Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
When Veterinary Malpractice Seems So Obvious That No Expert is Needed
Veterinary malpractice seems to be on the rise. Is that because there's more malpractice or because people are taking errors more seriously? Or, is it because we are always looking for someone else to take the blame?
The reality is, there are lots of steps you an take to resolve issues with your veterinarian short of filing a malpractice suit. Many times the financial and emotional expense of a lawsuit doesn't address the real issue - the loss of a beloved pet.
When Veterinary Malpractice Seems So Obvious That No Expert is Needed
The reality is, there are lots of steps you an take to resolve issues with your veterinarian short of filing a malpractice suit. Many times the financial and emotional expense of a lawsuit doesn't address the real issue - the loss of a beloved pet.
When Veterinary Malpractice Seems So Obvious That No Expert is Needed
Monday, May 13, 2013
Preventing Dog Bites | petMD
Preventing dog bites is the first step in keeping our dogs safe. My dogs got into a fight one day. I got bitten in the process and felt like I could not seek medical attention because of the possible ramifications for my dogs. This is not the way the law should be written. Rufus in Orlando is a perfect example.
Preventing Dog Bites | petMD
Preventing Dog Bites | petMD
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Updates on U.S. Animal Laws | petMD
Here are some legal updates - one concerns horse slaughter in New Mexico, the other concerns the status of pets as property.
There is currently a U.S. ban on horse slaughter. That is both good news and bad news. The good news is we don't slaughter horses in the U.S. The bad news is they still do in Mexico and horses are being transported to Mexico. Obviously they do not have the same regulations that may require slaughter to be "humane."
The other is a Texas Supreme Court case that addresses the concept of pets as property and whether the loss of a pet has compensable value. Here's what the Court said:
"We acknowledge the grief of those whose companions are negligently killed. Relational attachment is unquestionable. But it is also uncompensable. We reaffirm our long-settled rule, which tracks the overwhelming weight of authority nationally, plus the bulk of amicus curiae briefs from several pet-welfare organizations (who understand the deep emotional bonds between people and their animals): Pets are property in the eyes of the law, and we decline to permit non-economic damages rooted solely in an owner’s subjective feelings. True, a beloved companion dog is not a fungible, inanimate object like, say, a toaster. The term “property” is not a pejorative but a legal descriptor, and its use should not be misconstrued as discounting the emotional attachment that pet owners undeniably feel. Nevertheless, under established legal doctrine, recovery in pet-death cases is, barring legislative reclassification, limited to loss of value, not loss of relationship. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment in favor of the Petitioner."
Bottom line, pets are still property in the eyes of the law. You can get compensated for the loss of their value, not the loss of the relationship
Updates on U.S. Animal Laws | petMD
There is currently a U.S. ban on horse slaughter. That is both good news and bad news. The good news is we don't slaughter horses in the U.S. The bad news is they still do in Mexico and horses are being transported to Mexico. Obviously they do not have the same regulations that may require slaughter to be "humane."
The other is a Texas Supreme Court case that addresses the concept of pets as property and whether the loss of a pet has compensable value. Here's what the Court said:
"We acknowledge the grief of those whose companions are negligently killed. Relational attachment is unquestionable. But it is also uncompensable. We reaffirm our long-settled rule, which tracks the overwhelming weight of authority nationally, plus the bulk of amicus curiae briefs from several pet-welfare organizations (who understand the deep emotional bonds between people and their animals): Pets are property in the eyes of the law, and we decline to permit non-economic damages rooted solely in an owner’s subjective feelings. True, a beloved companion dog is not a fungible, inanimate object like, say, a toaster. The term “property” is not a pejorative but a legal descriptor, and its use should not be misconstrued as discounting the emotional attachment that pet owners undeniably feel. Nevertheless, under established legal doctrine, recovery in pet-death cases is, barring legislative reclassification, limited to loss of value, not loss of relationship. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment in favor of the Petitioner."
Bottom line, pets are still property in the eyes of the law. You can get compensated for the loss of their value, not the loss of the relationship
Updates on U.S. Animal Laws | petMD
Friday, May 3, 2013
Staten Island Man Convicted of Throwing Cat to His Death | ASPCA Blog
Always pleased to see the justice system working in favor of protecting animals.
Staten Island Man Convicted of Throwing Cat to His Death | ASPCA Blog
Staten Island Man Convicted of Throwing Cat to His Death | ASPCA Blog
Drugs and Law Breaking Veterinary Doctors | petMD
Check out this article on what vets do to keep their pet patients taken care of.
Drugs and Law Breaking Veterinary Doctors | petMD
Drugs and Law Breaking Veterinary Doctors | petMD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)