You're the one being hysterical. What law is it that says a farrier has to shoe a horse according to the dictates of a veterinarian? Your failure to read for comprehension and apparent lack of education regarding professional ethics doesn't mean I didn't cite a precedent - specifically in the medical profession where, for one example, a doctor cannot bring disciplinary action against a nurse if a nurse refuses to administer a medication that he or she knows to be harmful. The nurse has the legal right and obligation to refuse, and a duty to report the incident. If the doctor insists he or she can administer the medication him/herself. But maybe if you find a lot of vets telling you how to do your job it's because they think you don't know what you're doing in the first place.
Tom or Rick, can either of you come up with something reasonable that a Farrier would do that would be considered malpractice? FYI, anything along the lines of driving a nail through the center of a horses foot is not considered reasonable.
Tom, comparing the Doctor /Nurse relationship to the Vet/Farier just doesn't fly. Farriery is not licensed in this country but nursing is. In the eyes of the law of this land, farriery is considered a trade not a profession, so the talk of malpractice doesn't ever apply. That is a legal opinion backed by case law. If a farrier would like the liability protection provided by a Vet's insurance company, he should follow the Doctor's dictates or as I like to call them his/her Rx. When the horse owners' insurance company comes a calling I like being underneath that Veterinarians umbrella, thank you very much. I can't recall any Vet telling me HOW to do my job, they request various known shoeing techniques/ trimming techniques and/or orthotics. If I'm up to the task, I then provide what was requested. Sounds to me,that you want to play Veterinarian and diagnose horses' lameness and cure all their ills and you aren't receiving the recognition you feel you deserve. How sad. Maybe if you worked on your people skills, you might receive that sought after respect... Rick, it's also sad that you find yourself pitted in such an adversarial relationship with Veterinarians.
So is the famous failed legal defense, "I was just following orders." So then you are the vet's W2 employee? You are contracted by the vet to perform the installation at their direction and under their direct supervision? You have a copy of the vet's insurance policy - the part that covers your hide while working under the vet? There you go again failing to comprehend. Let me spell it out for you. If you don't give every horse the best you've got to give, then you're just going through the motions. There are times when a veterinarian can be very helpful as a team player. There are also times when a vet doesn't "see the horse" makes a diagnosis without taking a history and orders a prescription. They are just going through the motions for the pay check. You don't need any people skills to work with vets like this because you will never get a chance to talk to them or have any input. They will pass messages to you through a third party, leave x-rays at the barn with cryptic written instructions like "chop off the end of P3 and set the shoe back" Eric Russel are you seeing this? Should I have followed this prescription? When you try to get in touch with one of these hit and run doctors to find out WTF they are thinking, they will leave you hanging without a return call because they really don't want to talk to you anyway. They have already been paid. As long as they leave everything cryptic, no matter what you do, if it turns out good, that's exactly what they wanted, if it turns out bad, you didn't follow their "instructions." Ps: That is a Sigafoos Series I shoe so the plastic rim is 3/8" ABOVE the tip of P3.
Interesting question, Eric. Having now spent considerable time reflecting on it, IMO, I think it would be doing something that because of my skill/knowledge/ability, or lack there of, I was not comfortable doing. As to whether following/implementing any given veterinary Rx and whether or not that would or could be construed as malpractice or negligence, I think that would be a matter for the legal system to decide/determine. Perhaps Thomas could ask his wife (an attorney) for her thoughts on the matter. Also, I'm not so sure that just because I, as an independent contractor, am working at the direct behest/supervision of a veterinarian, that I am covered under his/her liability policy, for if I was, then why would/do I need to carry my own policy?
In a nutshell, I find it deplorable when a farrier ( or someone who calls them-self a farrier ) would prioritize on placating a veterinarian over doing right by the horse. Your first duty is to be true to yourself and second is to be true to the horse. You can't compromise one without compromising the other. If you don't agree with the prescription, nobody is holding a gun to your head making you do the work. Nothing is stopping you from bowing out gracefully by telling the client, "I'm sorry but I don't believe this is the right thing for me to do and I can't do it in good conscience. So you will have to find someone else to shoe your horse." But if you don't have a conscience, I guess it doesn't matter now does it? Writhing in the throes of mediocrity.
Tom & rick are you saying that when working with a vet that if you have an idea and you present that idea and the vets says let's try this for a cycle or two although you don't agree with said RX ..but you think the RX is not what you would like to see on the horse but you also feel that what the vet wants is not anymore harmful than any other Shoeing ..you just feel the vets RX will not improve the horse like you think ur way can...at this point to you bow out..
No, Travis, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that if I'm not comfortable doing what the vet wants done, then I recuse myself. I think Tom best put my thoughts into words in his post just above.
I guess we need to define doing the right thing for the horse...because I have everyone of us has our own right think or what we consider correct ...
Superior check ligament desmotomy to treat upright pastern. Vet insisted I trim the heels to blood. Bassackwards protocol - should have used a wedge - it wasn't a club foot. I disagreed with the vet's RX shared my concerns with the owner. At the time I was a rookie. Vet insisted I do it his way. I went along with the vets RX. It ruined the horse and it wound up a useless pasture ornament. When the vet examined the horse 3 months later I put the handle of my hoof knife under the heel. The vet says, oh yes now for this part of the treatment we are going to wedge up the heels . . . As a policy I walk away from any client that uses this particular vet - especially since there have since been other horses that were similarly destroyed when I walked away and another farrier stepped in to follow the vet/s RX. Like wedge up a suspensory strain . . . sure doc, whatever you say. A month later the horse is a permanent cripple and the owner can't ride him anymore - but it didn't happen on my watch and the owner blames the farrier that nailed on the wedge the vet prescribed.
I've done a fair amount of research on the topic of farrier liability. In short, there is very little case law in the United States and with good reason. The term 'malpractice' almost invariably applies to licensed, professional, medical practitioners. American farriers do not fall into any part of this definition. We are not licensed. Certification does not constitute a license. Farriers in the United States are not legally defined as professionals. The legal term would be tradesmen. We do not and are specifically prohibited from providing medical services. Horses are property and as such, have no rights of direct representation in a circuit court. Because of this, damages are almost always limited to a claims court and as such, are limited under tort law to intrinsic property value. In other words, a plaintiff isn't going to make a case for punitive damages. To pursue malpractice beyond a claims court, the bulk of responsibility is on the plaintiff to demonstrate four elements of negligent medical malpractice. 1. A duty of care was owed by the practitioner. 2. The practitioner violated the applicable standard of care. 3. The care recipient suffered a compensable injury. 4. The injury was caused in fact and proximately caused by the substandard conduct. Here's the 'gotcha' that every plaintiff runs into. Malpractice is based on a collection of concepts called 'Standard of Care'. There is no legally recognized 'standard of care' in the practice of farriery. A farrier cannot violate a standard of care that does not exist. Item 4 also presents a significant challenge for the plaintiff. They have to prove that the horse suffered solely and as a direct result of your work. In therapeutic cases, this is all but impossible to prove. All of this boils down to two important points. First, the farrier could not be held responsible for more than the fair market value of the animal. Second, the responsibility would hinge on the plaintiff proving the farrier violated a standard of care that does not exist and further demonstrating the animal suffered directly from your work. So what happens if a farrier were to ignore a veterinarian trimming/shoeing prescription? Again, there is no 'standard of care' that defines trimming/shoeing a horse. This means there really is no such thing as a 'veterinary prescription' for shoeing. Veterinarians have no more professional license with regard to shoeing a horse than a farrier. In fact, most states provide law that specifically exclude the practice of farriery as part of veterinary medicine. Moreover, the farrier is not an agent of the veterinarian and therefore has no responsibility to the vet nor does the vet have any authority over the farrier. The contractual responsibility is between the farrier and the owner. Since the burden of proof resides with the plaintiff and proof of damage depends largely on third party testimony, the costs associated with pursuing litigation can easily exceed the market value of most horses. This is why there are so few case law examples. Recovering the costs associated with proving wrong doing is almost never awarded. Neither are awards made for 'pain and suffering' of the owner. Examples of such awards would involve extreme cases of wrong doing. There are companies that sell 'liability insurance' that allegedly 'protect' a farrier from litigation. These policies are comparatively expensive and offer very limited coverage as compared to a broader business umbrella liability policy. In example, one prominent company offers 'care and custody' liability insurance for several hundred dollars per year. At best, that policy provides a one time $25,000 payout in the event a claims court would award a plaintiff for damages. I can buy a $million dollar personal property liability insurance policy for about the same money that serves to protect my personal assets from any business related liability. I'm not a lawyer but no legal degree is required to read and understand applicable case law and related terminology. What I've found is that the legal ramifications of farrier error represent very little risk of incurring legal responsibility. The greater risk is the potential for lost business and damage to reputation. That risk is best mitigated via quality hoofcare and good customer/veterinary relationships. A final point to consider and remember. Should a client ever sue you in a claims court, the cost of your own representation could easily exceed any award the court may grant the plaintiff. Since the entire burden (and cost) of proof lies with the plaintiff, the odds favor the farrier. The old adage "The man who represents himself has a fool for a client" may not apply in such cases. Cheers, Mark
