Okay guys here is a little background.... Horse presented with WLD, upon resection a Karatoma was found and removed. I do not have x-rays but it had invaded the coffin bone significantly. After surgery... Things progress nicely and according to the way the vet expected them to go... Six months post op... After this setting the owner insisted on making him barefoot. There reasoning behind it was that "when he won the world he was barefoot". After warning her that he probably won't be able to handle being barefoot I pulled the shoes. Low and behold he was "off". He has since been put back into shoes with side clips and a pour in pad on the left front, the foot that had the karatoma removed. I was under the impression that he was going well like that. He is a pasture ornament and not ridden at all. The owner lives out of state and therefor he is just a pasture pet now. However the owner tells me today that after I left last time he was sore. News to me, i reset him three weeks ago and never heard that anything was amiss. Sorry I do not have more recent pictures as I thought he was doing well and I haven't been documenting lately. How often do you guys see horses with that much of an invasive surgery return to use? How many of them are able to be barefoot again? Besides the shoes, clips, and pour in pads what would you try to make him sound? I will try to get some pics this week if they will let me. Heck at this point I might be banned from the place who knows.
Interesting case and a job well done. After the reset, how long was he sore? Is there any indication that he might have some infection under the wall? Perhaps instead of pour in pads, a full frog support pad and Venice Turpentine/Pine Tar mix covered lightly with Oakum might help. If those folks don't let you back on the farm, that's their loss.
No signs of infection. As for how long he is sore, I'm not sure. I just got clued in that he was sore at all. I was under the impression that he was going well. I only found out about the lameness last night in a text telling me they were not pleased with spending so much money and having such poor results in his recovery. I am supposed to actually talk with the owner soon. Hopefully that will shed some more light on what is going on. I thought about the frog support. That was what he was in before being forced to take him barefoot. He seemed to do well in them. This all hinges on the owner having him being barefoot and sound as her goal. A goal I have told her many times may never happen. Sound is likely, sound and barefoot is not nearly as likely.
Gabino The horse grew some proud flesh in the karatoma site, when it was removed the vet had the foot wrapped with an adhesive bandage. the bandage stuck to the coronet band right there, cause a sore/abcess. That has since grown out. Tom no firearms were involved.
[quote="Shane Wood, post: 18091, member: 67" Six months post op... After this setting the owner insisted on making him barefoot. There reasoning behind it was that "when he won the world he was barefoot". After warning her that he probably won't be able to handle being barefoot I pulled the shoes. Low and behold he was "off". [/quote] **headdeskheaddesk** i don't know how you guys stand it at times with owners like this . . . .
Then you have an ethical problem. You "knew" that leaving the horse barefoot was not the right thing to do, but you willfully accepted the contract and payment. Therefore, you are directly responsible for the results when the horse suffers.
actually, not true....it is what the owner wants......he can suggest; but he can not by law put shoes on a horse; if the owner does not want it...it is the owners horse to do what ever they want to....and the right to withhold treatment from their horse if they want; or change farriers at anytime. the owner broke contract; when they changed the rules in the middle of the shoeing job. ergo....farrier is not responsible. this goes for vets as well. horse is considered private property of the owner to what ever they want.
federal law look it up please and all state laws concerning it.....you will find does always work that way in the real world...you are also going by business law; not by what states say what owners do with their own pets...I will consult with a lawyer who does equine law; and find out. BTW, I was her [the lawyer's] old farrier; and even when it was better for her horse to have shoes; she said no, so no shoes....this was back in 1998. food for thought
READ FOR COMPREHENSION!!! The farrier is NOT OBLIGATED to provide further service to the account. The owner specified the contract BEFORE the next engagement. The farrier accepted the conditions of the contract against his own judgement BEFORE commencing work.
How about you post a link to ANY law that obligates anybody to engage in a contract when they disagree with the terms.
So you just did what you were told over and over again even though you know it was not best for the horse. Obviously the owner did not consider you to be a competent professional, but merely contract labor hired to follow instructions.
Mr. Bloomer is spot on in this case. Look up strict liability and negligence laws. By performing work that he knew to be detrimental, he took responsibility and could be held liable if there were actual, provable, damages because of the work. Go to the other site and look up the discussion about going against vet recommendations, all this was covered in that discussion. Hope that helps. David
He did not "know" that leaving the horse barefoot was not the right thing to do. The horse is the owners property. He complied with the owners wishes, and found out that the horse was not happy barefoot. So he put the horse back in shoes. I would have done the same thing. At this point, if the owner insists that the horse should be barefoot, even though it is a bad decision, Shane has the option to "renegotiate the contract" if he's uncomfortable with it. He has done his best, and a good job I might add. Does anyone have an answer to Shane's question? "How often do you guys see horses with that much of an invasive surgery return to use? How many of them are able to be barefoot again? Besides the shoes, clips, and pour in pads what would you try to make him sound?" Talk about a failure to read for content!
Rick I will be happy to refer business your way where, "After warning her that he probably won't be able to handle being barefoot - " the owner insists on testing the odds. When it doesn't work out you can make excuses about the "transition period" and the ability of the horse to heal itself "naturally." IMO the question is rhetorical. The farrier already stated his opinion of the probability and then willfully acted against it. Now what? How does one justify a bad decision after the fact? "I was just following orders."
In the past few weeks we have had some snow, I have pulled shoes off horse I thought would be ok and we're not. I have also pulled shoes of some I didn't think would make it and they were just fine. Last time I checked none of us have a crystal ball. Tom when is the last time you heard of a verbal contract hold up in a court of law. Negligence would be hard to prove IMO in this case. Even if you walked away it could still be construed as negligence on your part for not doing the horse on schedule. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong Tom, I will give you the number of a farrier who can tell you his experience walking away from an account that owed him money.
Shane I have done quite a few of these, prob 8 or 9, We shot a couple, one was an old hunter but he did hunt another year, and the other was a hunt horse and the pedal bone fractured because of the hole weakening it. That pedal bone is in the cabinet at the vets. The rest have returned to work. all shod. I have also had 2 founder in the first month of the resection and one develop bute toxicity. Its a very complex convalescence and nowt written in stone for each one. When I have reshod them for no apparent reason they have been sore, The vet used to tell the client to bute the horse if it were off and get me back if it were lame. Keep an eye out for pockets of serum under the sole.
