# For you legal folks - can a vet make me sign a form releasing them from negligence???



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I am taking Snorkels to the cardiologist tomorrow. They want me to sign a form saying I won't hold them responsible even if they are negligent.

This part is really bugging me. I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that you cannot ask people to release you from negligence or misconduct in a contract:

I hereby waive,
release and discharge any and all claims for damages, including, but not
limited to claims for death, injury or property damage, w*hether or not
resulting from the negligence, gross negligence, misconduct *or other acts
of xxxxx, its veterinarians and staff, that I may have
individually or on behalf of my pet, or that may subsequently accrue, as
a result of honoring this directive, and I declare that any such
veterinarian, staff and the Animal Diagnostic Clinic is acting in
accordance with my directions. *This is intended to be an advance
release of legal liability, even if negligence or other misconduct occurs.*

If they are negligent, I will want to make them pay for it. this is a CPR form but the wording seems to be alot more general and doesn't say something like "negligence in relation to giving CPR."


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Not sure about the negligence part, the contracts I have always seen have been for anesthesia before surgery, which is normal and I understand due to the risks involved. But misconduct and negligence might make me look into another vet.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

naturalfeddogs said:


> Not sure about the negligence part, the contracts I have always seen have been for anesthesia before surgery, which is normal and I understand due to the risks involved. But misconduct and negligence might make me look into another vet.


Yep, i've never been asked anything like this. But this is the cardiologist, it's the only one I can find in this area, and we've been waiting six weeks for the appointment.

Well, if I understand the legal gobbledegook on the internet, Texas does indeed allow people to release themselves from their own negligence. That's just crazy. 

I guess I need to decide how badly I want her to go to the appt. I guess the chances of them being negligent are minimal, and the form seems to be mostly for if her heart stops while she is in their care and I'm not around.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

In my experience I've never seen anything like that on a release form. I'd ask why its there....because I wouldn't sign that. If they refuse to do the procedure because of it, find another place to go if possible. 

What is she having done?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaneMama said:


> In my experience I've never seen anything like that on a release form. I'd ask why its there....because I wouldn't sign that. If they refuse to do the procedure because of it, find another place to go if possible.
> 
> What is she having done?


Well, the cardiologist in Indiana told me I needed a new echocardiogram about this time, and her heart murmer has gotten worse so I think she needs to be looked at by a specialist. The closest teaching hospital to here is Texas A&M and this vet visits Dallas once a month from A&M and I like her to go to a vet from a vet school.

Maybe I can get away with not signing it - it's a CPR form, telling me I need to tell them in advance if I want them to do CPR or not. So maybe the negligence only relates to that and not in general to her care. I don't foresee a time I would leave them with her overnight; they are way far away from my house and that vet is only there two days a month. So I'd take her locally if she went into heart failure.

I've never seen anything like it either and I've been to alot of vets. I bet it's not in every state. The stuff I read talks mainly about Texas. 

So I think i'll make sure it's only for CPR - if it's not, I'll try to get an appointment at the actual vet school at A&M. It's about 4 hours away and I could do that.


----------



## Kbug (Oct 23, 2011)

xellil said:


> So I think i'll make sure it's only for CPR - if it's not, I'll try to get an appointment at the actual vet school at A&M. It's about 4 hours away and I could do that.


A&M will make you sign the same release. It is standard in TX and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a vet who won't have you sign the exact same release. I know I've signed it for every "major" procedure.

Kbug


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

That sucks. I've seen a lot of crazy things in contracts, but usually they have no legal weight (e.g. the apartment rental contract that required 60 days notice from the tenant to the landlord of termination even though the state law requires only 30 days --> it violates state law and is therefore unenforceable). I'm surprised TX allows Vets to avoid liability in this manner. Unless, of course, the state views pets as property not lives, and veterinary care as mechanics not medicine.

That said, since everyone will make you sign a similar agreement, you might as well go with the best.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Kbug said:


> A&M will make you sign the same release. It is standard in TX and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a vet who won't have you sign the exact same release. I know I've signed it for every "major" procedure.
> 
> Kbug


Well, that's good to know. If I have no choice, I have no choice!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

SpooOwner said:


> That sucks. I've seen a lot of crazy things in contracts, but usually they have no legal weight (e.g. the apartment rental contract that required 60 days notice from the tenant to the landlord of termination even though the state law requires only 30 days --> it violates state law and is therefore unenforceable). I'm surprised TX allows Vets to avoid liability in this manner. Unless, of course, the state views pets as property not lives, and veterinary care as mechanics not medicine.
> 
> That said, since everyone will make you sign a similar agreement, you might as well go with the best.


yep, my legal expertise only goes so far as Judge Judy and people's court, but from that I gather if you charge someone 200 percent interest on a loan and they agree to pay it, that's unenforceable because it's against federal law. Stuff like that, and what you said. So thought maybe you couldn't cancel out negligence by having someone sign a contract. But I guess you can!


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

From what I've been told (and don't hold me to this in court!), you can sign these and then if it goes to court, it can be challenged because you are signing a legal document without having a lawyer present and without having full legal knowledge of what all is entailed in the form i.e. you are not a lawyer and no one but lawyers know what all that stuff means!

We currently have a case in court where someone is suing the NC State vet school here for not only negligence but for punitive damages. They may win. I know we had to sign all those forms at the vet school so it obviously can go to court even with the forms signed. If I had my wits about me when my pup died there, I would have taken them to court.


----------



## Igandwhippetlover (Feb 20, 2012)

I do not know about Texas or the cardiologist. But here in Florida when our one dog had to have a fine needle aspirate
I did not sign anything. And he went under anesthesia. The stupid Emergency vet killed him on the table by using the
wrong anesthesia since he is an Italian Greyhound. He brought him back but Tony has never been the same since. We 
should have sued but didn't.


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

Same here, (FL) never had to sign, nor have I been asked to sign anything for Mol or Windy. Even when they went under anesthesia. 
It does sound like your crowd are just covering their ar$es, but yes, I sympathise, I would hesitate to sign something like that too.


----------



## Kbug (Oct 23, 2011)

For what it's worth, I don't believe it is a legally binding agreement. I think the actual purpose is to fulfill malpractice insurance requirements and to generally discourage law suits. In all honesty, *most* veterinary procedures do not cost enough to spend the effort to seek monetary compensation for damages. Also, if you did pursue court most jurys wouldn't award enough in "pain and suffering" either. 

I do remember just about every conversation with the vet at A&M when Fayt was there ended with "we can't guarantee she'll make it" which would be their legal defense if something had happened and I'd sued. In fact, I'm sure that is why A&M will make every animal that comes in emergently get an EKG, cya.

Kbug


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Kbug said:


> For what it's worth, I don't believe it is a legally binding agreement. I think the actual purpose is to fulfill malpractice insurance requirements and to generally discourage law suits. In all honesty, *most* veterinary procedures do not cost enough to spend the effort to seek monetary compensation for damages. Also, if you did pursue court most jurys wouldn't award enough in "pain and suffering" either.
> 
> I do remember just about every conversation with the vet at A&M when Fayt was there ended with "we can't guarantee she'll make it" which would be their legal defense if something had happened and I'd sued. In fact, I'm sure that is why A&M will make every animal that comes in emergently get an EKG, cya.
> 
> Kbug


yes, I know since dogs are property you can't really sue. And Snorkels is a rescue so she has no dollar value.

However, if they were truly negiligent I would be really really angry if I then had to pay them a bunch of money for bad care.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Igandwhippetlover said:


> I do not know about Texas or the cardiologist. But here in Florida when our one dog had to have a fine needle aspirate
> I did not sign anything. And he went under anesthesia. The stupid Emergency vet killed him on the table by using the
> wrong anesthesia since he is an Italian Greyhound. He brought him back but Tony has never been the same since. We
> should have sued but didn't.


That's terrible. I'm so sorry.


----------



## BoxerParty (Nov 9, 2011)

xellil said:


> I am taking Snorkels to the cardiologist tomorrow. They want me to sign a form saying I won't hold them responsible even if they are negligent.
> 
> This part is really bugging me. I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that you cannot ask people to release you from negligence or misconduct in a contract:
> 
> ...



Yes, that's pretty standard language designed to limit your ability to bring tort action in the event that something goes wrong.

Frankly, given the attitude of the court toward pets, you're not signing away much here. The BEST outcome I've read in a Tort or Contract case involving a pet was an award of damages equal to the purchase price of the animal.


----------



## BoxerParty (Nov 9, 2011)

chowder said:


> From what I've been told (and don't hold me to this in court!), you can sign these and then if it goes to court, it can be challenged because you are signing a legal document without having a lawyer present and without having full legal knowledge of what all is entailed in the form i.e. you are not a lawyer and no one but lawyers know what all that stuff means!


This IS a possible defence, but it's not a terribly successful one in most cases (and would likely be even less so in a case involving a pet since, as I mentioned, courts don't do much with respect to pets)

I'd sign the form - the limitation it places on your legal rights is minimal (as compared to, say a cell phone contract or marriage) :tongue:


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

BoxerParty said:


> Yes, that's pretty standard language designed to limit your ability to bring tort action in the event that something goes wrong.
> 
> Frankly, given the attitude of the court toward pets, you're not signing away much here. The BEST outcome I've read in a Tort or Contract case involving a pet was an award of damages equal to the purchase price of the animal.


yes, and l can't even get that but I don't want that. I just don't want them to make me pay them for their services even if they are negligent. This cardiologist stuff is pretty pricey and I expect alot higher standard than "negligent."


----------



## BoxerParty (Nov 9, 2011)

xellil said:


> yes, and l can't even get that but I don't want that. I just don't want them to make me pay them for their services even if they are negligent. This cardiologist stuff is pretty pricey and I expect alot higher standard than "negligent."


I completely agree with you there. This waiver only says you "waive, release and discharge any and all *claims for damages*" - signing it would not prevent you from insisting that you not pay for negligent treatment, it only precludes your suing for damages.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

BoxerParty said:


> I completely agree with you there. This waiver only says you "waive, release and discharge any and all *claims for damages*" - signing it would not prevent you from insisting that you not pay for negligent treatment, it only precludes your suing for damages.


Ah. That makes me feel better, thanks. Even though I would love to sue them into eternity if they hurt my dog through their own fault, I know that's not gonna happen.

It just bugs me that they make you sign it in the first place. In my mind, the only people who worry about being sued for negligence are people who are negligent.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

chowder said:


> From what I've been told (and don't hold me to this in court!), you can sign these and then if it goes to court, it can be challenged because you are signing a legal document without having a lawyer present and without having full legal knowledge of what all is entailed in the form i.e. you are not a lawyer and no one but lawyers know what all that stuff means!
> 
> We currently have a case in court where someone is suing the NC State vet school here for not only negligence but for punitive damages. They may win. I know we had to sign all those forms at the vet school so it obviously can go to court even with the forms signed. If I had my wits about me when my pup died there, I would have taken them to court.


i think duress might apply here, also...and don't hold me to it....either 

if you are signing a contract, if only about cpr, which seems vague and you are not permitted to see the cardiologist without signing said contract.... i don't see how this can be held to any legal standard.

but that's just my opinion. not a lawyer here...

xellil, there are lawyers online, with whom you can consult who can give you a better legal answer....

then you have to decide that if the worse happens, would you need extraordinary measures....taken.....hardest question in the world to answer, for of course, what we want is not always possible.....


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

magicre said:


> i think duress might apply here, also...and don't hold me to it....either
> 
> if you are signing a contract, if only about cpr, which seems vague and you are not permitted to see the cardiologist without signing said contract.... i don't see how this can be held to any legal standard.
> 
> ...


yes but if her heart stops while she is seeing the cardiologist tomorrow it WILL be negligence. She is doing fine, thumping along normally. It would be way beyond coincidence for them to have to do CPR on her in the one hour period she is at their office unless they did something to make her heart stop.

Besides, that sheet also says if they do CPR there is only a 5 percent chance my dog will live, and if she lives she will probably never be normal again.

Now, I saw the cardiologist in Indiana umpteen times and no one ever asked me about CPR.
but if they all do it in this state, I am wondering if Oklahoma does. i may call up there and ask. Not sure if there is a vet school in Oklahoma.

So I think no procedures tomorrow, I'll just have the vet do an office visit.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

if you're uncomfortable, best for you to not do this.

and talk to an attorney about texas contracts and law....

what was the cardiologist going to do any differently than your vet?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

magicre said:


> if you're uncomfortable, best for you to not do this.
> 
> and talk to an attorney about texas contracts and law....
> 
> what was the cardiologist going to do any differently than your vet?


Echocardiogram. The vet in Indiana said if we do one once per year and compare to last year they could tell alot better how/whether or how fast her heart is degenerating and medicate (or not) accordingly. Along with lungs, etc of course.

That kind of matters to me, as the initial vet that did the first sonogram immediately put her on very strong heart meds and it took two months to get her off of them, and here it is a year and a half later and she's still not on them. Apparently, if you start too soon it kills them early, and if you start too late it can also kill them early.

But if they're going to sent her into cardiac arrest in the vet's office, forget about it!

I think if they'll let me watch, I'll do it. And if they won't, i won't. If she doesn't get the echocardiogram it's not life or death for her right now.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

xellil said:


> Echocardiogram. The vet in Indiana said if we do one once per year and compare to last year they could tell alot better how/whether or how fast her heart is degenerating and medicate (or not) accordingly. Along with lungs, etc of course.
> 
> That kind of matters to me, as the initial vet that did the first sonogram immediately put her on very strong heart meds and it took two months to get her off of them, and here it is a year and a half later and she's still not on them. Apparently, if you start too soon it kills them early, and if you start too late it can also kill them early.
> 
> ...


here's the conundrum.....if you take her in and g'd forbid she dies.....it could be posited that she dies from stress from being there...so no negligience. just age and stress related...and, if they let you watch, maybe she is more stressed because you're in there. not an easy decision to make.

what's the worst that can happen if you don't do the sonogram and just let nature take its course.

cardiology is a funky kind of specialty...

i don't know if medicine for humans and dogs are the same, but i think very similar teachings are in play.....doctors treat disease, as do vets....they look for disease states....we study abnormalities in the body, the brain, the psyche.....so we tend to overlook health. if that makes sense.

after all, we don't go to a doctor if we're not sick....usually....and if we aren't sick, we may go in once a year and when asked, we say we're fine...that we just want to make sure we're fine....that way, docs are not looking for disease, but they are always on alert for any abnormality should they find it....that's why we get physicals.

we do the same with our dogs...and once a problem is identified...often times, the first suggestion is medicine...even though it might cut a life short......and that is mainly because THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT RAW FED DOGS. 

that's why you are their advocate.

that contract is ridiculous....even though it's a 'cover your a** one'.....but i think that's all it is...just like surgical consent forms...that all kinds of horrors can take place, should you have this life saving surgery....it has never stopped a patient from suing the hospital after they amputate the wrong limb.


----------

