 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / March 2006Scottie's vet called
He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering machine tape. He said it's entirely possible that it happened as I said. He said he didn't know about doxycycline causing it. He read the articles I gave him, he looked in his Plumb's Veterinary Drug Handbook and saw the warning. He said he's given it to hundreds, maybe thousands of cats that way and nothing ever happened. He just didn't know. He sounded shocked. He said he'd call later, he was on his way home. I don't feel elated or vindicated. It made it even sadder that he acknowledged it, in a way. I don't know if he'll mention money when he calls back or if I should. I would think he would pay me since he's basically admitting his error. I suppose it's not provable now that the cat doesn't exist anymore but it doesn't sound like he's going to dispute much. I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he would be honorable about this and I guess I was right. Of course, he might know vet law and know nothing will be/can be done to him. I don't know but I guess he's not going to be a dick about it. Yes, I removed the tape and am saving it. Candace > I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very > sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he > would be honorable about this and I guess I was right. I think he probably feels pretty badly; I get the feeling he just didn't know any better. I was thinking how, for humans, we have pharmacists who tell us things about medications and interactions that the doctors don't or can't, but veterinarians don't have that. At least now he knows. :(  SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.blogspot.com/ > I think he probably feels pretty badly; I get the feeling he just didn't > know any better. I was thinking how, for humans, we have pharmacists who > tell us things about medications and interactions that the doctors don't > or can't, but veterinarians don't have that. > > At least now he knows. :( You're right, I hadn't really thought of that. Not that that excuses it but, years ago, I used to be a pharmacy tech in a hospital. That is one of a hospital pharmacist's main purposes, to catch drug interactions, dosing errors, etc. and call the doctor about it. Even good doctors don't know everything about every drug. I suppose it's true of vets, too. Maybe they just can't keep up with all the literature and some things fall through the cracks. Or maybe he's just incompetent. He's probably in his early 60's, maybe he doesn't bother with the reading anymore. It would be interesting to know how many vets know this about doxycycline. Maybe a lot don't. None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time." This wasn't his time. Candace > None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out > about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel > joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was > probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still > be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time." > This wasn't his time. I know what you mean. When Jasper died, we figured it was because he was so underweight before he was hit by the car. A stray with pre-existing conditions. Then 5 years later, I learned about the change in pepto bismal. I felt like he died all over again, only now it was possibly my fault. And of course, it is way too late to test for anything to find out for sure. It made a bad experience worse. > You're right, I hadn't really thought of that. Not that that excuses > it but, years ago, I used to be a pharmacy tech in a hospital. That is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > he doesn't bother with the reading anymore. It would be interesting to > know how many vets know this about doxycycline. Maybe a lot don't. FWIW, we never prescribed it - never. Not once. I didn't even know it was used in cats. > None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out > about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel > joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was > probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still > be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time." > This wasn't his time. Well, Candace, it *was* his time or he wouldn't have died. You will never know why. We all go when it's our time whether it's in a car wreck, a heart attack, lingering disease or murder. It's our time. Somewhere, someway, some good will come of this. You may never know about it, but rest assured, it will. -L. >> I think he probably feels pretty badly; I get the feeling he just didn't >> know any better. I was thinking how, for humans, we have pharmacists who [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time." > This wasn't his time. {{{{{{{{{{Candace}}}}}}}}}} Candace, by finding this out you may have helped keep many other cats from dying this way because of your vet's ignorance about this drug. FWIW, I don't think we ever feel it's time for someone we love to die. But if there can be a higher purpose found beyond mere dying when it's our time, then we should try to take what little consolation that gives. I am sure that Scottie knows how much you loved him, I'm sure he knows that you would have done anything to help him, and I'm sure he feels there is no need for forgiveness because there was nothing you did wrong. SignatureHugs, CatNipped See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/ > Candace > None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out > about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel > joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was > probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still > be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time." > This wasn't his time.//// {{{BIG HUGS}}} for the loss of Scottie. Have you thought that maybe you had to find out about it after the fact was so that Scotties death wasn't wasted and now other cats may be safer because of what happened and the lessons learned? It won't bring Scottie back, and I really feel for your loss as it *IS* so very hard for you to have to go through this, but by you being able to educate the vet, Scotties death wasn't in vain. Scottie remains in our thoughts. Helen M >> I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very >> sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tell us things about medications and interactions that the doctors don't > or can't, but veterinarians don't have that. Too true. I was just told by my pharmacist that I shouldn't be taking over-the-counter Sudafed with the Flexeril I'm taking for Fibromyalgia - it can cause kidney damage. SignatureHugs, CatNipped See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/ > At least now he knows. :( > > I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very > > sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tell us things about medications and interactions that the doctors don't > or can't, but veterinarians don't have that. All the more reason why he should know more about the drugs he's prescribing. P > He called around 6pm our time. . Wow, Candace. What a mess of mixed feelings--sad that it happened just as you suspected and Scottie died needlessly, and happy--in a way--that the vet is decent enough to say, "I didn't know." I would be very surprised if he did not refund your money, given his admission. Nothing can make this right but it is the least he can do and I bet he will feel the same way. >He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be >there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Candace This is why I have been cringing over some of the militant rhetoric I've been reading. Fortunately you are enough of an adult not to start banging out certified letters full of high-handed nonsense. I would ask the guy for a refund of professional fees, pointing out that it was a big financial hardship for you to fork over that dough in the first place. Keep the same cordial tone he has used. You could drag him into court, but you wouldn't get much. And courts always look favorably on a party who has attempted to reach an agreement prior to litigation. This is a very sad saga, Candace, but you have contributed to the man's understanding of feline care, and perhaps by doing so you will prevent another cat lover from having this same experience. That's the highest outcome possible in a situation like this. Charlie Charlie > He called around 6pm our time. I'm glad to hear that he called. I bet he's feeling pretty bad right about now. I can't imagine being a vet and doing something like this. If he's a nice guy like you say, I'm sure he'll offer you a full refund. Hang in there. Hugs, Lauren > He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be > there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't feel elated or vindicated. It made it even sadder that he > acknowledged it, in a way. What is he going to do? He has to acknowledge it. He knows you are right. > don't know if he'll mention money when he > calls back or if I should. I would think he would pay me since he's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > might know vet law and know nothing will be/can be done to him. I > don't know but I guess he's not going to be a dick about it. Vets never want a complaint filed with the vet board. He will do whatever you want to make sure that doesn't happen. > Yes, I removed the tape and am saving it. I am so sorry, Candace but please feel some comfort in knowing you are educating people about the use of this drug. Nothing will bring your sweet boy back, but some good will come out of it. -L. > He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be > there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Candace They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about yours. I'm sure most do the best they can and they all make a mistake some time. That's why it's called the 'practice' of medicine. At least your vet was man enough to admit he could have blown it and didn't give you a bunch of excuses to cover it up. You have to respect the man for that at least. I'm truly sorry for your loss. I know how hard it is when we lose one of our babies. We should be better prepared because we know from the start that we are going to outlive them but we never are. Wendy > They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about > yours. As is every owner of the 'many animals'. I'm sure most do the best they can and they all make a mistake some > time. That's why it's called the 'practice' of medicine. I don't want a vet 'practicing' on my cats unless its an experimental treatment and I agree to it. The warnings about doxy-induced strictures have been known for >20 years- its even printed on the package insert. At least your vet > was man enough to admit he could have blown it and didn't give you a bunch > of excuses to cover it up. You have to respect the man for that at least. He didn't have any other choice. I still think he agreed to euthanize Scottie to get rid of the evidence hoping Candace would never find out. P >> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about >> yours. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >He didn't have any other choice. I still think he agreed to euthanize >Scottie to get rid of the evidence hoping Candace would never find out. That is bullshit conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not have called and left the message he did. Real shitheads never admit they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone else. The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that have arisen because of it. Charlie > That is bullshit conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not > have called and left the message he did. Real shitheads never admit > they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone > else. You're extremely naive. Most animal guardians aren't educated at all in vet medicine. It's not uncommon for vets to do exactly what Phil claimed - euthanizing the animal to get rid of the evidence of malpractice. If the guardian never finds out, they are off scott-free. In this case he had no other option but to admit it - he knew he was wrong. It was a mistake - negligence - one he is responsible for, whether or not he realized what was going on at the time or not. >The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad > about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that > have arisen because of it. Or he got caught with his pants down and has no other option now except to confess and play stupid. >From what Candace has said, I think the guy is just inept. He's still liable, though. -L. >> That is bullshit conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not >> have called and left the message he did. Real shitheads never admit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >claimed - euthanizing the animal to get rid of the evidence of >malpractice. If the guardian never finds out, they are off scott-free. Killing people's pets strikes me as a damn poor way for a vet to manage risk. > In this case he had no other option but to admit it - he knew he was >wrong. It was a mistake - negligence - one he is responsible for, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Or he got caught with his pants down and has no other option now except >to confess and play stupid. He has the option to not say anything. If he was worried about the legal angles, it's the first thing any lawyer would tell him -- don't admit anything, let your attorney speak for you. The fact that he admits blame suggests he isn't too worried, maybe because he has been sued over this kind of thing in the past and knows it doesn't go anywhere. What bothers me is that you and Phil have nothing at stake here, and you are acting as firebrands, passing pre-emptive judgement on someone you don't know and encouraging Candace to nurse a grudge. I don't think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money back. Charlie >>From what Candace has said, I think the guy is just inept. He's still >liable, though. > >-L. > >> That is bullshit conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not > >> have called and left the message he did. Real shitheads never admit [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money > back. Bullshit. If the vet wan't trying to cover his a.s by killing the cat, he would have offered to perform or pay for balloon dilation- which has about an 90% success rate in cats with esophageal strictures. He didn't even *mention* that there was an alternative to killing the cat. He agreed to kill the cat *solely* to cover his a.s. You're not very perceptive, are you, Charlie? > Killing people's pets strikes me as a damn poor way for a vet to > manage risk. No, it's the *only* way they can manage risk when they've f.cked up. It's the only way they can cover their a.ses. Well, that, and they can lie. I have had the vet I worked for lire right to my face and say he never ordered something when I wrote in my notes in the cat's file that he did. > He has the option to not say anything. If he was worried about the > legal angles, it's the first thing any lawyer would tell him -- don't > admit anything, let your attorney speak for you. The fact that he > admits blame suggests he isn't too worried, maybe because he has been > sued over this kind of thing in the past and knows it doesn't go > anywhere. He knows if he resolves the case himself, he's likely to be out less money. Just like an insurance adjustor. > What bothers me is that you and Phil have nothing at stake here, and > you are acting as firebrands, passing pre-emptive judgement on someone > you don't know and encouraging Candace to nurse a grudge. I'm not encouraging her to "nurse a grudge". I am encouraging her to seek justice. > I don't > think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense > for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with > him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money > back. I agree, but she needs to get more than "some" of her money back. She needs to get all of it back. -L. >> Killing people's pets strikes me as a damn poor way for a vet to >> manage risk. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I'm not encouraging her to "nurse a grudge". I am encouraging her to >seek justice. If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't produce a financial windfall. Charlie >> I don't >> think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >needs to get all of it back. >-L. > If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for > whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't > produce a financial windfall. I won't cost her a penny, Dingbat. "Contingency fee" - look it up. -L. > If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for > whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >needs to get all of it back. > >-L. Hmmm, well, 1,000 measly bucks is what he is willingly giving me as a credit to the credit card I used. He called me at work this a.m.--apologetic, but basically saying that sh.t happens (he didn't phrase it that way at all and was being very polite, etc) and he can't know everything. He said he takes 150 hours of continuing education a year when 20 is all that is required (both those facts are true because I googled him and found that out) and he never has heard about it in any of his seminars/classes. He has used it on hundreds of cats and administered it without water, never had a problem, so he never saw a point in looking at the Plumb's. He is sorry and will never administer it that way to a cat again but he basically said sh.t happens and everyone makes mistakes sometimes. I didn't mention filing a complaint or small claims court or anything. He must feel invincible, either because he's had similar experiences or knows others who have. Maybe he knows it would all pan out in his favor. I don't know. It's troubling, sad, complicated. Tony prefers to drop it at this point but he always assumes the best of people; he thinks the guy is genuinely sorry and is doing everything in good faith. I'm really surprised at the small amount and it was only when I brought it up; he was not offering it of his own accord. I guess I'll know how I feel about it and what I will be willing to do about it in a couple of days as it sinks in. He also said his partner, who only graduated from vet school in 2003, had never heard about it either. And I must also say that a vet emailed me privately and said the balloon dilation is not a cure but merely a treatment, that the stricture usually recurs. I don't know if he meant after only one treatment or after a series of treatments are performed because I did read that it takes 2-10 times to be effective. This vet also said the whole doxy thing is common knowledge among vets. I told this to my (former) vet and he said by asking on the internet, I would not get a fair sampling--only vets who *do* know about it would answer me. He said I should randomly call 10 vets and ask them how they administer doxycycline to cats. I doubt if I will do that. I was thinking of asking him to also make a nice donation to some veterinary education organization in Scottie's name but that would only be if I didn't seek further compensation. My poor cat is going to remain dead regardless of what I do now. Candace > My poor cat is going to remain dead regardless of what I do now. I'm so sorry, Candace. Candace <maccandace@aol.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > Hmmm, well, 1,000 measly bucks is what he is willingly giving me > as a credit to the credit card I used. He called me at work this [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Candace There's no reason you can't counter-offer. This is a negotiation. SignatureBrandy Alexandre --Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > Hmmm, well, 1,000 measly bucks is what he is willingly giving me as a > credit to the credit card I used. He called me at work this [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Candace f.cker. You have a couple of options: A.) Take what he offered (notice he didn't offer it in writing), suck up the rest. B.) Let him take you to small claims and sue you for the bill - your defense to not paying can be malpractice, but you need a couple of vets willing to say via affidavit that he should have caught this. You have good documentation and the tape of him saying he missed it. You have good evidence. C.) Contact an attorney, and see if they will take the case on contingency fee. D.) File a complant with the vet board (I would do this anyway - his negligence needs to be documented). Sure, mistakes happen, but he's culpable. Ask him now for a full copy of your veterinary records - call and ask to pick them up in 48 hours. Legally you can have access to them . Personally, I would just refuse to pay the bill and let him sue me in small claims, but file a complaint with the vet board NOW so that the complaint is on file before he has a chance to file a small claims suit against you. -L. >> If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for >> whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >Candace You might as well talk to a lawyer. Call the bar association and get the name of a couple of lawyers who handle professional malpractice suits. Call them and find out if they think you've got a case, and if they'd want to handle it on a contingency basis. I've gotten valuable consultations from good lawyers that way, never cost me anything. See if they think you should take that $1,000 and let us know. Charlie > > If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for > > whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Hmmm, well, 1,000 measly bucks is what he is willingly giving me as a > credit to the credit card I used. I think he should refund all the money you spent after Scottie was given doxy. He called me at work this > a.m.--apologetic, but basically saying that sh.t happens (he didn't > phrase it that way at all and was being very polite, etc) and he can't > know everything. Candace, any pill should be followed by water or canned food- not only to avoid medication-associated esophagitis and stricture formation, but for the cat's comfort- that's just plain common sense. Dry swallows are painful or at least uncomfortable for humans, why should he think they're any less uncomfortable for cats? He said he takes 150 hours of continuing education a > year when 20 is all that is required (both those facts are true because > I googled him and found that out) and he never has heard about it in > any of his seminars/classes. Continuing education seminars aren't what they're cracked up to be. A lot of doctors just sign in and leave and use the trip as a vacation which they can write off. He has used it on hundreds of cats and > administered it without water, never had a problem, Its possible. The adverse effects and drug warnings don't mean they will occur with every cat. He was simply lucky- but his luck ran out and Scottie paid the bet. so he never saw a > point in looking at the Plumb's. So, he admitted administering a drug without knowledge of the dosing instructions? How did he know how much to prescribe and how often? He is sorry and will never administer > it that way to a cat again but he basically said sh.t happens and > everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Everyone does make mistakes- but some mistakes are avoidable. Its his responsibility to take precautions to reduce the risk of mistakes. I didn't mention filing a complaint > or small claims court or anything. He must feel invincible, either > because he's had similar experiences or knows others who have. Maybe [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > He also said his partner, who only graduated from vet school in 2003, > had never heard about it either. I wouldn't expect him to say another vet warned him about the possiblity of doxy associated esophageal strictures even if one did. > And I must also say that a vet emailed me privately and said the > balloon dilation is not a cure but merely a treatment, that the > stricture usually recurs. I don't know if he meant after only one > treatment or after a series of treatments are performed because I did > read that it takes 2-10 times to be effective. You're right, the average number of dilations is two: J Vet Intern Med. 2001 Nov-Dec;15(6):547-52. Endoscopic balloon dilation of benign esophageal strictures in dogs and cats. Leib MS, Dinnel H, Ward DL, Reimer ME, Towell TL, Monroe WE. Virginia Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg 24061, USA. mleib@vt.edu Endoscopic balloon dilation of benign esophageal strictures was performed in 18 dogs and 10 cats with a median age of 4 years. Stricture formation was associated with a recent anesthetic episode in 18 patients. Regurgitation was the most common clinical sign and was present a median of 4 weeks before dilation. Most animals had a single stricture; median diameter was 5 mm, and median length was 1 cm. Esophagitis and mucosal fibrosis were detected in 9 patients each. Dilation was performed with progressively increasing diameter balloons, from 6 to 20 mm. After dilation, mucosal hemorrhage was mild to moderate in most patients. Esophageal perforation was the only serious complication and occurred in 1 patient. Postdilation therapy consisted of administration of cimetidine, metoclopramide, sucralfate, and prednisone in most animals. The median number of dilation procedures performed in each animal was 2, with a range of 1-5. The median interval between dilations was 13 days. Stricture diameter markedly increased with subsequent dilations. Median duration of follow-up was 131 weeks. A successful outcome occurred in 88% of patients, with most animals able to eat canned, mashed, or dry food without regurgitation. Mucosal fibrosis was associated with a better clinical response score, while increasing age was weakly associated with fewer dilations. The dilation protocol used in this group of animals was safe and efficacious. PMID: 11817059 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] What disturbs me and makes me very suspicious is the fact that he didn't even mention ballon dilation. It was *your* decision whether or not to opt for the treatment- not his. I think he withheld the information because he knew he most likely have to pay for the treatment because the formation of the stricture was arguably his fault. This vet also said the > whole doxy thing is common knowledge among vets. I told this to my > (former) vet and he said by asking on the internet, I would not get a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Candace Candace, you have to do what you feel you can live with. I would probably be more forgiving if he mentioned and offered to pay for balloon dilation to try to resolve the problem he caused. The fact that he didn't and agreed to euthanize Scottie when he knew a treatment with a high success rate was available makes it impossible for me to be merciful. As I said, you have to do what you feel is right in your heart and what you can live with. If you can live with it, take the $1,000 and try to begin the healing process. If not, go the distance so maybe other animals won't suffer. When a vet makes such a basic mistake like this, I can't help but think other animals have died or suffered as a result of his incompetence and deceit. If I seem bitter its because I lost a dearly loved cat many years ago because a vet made a very simple and avoidable mistake. Since then, I've seen too many animals die needlessly because of blunders. That's one of the reasons why I research every disease I'm faced with. I wish you the best in whatever course you choose to follow. Phil Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > What bothers me is that you and Phil have nothing at stake here, > and you are acting as firebrands, passing pre-emptive judgement on > someone you don't know and encouraging Candace to nurse a grudge. What else is new? SignatureMargarita Salt "...practically no one in the world is entirely bad or entirely good... motives are often more important than actions." -- Eleanore Roosevelt >>> That is bullshit conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not >>> have called and left the message he did. Real shitheads never admit [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money > back. ...and there you go passing judgement on others yourself. Nice going Chuckie! :-D > Charlie >> >From what Candace has said, I think the guy is just inept. He's still >> liable, though. >> >> -L. Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >>> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just >>> worrying about yours. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Charlie I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV. SignatureBrandy Alexandre --Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV. Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a boyfriend for breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened to your cat, you'd be screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the internet. You'd milk the tragedy for every drop of attention for yourself that you could ring out it. >> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV. > > Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a boyfriend for > breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened to your cat, you'd be > screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the internet. You'd milk the tragedy for > every drop of attention for yourself that you could ring out it. Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience Yeah right. You've seen it. Is that what you're lying about this time? I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded. SignatureBrandy Alexandre -- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll > @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > time? I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was > undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded. You're a sleazy liar: "The plaintiff, Brandy Alexandre, is a pornographic movie actress who's suing her ex- lover for royalties she claims he agreed to pay her for one of the movies she was in, as well as pain and suffering caused by the break-up of the relationship. She's seeking $5000. The defendant, John Stagliano, says he doesn't owe Ms. Alexandre a thing, and that any royalties that may have been due were offset by his payment of medical bills which the plaintiff incurred while she was in hospital. This is the case we call Porn To Lose." Judge Wapner ruled in Alexandre's favor for $1228. But she got nothing for pain and suffering."If I let you get away with money damages because you took the break-up harder than he did," said Judge Wapner, "every woman in California who's ever been jilted would be filing suit tomorrow." http://www.lukeford.com/stars/female/brandy_alexandre.html You've got to lay off the crack and cocaine because they're burning out the few brain cells you have left. >> I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was >> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded. >You're a sleazy liar: >Judge Wapner ruled in Alexandre's favor for $1228. But she got nothing for >pain and suffering. Maybe I'm missing something, but what you said and what Brandy said are the same thing. She said she got unpaid royalties (the $1228, right?) but nothing else. Not sure what this has to do with kitties. Stacia > >> I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was > >> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Maybe I'm missing something, but what you said and what Brandy said > are the same thing. You're right. You are missing something. The sleaze said she sued her boyfriend for unpaid royalties and for the "undue hardship for the money not being paid" when in fact she tried to sue her boyfriend for unpaid royalties, as well as *pain and suffering caused by the break-up of the relationship.*. Got it, now? Stacia is right Phil this original thread is about Candace's loss of Scottie and it should remain that way Us and a few other can stand Brandi , karleen, margarita salt or what ever she goes by But Glitter is right Phil we should concentrate on helping Candance if we can. You are doing a great job of doing it right now. I am glad we have you and a few others out here to help us. We just need to ignore the has been if we can I know she is such a easy target and a good laugh but I think we can restrain ourselves. Whatcha think there Phil? We can start our own thread if we want or add her to the other post about John doe and add her to the voting list ;-) >>> I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was >>> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Stacia Glitter Ninja <stacia@xmission.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >>> I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was >>> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Stacia He's just a stalking and harassing. He's also quoting hearsay. He hasn't seen the actual clip. He's easily led around by his mania. SignatureBrandy Alexandre -- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= harassing yes you are definitely a target since your comments not to long ago about the investigation you a one real f@cked piece of work If you think I am stalking you. Hey is that me knocking at your windows guess what NOT!!!! Do we need the crayons again for you the dollar store has a whole bunch we can buy as many as it takes > Glitter Ninja <stacia@xmission.com> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > He's just a stalking and harassing. He's also quoting hearsay. He > hasn't seen the actual clip. He's easily led around by his mania. ma·ni·a (mn-, mny) n. 1. An excessively intense enthusiasm, interest, or desire; a craze: a mania for neatness. 2. Psychiatry A manifestation of bipolar disorder, characterized by profuse and rapidly changing ideas, exaggerated sexuality, gaiety, or irritability, and decreased sleep. 3. Violent abnormal behavior. See Synonyms at insanity. Who has mania here I will admit to number 1 you became a perfect target after your little tift a couple weeks ago about the supposed investigation rememebr I am sure One of us can provide the post listing for you again Damn but who has number 2 and 3 there to bad Kami can't talk that poor cat deserves a medal for survival Are you sure I have not seen the clip I love the People court been watching for years even when Judge judys' husband was judge could be true that i have not seen it but Remember i am a stalker to you so makes you think I have not looked it up and order it just to watch over and over and over again. could be I am saying this to drives you nuts could be that it gets under your skin that is why I keep saying it could be lots of could be's But as long as it is doing what it is doing to you. I will keep doing it. And what a minute you said you got rid of this email due to some stalkers if you kept it that means you must enjoy the attention. Awww the truth shall set you free >> Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll >> @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >You've got to lay off the crack and cocaine because they're burning out the >few brain cells you have left. HORK! I didn't know about this one. But what lessons are presented in this story, Phil? I can see a couple right off. One is that Brandy is a brash character who thrives on notoriety. But we already knew that, right? Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a successful lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to make. Charlie > Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a successful > lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to make. I hate to break it to you, Charlie- but you failed to make your point. Suing an incompetent doctor for gross negligence is not remotely similar to suing a boyfriend because he dumped her. Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a successful >> lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to make. > > I hate to break it to you, Charlie- but you failed to make your > point. Suing an incompetent doctor for gross negligence is not > remotely similar to suing a boyfriend because he dumped her. Try looking up the legal definition of "gross negligence," you idiot. "GROSS NEGLIGENCE - Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of others." That's not what this is. SignatureBrandy Alexandre --Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a way that shows recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of > others." That's not what this is. It sure is, bimbo. He didn't instruct his client how to administer the medication properly, now did he, sleaze? Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife? What's the matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt? LOL! Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife? What's > the matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt? LOL! I saw you making such a fool out of yourself again in the quotes, I didn't want to miss it. Since you're trying to spew gross negligence as a cause of action, you are absolutely wrong. 100% (but what else is new). The statutory defintion of gross negligence is willful and reckless disregard for the consequences of actions. I know in your little pinhead you've dreamt up some huge conspiracy for this vet, but the fact is people only imagine things they are personally capable of. All you've proven is that it's what YOU would do in your 501(c)(3) fraudulant, tax-evading world. (You know, you shouldn't brag about your tax evasion in newsgroups as if the messages aren't going to be around forever.) Sticking to causes of action, ordinary negligence, that is, failure to use reasonable care, might be more to the facts. Reasonable care may be considered as continuing education and staying aprised of the latest studies on medications and administration. And keep arguing with me so you look more dumb. I do work for an attorney and he knows more than you because you are NOT an attorney, just like you aren't a vet. And it shows in every single post you make. You and your butt buddies have LONG claimed to be as good as a vet because you work closely with them, so go ahead and contradict yourselves in this case. I dare you. The sad fact remains that the law considers pets nothing more than property. They may only be allowed greater status if they are service animals, but they're still property and awards rarely will include pain and suffering on the basis of sentiment. I agree with Charlie that you're trying to incite Candace to actions that will only keep wounds open, hopes up, only to be dashed by the grim reality that the vet can likely provide a great deal of anecdotal evidence showing that his practice has never had such a problem with doxy regardless of the fact that it make have been incorrectly administered. She should take the high road, accept his apology, acknowledge that he does, more likely than not, feel bad about what happened, and negotiate to recover the money invested in Scotties care during this illness. And then move on. I know I'm a bad guy about it, but don't forget that she came to the group saying she thought she was at fault because of certain facts and I only agreed and stated why. Shame on me. Unlike you and your cohorts, I don't sit her and make up a bunch of sh.t trying to make her look or feel bad. I'm sure she does. If she only said that so she could hear a bunch of people reassure that she had no hand in it whatsoever, shame on her. SignatureBrandy Alexandre --Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > you are absolutely wrong. 100% (but what else is new). The > statutory defintion of gross negligence Don't ya think you should finish high-school before you try tackling law, low-life? Did you satisfied your pathological need for attention by highjacking yet another thread? Why don't you go back to your porn and gossip newsgroups, animal abusing sleaze- that's where you belong- and spare the cat people your self-serving bullshit? <brandy bullshit snipped> > Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > > > Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife? What's > > the matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt? LOL! > I saw you making such a fool out of yourself again in the quotes, I > didn't want to miss it. Another bullshit story: You really are a pathological liar, aren't you? You responded to my post *directly*, - you sleazy animal abusing liar. Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > aren't you? You responded to my post *directly*, - you sleazy > animal abusing liar. Hello? Duh. Read it again. SignatureBrandy Alexandre --Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Hello? Duh. Read it again. You replied to me directly, didn't you, bimbo? Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You replied to me directly, didn't you, bimbo? Yes I did, and if you could read, you'd figure out that I took you out because I didn't want to miss you making a fool of yourself again. As for snipping my post, nice evasion. Couldn't find a source to copy/paste your answer from like you usually do? SignatureBrandy Alexandre --Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yes I did, and if you could read, you'd figure out that I took you out > because I didn't want to miss you making a fool of yourself again. I don't think so, bimbo. You're a little slow, aren't you? Must be all the drugs. The point is, bimbo, you can't kill file anyone because you just *have* to know what people say about you. Can't handle being a has been, can you? Oops. I shouldn't piss you off because you might take it out on Kami, you f.cking sleazy animal abuser. Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > I don't think so, bimbo. You're a little slow, aren't you? Must > be all the drugs. The point is, bimbo, you can't kill file anyone > because you just *have* to know what people say about you. Can't > handle being a has been, can you? Manufacture motives and actions all you like, just like you're doing with Candace's vet, but only reflects on how you live your own life. Nothing to do with mine. Since you're evading the issues I laid out, I'll put you back in theplonk. Happy now? Buh-bye, fraud. SignatureBrandy Alexandre -- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Manufacture motives and actions all you like, just like you're doing > with Candace's vet, Really? If the vet wasn't being deceitful and trying to cover his mistake, why didn't mention balloon dilation to Candace and let *her* make the decision. huh, bimbo? but only reflects on how you live your own life. > Nothing to do with mine. That's right, sleaze, I hold vets to higher standards than you. You think a vet is good just because he has good beside manners. > Since you're evading the issues I laid out, I'll put you back in > theplonk. Happy now? Absolutely! I don't want to have discussions with you- I just want to ridicule you because you're an animal abuser. >> Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife? What's the > matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt? LOL! Poor Brandy, caught responding directly to someone she says was killfiled. This is the perfect example of how drugs affects the correct functioning of the brain. Don't take drugs kids! Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience BTW, why are you always so willing to let Phil make a fool out of you leading you down these garden paths? You've become part of his psychosis. http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated following and harassing of another person" Types of stalkers The Resentful: * The goal of this stalker is to frighten and distress the victim. * These stalkers may also experience feelings of injustice and desire revenge. The Predatory: * The power and control that comes from stalking a victim gives these stalkers a great deal of enjoyment. * The stalker often strives to learn more about the victim. * The stalker may even mentally rehearse a plan to attack the victim. * Most of these stalkers are diagnosed paraphilias and, compared to the previous four categories, they were more likely to have histories of sexual offense convictions. http://www.bullyonline.org/related/stalking.htm The stalker exhibits a familiar pattern of behaviour. Stalking often starts as a result of rejection; rejection rage and abandonment rage motivate the stalker to seek revenge through a predictable pattern of stalking behavior. The stalker, usually a loner and socially inept, becomes obsessed with their target and bombards them with messages, emails, gifts, or abuse. The stalking behaviour can last for years and the intensity of abuse increases over time. The abuse, initially consisting of psychological violence, often escalates and culminates in physical violence. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing messages by the simple push of a button; more sophisticated cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without being physically present at the computer terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations where a victim repeatedly receives the message "187" on their pagers - the section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into harassing or threatening a victim by utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat rooms. For example, a stalker may post a controversial or enticing message on the board under the name, phone number, or e-mail address of the victim, resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the victim. Each message -- whether from the actual cyberstalker or others -- will have the intended effect on the victim, but the cyberstalker's effort is minimal and the lack of direct contact between the cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for law enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender. SignatureBrandy Alexandre -- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^= > BTW, why are you always so willing to let Phil make a fool out of > you leading you down these garden paths? You've become part of his > psychosis. > > http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm Oh yes, Karleen, you're such a victim!!! Don't flatter yourself. -L. What her a victim? L Please tell me you are joking Please Please Please Tell me you got to be joking please say so < sh@t eating grin > >> BTW, why are you always so willing to let Phil make a fool out of >> you leading you down these garden paths? You've become part of his [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -L. Here we go again ROFTLMAO stop it please you are making me laugh so hard you. Oh god call 911 my side are splitting at least you are good for something thank you for the laugh I thought you plonked me I suggest you do so if you don't like what I have to say. You don't have worry about me being a stalker of you. For that to happen you would actual have to matter to and in my world and definitely not sorry to say you will never have that stasis of being in it. What was it Phil that judge said on the peoples court what was that link so she can remember what the judge said > Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll > @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > between the cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for > law enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender. > Here we go again > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >> between the cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for >> law enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender. I see the sleaze is tryna stir the pot again. :-D > Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll > @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated > following and harassing of another person" Wow! You really are delusional! First of all, animal abusing crack whore, I was posting here long before you infested this group. Thus, you followed me here. Second, I'm not harassing you, sleaze, I'm ridiculing you because you're an animal abusing crack whore. If you finished high school, you would have known the difference between harassment and ridicule. "Phil P." <phil@maxshouse.com> But Phil she admires us so much to calls us NG stalkers. Psst. I think I know a secret Phil she has a crush on you. She is just embarrassed to admit it With her freely admitting that she placed a false complaint against your facility does that mean she is stalking you? ;-o > >> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about > >> yours. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that > have arisen because of it. Charlie, I think you've been pounding your pud to old Brandy videos too much. You really need to get off that island once in awhile to see what's happening in the real world. The vet was caught red-handed, dead-to-right-- no ambiguity there. He has no choice but to play dumb and remorseful so not to antagonize Candace and inflame the situation. Sure, he probably feels bad, but he's worried more about his own a.s. There was absolutely no excuse for his blunder. Many human drugs have potentially severe adverse effects when used in cats. Its the vet's obligation and responsibility to prescribe them correctly- that's what we pay them for. He was simply negligent- and a cat died needless because of it. >>> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about >>> yours. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That is bullshit conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not > have called and left the message he did. > Real shitheads never admit > they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone > else. By golly, you have described Brandy to a T with that statement. > The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad > about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that > have arisen because of it. > > Charlie >> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about >> yours. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > P I guess what was in my mind was a family physician we used years ago. My sister used him as well and he blew a diagnosis big time with her older daughter. The girl had epiglotitis and he said she couldn't because she was too old and didn't take the proper action. My niece ended up being admitted that night because her throat was swelling shut. She spent the following week in the pediatric ICU of one of the teaching hospitals downtown with a tube down her throat so she could breathe. The family physician apologized profusely and it wasn't just bullsh*t. It was a wake up call to a good practice that they had been in business just long enough to get a little complacent. Both doctors in that office were far better practitioners after that. I got better care for my son (with cerebral palsy) from them than the pediatrician. My thought was that Candace's vet seemed to freely admit that he could have been at fault. He wasn't making a bunch of excuses so maybe he is a good vet who needed a wake up call. If that's the case you can bet he will be a lot more careful with that medication in the future and probably look more carefully at other meds as well. OTOH nobody knows what made Scottie sick to begin with and nobody is certain that it wasn't cancer that caused the constriction instead of the medication because a necropsy wasn't done. He offered to credit $1000. Even if the constriction was caused by the medication, how much of the bill was a result of that and how much of the bill was for trying to find out what was wrong with the poor kitty to begin with. Someone other than me will have to determine what they think is fair. Either way, I feel so sorry the poor kitty didn't make it. Not knowing what made Scottie sick to begin with we'll never know if he could have been saved if a different medication was used. It's possible the outcome would have been the same. W > He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be > there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Candace I still say you're f.cking negligent. And what do you expect the Vet to f.cking say....? He probably thinks by now that he's dealing with a nut-cast (i.e.: a KOOK). Just let it go and learn from it.. I wouldn't go around exclaiming the details of the whole situation like you do, though. Makes it look like you're trying to aire your guilty f.cking conscience. IBen |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.