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.

"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

"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

"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

"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

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."

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."

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."

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."

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.