Many pet owners view their pets as any other member of the family. In the eyes of the law though, companion animals are viewed as though they are pieces of personal property.
Despite the law, pet owners are increasingly suing for veterinarian malpractice when their animals die as a result of incompetent care.
Veterinary malpractice claims can be just as difficult to litigate as medical malpractice claims involving humans, but often the potential for monetary recovery is much lower. This is because animals’ status as property means that owners are usually reimbursed only for their actual monetary losses. It can be very hard to recover pain and suffering damages for the loss of a non-human companion.
However, some pet law attorneys are having success with creative arguments such as comparing the animals to treasured family heirlooms or other irreplaceable possessions. Additionally, some state courts are beginning to allow owners to recover for the animal’s “reasonable sentimental value,” so long as the owner’s relationship with the pet is not excessive.
Other pet owners pursue veterinarian malpractice claims knowing full well that they may only achieve a modest financial recovery. They just want to hold the veterinarian accountable and help ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
What Do I Do if My Pet Has Been Mistreated?
If you think your pet has been a victim of veterinarian malpractice, there are at least two important steps you should take.
First, file a complaint with the veterinary licensing board in your state. The board is responsible for investigating veterinary misconduct and is empowered to revoke a veterinarian’s license if that punishment is warranted. You should ask the licensing board to investigate the case and notify you of the results, as well as send a complaint to your county veterinary medical association.
You should also consider contacting a lawyer to pursue legal action against the veterinarian.
Source: ABA Journal, “Angry Over the Death of a Beloved Pet, More Owners Sue the Animal’s Vet,” Martha Neil, Nov. 4, 2011.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40(c) sets forth the grounds for a divorce in Connecticut:
(1) The marriage has broken down irretrievably;
(2) the parties have lived apart by reason of incompatibility for a continuous period of at least the eighteen months immediately prior to the service of the complaint and that there is no reasonable prospect that they will be reconciled;
(3) adultery;
(4) fraudulent contract;
(5) wilful desertion for one year with total neglect of duty;
(6) seven years’ absence, during all of which period the absent party has not been heard from;
(7) habitual intemperance;
(8) intolerable cruelty;
(9) sentence to imprisonment for life or the commission of any infamous crime involving a violation of conjugal duty and punishable by imprisonment for a period in excess of one year;
(10) legal confinement in a hospital or hospitals or other similar institution or institutions, because of mental illness, for at least an accumulated period totaling five years within the period of six years next preceding the date of the complaint.
In 1973, Connecticut adopted “no fault” divorce – irretrievable breakdown. It is a rare case that a court dissolves a marriage on the basis of any of the other grounds. From a practical standpoint, the actual grounds that the judge grants the divorce is not important. But this does not mean that fault is not important in a Connecticut divorce.
In fact, fault is relevant in terms of alimony, property distribution and the assignment of debts/liabilities. To the extent fault impacts on a parental fitness it is also important when determining custody, visitation and an overall parenting plan.
A wife can have her married name changed back to her maiden/birth name or a former name as part of a Connecticut divorce.
It’s as easy as asking the judge at the time of the divorce to have the wife’s maiden or former name restored. There is no argument at all since the statute instructs the judge to do so upon request.
If the maiden or former name is not restored at the time of the divorce it can restored later upon the filing of a proper motion.
In practice, it is usually the wife who decides whether she will continue to be known by her married name or if she will have her name changed. In fact, most litigants assume that the choice is the wife’s to make. But – not so fast as my friend Lee Corso says.
Connecticut General Statutes 46b-63, makes clear that either spouse can request the restoration of a birth name or former. I have never been involved in a case where the husband requests that the wife not be allowed to use his last name (married name) after divorce. I trust though that this happens occasionally – perhaps in those really contentious cases where the spouses argue about pots, pans and plastic utensils.
Maybe there is a case where it makes sense for a husband to demand that the wife no longer use his last name. Like if she is maligned in some way or convicted of a horrible crime or if he just really needs to disassociate himself from her. By the way, did Kim Kardashian take Humphries? Kris if you read this….
Anyway, the point here is that either spouse can request the name change although ordinarily the wife makes the call.
The DCF Central Registry is not limited to parents of children. Any identifiable person who is found to pose a risk to the health, safety and well-being of children may be placed on the DCF Central Registry.
A recent case illustrates this point. Two children, ages 7 and 5, were living with their aunt and uncle. As a method punishment, the younger child was denied access to the house. Finally, at approximately 12:30 am he walked to his grandmother’s house. A few days later, the younger child was kicked out of the house for defending the older child. She too walked to the grandmother’s house.
A DCF Hearing Officer determined that the aunt and uncle physically neglected the child and emotionally abused the child by denying him access to the home.
As to the younger child, the Hearing Officer concluded that she was inappropriately punished for simply “sticking up” for the older child.
The aunt and uncle were placed on the DCF Central Registry. They appealed this decision to the Superior Court. Not surprisingly, the Superior Court dismissed the appeal.
When the Superior Court is reviewing the decision of the DCF Hearing Officer, the decision will be upheld unless it was arbitrary, illegal or the Hearing Officer abused their discretion. In practical terms, unless the Hearing Officer “really screws up” the decision will stand. Therefore, it is a rare case in which the Superior Court will reverse the findings of the Hearing Officer.
The best opportunity to obtain a reversal of the DCF Substantiation or Central Registry decision is always an appeal at the Administrative Hearing level.
Annulment and dissolution of marriage (divorce) are fundamentally different.
A divorce terminates an otherwise valid marriage.
An annulment is a legal finding that the marriage never existed because it was never valid. Depending on the grounds for the annulment, the marriage would be either be considered void (automatic invalid) or voidable (marriage is valid until a spouse requests an annulment).
Some grounds for annulment in Connecticut include:
1. Marriages between individuals within a certain degree of kinship – close relatives.
2. One the parties to marriage were already married – bigamy.
3. Qualifications regarding the person performing the wedding ceremony.
4. Fraud or duress existed at the time the marriage was entered into.
Annulments in Connecticut are rare for several reasons.
First, with the advent of “no fault” divorce a spouse can be granted a divorce simply based on “irretrievable breakdown.”
Secondly, the grounds to obtain an annulment are very specific and the underlying facts extraordinary.
Finally, there is a strong public policy that marriages are valid rather than void or voidable. As a result, grounds for an annulment must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” This is a higher standard than the standard required for a divorce.
With only a few exceptions, courts have the same authority and may enter the same types of orders whether the matter is based of an annulment or divorce. One difference is that the ninety-day waiting period applicable to a divorce does not apply to an annulment.