The case of R. v. L* C* Vet Mobile revolves around a dispute concerning veterinary malpractice and consent. The plaintiff, PR, sought compensation for an alleged surgical error involving her dog, Zak. PR had paid $2,500 for a procedure on Zak’s right hind leg, which had been diagnosed with an ACL injury. However, she claimed that the veterinary facility mistakenly operated on Zak’s left hind leg without her consent.
During the trial, PR presented evidence that she had clearly indicated Zak’s right leg as the one requiring surgery, both in written intake forms and verbal discussions with the veterinary staff. The veterinarian and the facility’s owner countered that Zak had ACL injuries in both legs and that, upon further examination under sedation, they determined the left leg was in worse condition. They asserted that PR had signed a consent form for the left-leg procedure just before surgery, but Rivera disputed the authenticity of the signature.
The Kings County Civil Court ruled in PR's favor, awarding her the full amount she had paid for the surgery. The court found that the veterinary facility had failed to perform the agreed-upon procedure and rejected its claim that PR had consented to the change in treatment. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, upheld the ruling, emphasizing the importance of credibility assessments in trial proceedings. The AT2 determined that PR's testimony was consistent and persuasive, particularly given that the veterinary facility had not mentioned the consent form in its initial response to PR’s inquiry about the surgery.
This case underscores the significance of informed consent in medical and veterinary procedures.
Were they barking up the wrong leg here?
# # #
DECISION