On June 12, 2008, a groundbreaking decision was rendered by a jury over the loss of a very beloved companion animal. The patient was a Scarlet Macaw. The plaintiff was the macaw’s owner and the defendant was the macaw’s veterinarian.

Dr. Vaughn was the expert witness for the plaintiff, and found over 20 instances of violations to the state veterinary practice act, many of which involved negligence on the veterinarian’s part.

Nonetheless, the plaintiff’s attorney and Dr. Vaughn made it clear to the plaintiff that this case was impossible to win, because there was no autopsy to confirm “beyond a reasonable doubt” the exact cause of death. The plaintiff stated, however, that he was not interested in money; he just wanted justice for what had happened to his loved one.

Dr. Vaughn wrote a 63-page opinion in this case. He had never written such a detailed opinion in a case such as this, but there were so many instances in which the standard of care was violated that a lengthy opinion was necessary.

After a year and a half of trial preparation, lengthy depositions, complaints before the Board of Veterinary Examiners, and surviving numerous instances of wrangling by the defendant’s attorneys, the case finally went to trial on June 9, 2008.

It is worth noting that 99.9% of these cases never go to trial. It is a credit to the dogged persistence of the plaintiff, his attorney and Dr. Vaughn that they met each of these tactics head-on and managed to get this case to trial. Also, most states still consider pets as “chattel” or personal property. America’s pets, in the legal system, are considered only as property, equivalent to an old muffler in the garage, not as a part of a loving family.

Throughout the four-day trial, Dr. Vaughn’s integrity, honesty and scientific knowledge were attacked. Toward the end of the trial he was recalled to the witness stand for the second time. Questions were short and brief, both from the defendant and the plaintiff’s attorney. After the defense attorney’s last cross-examination of Dr. Vaughn, the attorney and his client were laughing and giggling, apparently assuming they had achieved success, i.e., won the case. Everyone was certain the verdict would be “Not Guilty,” based solely on the lack of an autopsy establishing a cause of death. The defense celebrated prematurely for the jury delivered a verdict of “guilty of negligence”. This was a superb verdict especially since there was no concrete cause of death.

Send mail to webmaster@expertpetvet.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 07/21/08  Webmaster Services Provided by MaxServ, Inc.