The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 302
  1. #161
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    16,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    Absolutely. And the morality of the seller (or not) is irrelevant to this case. The buyer had a trainer/agent working for her. The buyer had a PPE. The seller could have been the worst lying bustard on Earth and it wouldn't have made a difference. Note that the seller is not named as a defendant in the complaint.
    We don't even know if the seller learned the results of the PPE. For all the seller knew, the pony WAS sound when sold. Reading between the lines, it seems like Heritage had the pony in their program when it was purchased. it might have leigitimately been sound when it left the seller and got to Heritage. The pony might have foundered on Heritage's watch. Yet ANOTHER reason to block it and sell it.

    Seller might be equally disturbed/upset to learn about the rotation/blocking. What if the pony did founder in Heritage's care and therefore didn't sell when the buyer was told? It would get back to the seller why the sale fell throught... Then the seller might be after Heritage for failure to properly care for the pony.

    If the pony foundered under Heritage's watch, and the choices are enjoy a big commission and hide the founder or buck up, be honest, lose the sale, and maybe get sued by the seller.... is it so shocking which option might win out? Heritage was in a better position to keep the buyer in mushroom status than the seller... AND get a commission on top.

    Why not? Unless moral obligations bother you.
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/



  2. #162
    Join Date
    Sep. 2, 2005
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    12,976

    Default

    How would the blocking happen time and time again with out the pony owner knowing about it? I have to assume they paid the bill for it.



  3. #163
    Join Date
    Jan. 31, 2010
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    4,027

    Default

    Is it possible the pony was nerved/blocked for the initial PPE, so the vet looked at the x-rays, but assumed it to be a non-issue as pony was sound, passed that info on to trainer, trainer filters the info further to just pony is sound. Trainer may then have come to see pony has issues, panicked, and dealt with it by blocking rather than owning up to their mistake.

    Question: if the pony was allegedly being blocked to show prior to the PO moving barns and becoming aware of the issue, who was paying the vet bill for this service? If PO was paying and just not paying attention that is one thing, but if trainer was paying and then rebilling creatively, or swallowing the costs, that changes things.
    Freeing worms from cans everywhere!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Dec. 28, 2001
    Location
    over yonder
    Posts
    2,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    Now, now. I do hate it when trainers write in such a way that it appears that they are talking down to their clueless clients. I believe this poster is using that kind of short-hand when she says that she would be comfortable with this or that problem on an older horse for a kid or ammie. Of course the trainer knows that she is being comfortable on behalf of the client.

    It's also reasonable for a trainer to add their years of experience comparing Xray or conformation flaws to the horse's clinical soundness and tell their client what their experience has led them to believe about how that plays out. But it does sound as though the trainer is playing ducks and drakes with the client's money without some careful wording.
    I get what you are saying but these are situations where it is very easy for a trainer to interpret and relay the vets finding according to their own thoughts of what is best for the client rather than laying things out objectively in lay terms for the client to make their own descisions.
    Auventera Two:Some women would eat their own offspring if they had some dipping sauce.



  5. #165
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    16,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trubandloki View Post
    How would the blocking happen time and time again with out the pony owner knowing about it? I have to assume they paid the bill for it.
    I am guessing the line item said something like "maintenance" or "show fees" and not "nerve blocking" but who's to say the buyer DIDN'T pay for it and just not realize WHAT she was buying?! She may have seen a monthly injection on the bill and thought it was Adequan or the like. Or maybe they don't itemize bills?! I assume Heritage found some way not to obviously disclose whatever was going on, if you assume some nefarious treatment was happening.
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2001
    Location
    12th floor of the Acme building in a city that knows how to keep it's secrets.
    Posts
    5,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHT View Post
    Is it possible the pony was nerved/blocked for the initial PPE, so the vet looked at the x-rays, but assumed it to be a non-issue as pony was sound, passed that info on to trainer, trainer filters the info further to just pony is sound. Trainer may then have come to see pony has issues, panicked, and dealt with it by blocking rather than owning up to their mistake.

    Question: if the pony was allegedly being blocked to show prior to the PO moving barns and becoming aware of the issue, who was paying the vet bill for this service? If PO was paying and just not paying attention that is one thing, but if trainer was paying and then rebilling creatively, or swallowing the costs, that changes things.
    I would assume they also did a drug screen for the PPE. I am certainly not up on every last thing that can be done, but what would they block with that wouldn't test? And if it needed to be made sound to show, it needed to be made sound to ride. Unless that kid just rides at the shows, there would be a whole lot of drugs going through that pony.
    *****
    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.



  7. #167
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2007
    Posts
    3,251

    Default

    Isn't there some sort of nerving process one can do that actually severs the nerves in the feet by an invasive procedure but these nerves can actually grow back? Maybe it was something of that sort?

    I haven't had a chance to read the entire petition, and the article seemed very vague on that part of it.



  8. #168
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vxf111 View Post
    We don't even know if the seller learned the results of the PPE. For all the seller knew, the pony WAS sound when sold. Reading between the lines, it seems like Heritage had the pony in their program when it was purchased. it might have leigitimately been sound when it left the seller and got to Heritage. The pony might have foundered on Heritage's watch. Yet ANOTHER reason to block it and sell it.

    Seller might be equally disturbed/upset to learn about the rotation/blocking. What if the pony did founder in Heritage's care and therefore didn't sell when the buyer was told? It would get back to the seller why the sale fell throught... Then the seller might be after Heritage for failure to properly care for the pony.

    If the pony foundered under Heritage's watch, and the choices are enjoy a big commission and hide the founder or buck up, be honest, lose the sale, and maybe get sued by the seller.... is it so shocking which option might win out? Heritage was in a better position to keep the buyer in mushroom status than the seller... AND get a commission on top.

    Why not? Unless moral obligations bother you.
    It doesn't matter if the seller was in on some deal with the buyer's agents. The pony passed through that "gate" of a PPE exam. That's a buyer-protecting gate insofar as the vet and presumably the trainer are working for the buyer, not the seller. If Heritage Farm was the agent for buyer and seller, I'd hope that was disclosed to the buyer before Griffith's opinion during the PPE was taken seriously by anyone.

    The complaint says that the Xrays took on or around the PPE date showed rotation. Did the pony look lame then? Does soreness or the degree of rotation they saw count as "founder"?

    If you take those X-rays as the sine qua non of a pony that is unsuitable for the purposes bought, it was fubar before Heritage started managing it on behalf of the buyer.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  9. #169
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2000
    Location
    SW PA
    Posts
    2,248

    Default

    This will be an interesting case to follow.

    Caveat emptor most definitely. Livestock is just that, livestock. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose is how I always purchase.
    Proud to have two Takaupa Gold line POAs!
    Takaupas Top Gold
    Gifts Black Gold Knight


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    16,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    It doesn't matter if the seller was in on some deal with the buyer's agents. The pony passed through that "gate" of a PPE exam. That's a buyer-protecting gate insofar as the vet and presumably the trainer are working for the buyer, not the seller. If Heritage Farm was the agent for buyer and seller, I'd hope that was disclosed to the buyer before Griffith's opinion during the PPE was taken seriously by anyone.

    The complaint says that the Xrays took on or around the PPE date showed rotation. Did the pony look lame then? Does soreness or the degree of rotation they saw count as "founder"?

    If you take those X-rays as the sine qua non of a pony that is unsuitable for the purposes bought, it was fubar before Heritage started managing it on behalf of the buyer.
    It really doesn't matter if the seller was "in on it" from the POV of who the PPE was FOR. But if the seller WASN'T in on it and the rotation happened on Heritage's watch-- that's yet ANOTHER reason that makes the big lie appealing. That's my point.
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #171
    Join Date
    Jan. 31, 2010
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    4,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmedHope View Post
    Isn't there some sort of nerving process one can do that actually severs the nerves in the feet by an invasive procedure but these nerves can actually grow back? Maybe it was something of that sort?

    I haven't had a chance to read the entire petition, and the article seemed very vague on that part of it.
    Yes, that was what I was thinking of, the pony was "nerved" and it grew back. But there is the other way of temporarily doing it that only lasts a few months...does that really show in a blood test? And if you did do a blood test, aren't there a 100 things you could possibly test for, so do people actually test for them all?
    Freeing worms from cans everywhere!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #172
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2000
    Location
    Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    23,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmedHope View Post
    Isn't there some sort of nerving process one can do that actually severs the nerves in the feet by an invasive procedure but these nerves can actually grow back? Maybe it was something of that sort?
    Nerving would be the exact name of that procedure.
    Definition of "Horse": a 4 legged mammal looking for an inconvenient place and expensive way to die. Any day they choose not to execute the Master Plan is just more time to perfect it. Be Very Afraid.



  13. #173
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RockinHorse View Post
    I get what you are saying but these are situations where it is very easy for a trainer to interpret and relay the vets finding according to their own thoughts of what is best for the client rather than laying things out objectively in lay terms for the client to make their own descisions.
    Yabbut, the client who has now paid 2 pros to give her input knows that horses are a giant gray zone money pit.

    Neither pro can predict the future and they'll be careful to remind you of that if you start to ask for too much assurance! Also, I have *yet* to meet a DVM that won't put his/her findings into layman's terms. IMO, you don't need a trainer to do this and the trainer is not better qualified than the vet to do it.

    And trainers aren't the only ones who have seen the horse with, say, fugly-on-film knees, stay sound or not over time. IME, vets will give you their .02 off-the-record opinion about what happens in the future to horses with this or that defect seen on that day. Try talking to a vet with whom you have a good relationship at a PPE and then reading the written results! You see a lot more CYA language in the written form.

    So the client has really missed something if she pays for two different pros to evaluate the horse from their respective areas of expertise.... and then doesn't communicate directly with one of 'em.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    2 members found this post helpful.

  14. #174
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2009
    Posts
    4,637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vxf111 View Post
    Reading between the lines, it seems like Heritage had the pony in their program when it was purchased. it might have leigitimately been sound when it left the seller and got to Heritage. The pony might have foundered on Heritage's watch. Yet ANOTHER reason to block it and sell it.
    I'm not sure what lines you are reading between...where would you get the idea that the pony was in Heritage's program when it was sold? There is nothing in the complaint that would indicate such a thing. The pony might have been physically located at Heritage for the prepurchase (perhaps on a trial period), or it might have just been vetted by Heritage's vet at the seller's farm. I don't think you can really tell from the complaint.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #175
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vxf111 View Post
    It really doesn't matter if the seller was "in on it" from the POV of who the PPE was FOR. But if the seller WASN'T in on it and the rotation happened on Heritage's watch-- that's yet ANOTHER reason that makes the big lie appealing. That's my point.
    Then you'd have to know when the pony came to Heritage Farm. Again, from the buyer/plaintiff's POV, it's irrelevant because the pony feetz Xrays showed rotation on the PPE day.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  16. #176
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2009
    Posts
    4,637

    Default

    On the subject of trainers "interpreting" PPE results for customers: my junior hunter was definitely represented to my parents differently by my trainer than what his PPE exam actually revealed.

    The only reason I know this is that I found his written PPE results in my parents' basement years and years and years later (long after we no longer owned the horse).

    At the time of purchase, I know the trainer told my parents that there was essentially "something a little different" in his front feet, particularly one of them, but that it was not likely to be a big deal. We bought the horse. He was frequently lame. He was on isoxuprine at home (off of it for shows), and he was shod like a navicular horse.

    Surprise, surprise, the written prepurchase results revealed that the horse had notable navicular changes, particularly on one front foot.

    Certainly, my parents must have had the opportunity to read the report (although if it worked the same way as it did when I later bought my current horse as an adult, they probably didn't have the written report until long after they had already sent the check), but they are not horse people and would have had NO idea what navicular changes signify. IMO, the vet should have some obligation to explain the prepurchase results DIRECTLY to the purchaser.

    It's not rocket science. This stuff is teachable, and can be explained to a non-horse person sufficiently so that it can be understood by them.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  17. #177
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2001
    Location
    12th floor of the Acme building in a city that knows how to keep it's secrets.
    Posts
    5,038

    Default

    I suppose we can assume that since the x rays are technically the owner's, she was able to get a look at them and have another vet evaluate them?
    *****
    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.



  18. #178
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2009
    Posts
    4,637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midge View Post
    I suppose we can assume that since the x rays are technically the owner's, she was able to get a look at them and have another vet evaluate them?
    My guess is that that is what eventually happened. That is how I found out that some of my current horse's prepurchase x-rays are unreadable. I left the program I was in and had my vet records transferred to a new vet clinic. The vet at the new clinic reviewed them in connection with a lameness issue my horse was experiencing (unrelated to area with the unreadable x-rays) and told me, "You know some of these x-rays are unreadable, right?" Um, no. No I did not.



  19. #179
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    Are folks thinking that the pony was nerved for Pony Finals? I have never heard of a pony's feet being blocked for anything other than diagnostic purposes.


    Poor pony. I hate this sport sometimes.



  20. #180
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineAlready View Post
    IMO, the vet should have some obligation to explain the prepurchase results DIRECTLY to the purchaser.
    Yeah. That's why one of the interesting parts of this complaint is the paragraph about what Heritage Farm told the PPE vet to do: As I read it, the farm set up the PPE and had the vet communicate with the plaintiff. No where does it say that the vet was not to speak to the plaintiff, or to the trainers first.

    FWIW, this vet has a good reputation and has been around awhile. I'm sure he knew that he was working for the buyers, not the trainers, when performing a PPE.

    Just who decided not to give the full scoop to the buyers on PPE day seems a central issue. But I don't think the buyer should have been obligated to do any special wringing of information from the vet.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



Similar Threads

  1. AQHA lawsuit
    By MyssMyst in forum Western
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: Dec. 29, 2012, 11:45 PM
  2. Another idiotic horse lawsuit
    By Trakehner in forum Off Course
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sep. 19, 2012, 09:58 PM
  3. Lawsuit Verdict of $1.2M
    By SuperSTB in forum Off Course
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: Apr. 11, 2010, 08:37 AM
  4. Lawsuit against eventing??
    By brindille in forum Eventing
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: Apr. 1, 2008, 07:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness