R.Q. Shupe, the veterinarian's attorney, said he has asked for a new trial and a court order invalidating the jury's verdict, arguing that Shane had no "unique" value. "The defense finds this to be an interesting verdict," Shupe said. The dog "was 3 years old, a mutt ? there was nothing unique about it." Although All-Care, which handles about 30,000 cases annually, has faced malpractice lawsuits in the past, previous cases have been handled in small claims court, according to Cliff Roberts, an attorney for All-Care. Noting that placing a high value on the loss of a pet is becoming increasingly common, Terri Macellero, Bluestone's attorney, said that the verdict reflects jurors' willingness to regard pets as far more than property. "The law is recognizing the value of an animal to their guardian," Macellero said. "The jury said that somebody loves this dog." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Here ya go, diddy
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D A man who sued his Fountain Valley veterinarian for malpractice has been awarded nearly $39,000 for the death of his dog. Five years and $375,000 in attorney's fees later, Marc Bluestone, 61, of Sherman Oaks, persuaded a Superior Court jury in Santa Ana that his dog's veterinarian, Craig Bergstrom, was guilty of malpractice. =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0Bluestone said he brought Shane, a Labrador mix, to the nationally renowned All-Care Animal Referral Center in Fountain Valley to treat the dog's persistent seizures in January 1999. Bluestone said he spent $24,000 on the illness and complications, but Shane still died. The jury on Friday cleared the animal clinic of wrongdoing ? as well as another veterinarian who treated the dog, Robert L. Rooks ? but agreed that Bergstrom was liable for the dog's death. Jurors ordered the veterinarian to compensate Bluestone $9,000 for the veterinary bills and $30,000 for the dog's "unique" value to his owner. R.Q. Shupe, the veterinarian's attorney, said he has asked for a new trial and a court order invalidating the jury's verdict, arguing that Shane had no "unique" value. "The defense finds this to be an interesting verdict," Shupe said. The dog "was 3 years old, a mutt ? there was nothing unique about it." Although All-Care, which handles about 30,000 cases annually, has faced malpractice lawsuits in the past, previous cases have been handled in small claims court, according to Cliff Roberts, an attorney for All-Care. Noting that placing a high value on the loss of a pet is becoming increasingly common, Terri Macellero, Bluestone's attorney, said that the verdict reflects jurors' willingness to regard pets as far more than property. "The law is recognizing the value of an animal to their guardian," Macellero said. "The jury said that somebody loves this dog." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Here ya go, diddy
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D A man who sued his Fountain Valley veterinarian for malpractice has been awarded nearly $39,000 for the death of his dog. Five years and $375,000 in attorney's fees later, Marc Bluestone, 61, of Sherman Oaks, persuaded a Superior Court jury in Santa Ana that his dog's veterinarian, Craig Bergstrom, was guilty of malpractice. =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0Bluestone said he brought Shane, a Labrador mix, to the nationally renowned All-Care Animal Referral Center in Fountain Valley to treat the dog's persistent seizures in January 1999. Bluestone said he spent $24,000 on the illness and complications, but Shane still died. The jury on Friday cleared the animal clinic of wrongdoing ? as well as another veterinarian who treated the dog, Robert L. Rooks ? but agreed that Bergstrom was liable for the dog's death. Jurors ordered the veterinarian to compensate Bluestone $9,000 for the veterinary bills and $30,000 for the dog's "unique" value to his owner. R.Q. Shupe, the veterinarian's attorney, said he has asked for a new trial and a court order invalidating the jury's verdict, arguing that Shane had no "unique" value. "The defense finds this to be an interesting verdict," Shupe said. The dog "was 3 years old, a mutt ? there was nothing unique about it." Although All-Care, which handles about 30,000 cases annually, has faced malpractice lawsuits in the past, previous cases have been handled in small claims court, according to Cliff Roberts, an attorney for All-Care. Noting that placing a high value on the loss of a pet is becoming increasingly common, Terri Macellero, Bluestone's attorney, said that the verdict reflects jurors' willingness to regard pets as far more than property. "The law is recognizing the value of an animal to their guardian," Macellero said. "The jury said that somebody loves this dog." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tee wrote: However the con is that precedent is now set for high-dollar lawsuits across the country. Guess what happens when doctors & vets get sued? Insurance premiums go up (and generally they go up *alot*) and the increased cost gets passed to the consumer. The lawsuits that tend to incur huge costs are mass tort suits, which the one described certainly is not (nor would compensation for the death of any pet be). Also, the reason that insurance costs took such a huge jump several years ago was not because of losses from lawsuits but because insurance companies were being bloodied in the stock market, along with the rest of us, when it tanked in 2000. That's where they make their money - investment. I hate to come down on the side of lawyers (you have no idea how much), but it's increasingly the case that we're having to rely on civil law to protect us against charlatans, frauds, and outright thieves. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - The median tax cut for 2003 is $470. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
unique barking problem | Aric | Dog behavior | 0 | December 21st 03 08:42 PM |
unique barking problem | Aric | Dog behavior | 0 | December 21st 03 08:42 PM |
Humane Society Sued By Owner Over Spaying | Ichydog | Dog breeds | 6 | November 16th 03 02:50 AM |
New, worried owner seeks advice and help | Adam and Gimli | Dog behavior | 0 | November 9th 03 08:03 AM |
Unique Pen and Ink Drawing of a Rottweiler | David Cohen | Dog breeds | 7 | August 10th 03 09:33 PM |