Friday, 17 March 2017

David Bret versus Chantry Vets Wakefield: Bozzy's Death: This Case Is Far From Over

Without Prejudice





This is a picture of Bozzy, one hour before he died after being prescribed Tramadol by Birgit Nordmann of Chantry Vets. The day before he had been playing with Ricardo and creating merry hell. When this picture was taken he was near-comatose, vomiting and urinating blood. Chantry Vets have denied all responsibility.

I hereby accuse, legally and without threat, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons of siding with habitual liars, vets Birgit Nordmann, Lisa Flood and Jordi Serrano. If these people wish to take me court, I would welcome this. We would therefore see how well these grossly unprofessional people lie under oath.

Each time this trio has submitted a statement to the RCVS, they have changed their story. Yet the RCVS has swallowed every last lie.

The fact that the RCVS took this matter to TWO levels of enquiry suggests (the CEG and the PIC) that they had their suspicions or doubts about the way Chantry Vets treated Bozzy. Otherwise the case would have dismissed long before it was. I quote from their manifesto:

If the CEG conclude that there is an arguable case of serious professional misconduct by the veterinary surgeon, they will refer the complaint to the PI Committee, who must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of proving 'disgraceful conduct in a professional respect', also referred to as 'serious professional misconduct'.

In my opinion, there HAS been disgraceful conduct, and this has been extended to the RCVS in the way that they have reprehensibly sided with these people.

In their missive of 6 March 2017, the RCVS stated that my complaint against Nordmann reached the CEG stage of the process, while that against Flood reached the PIC stage. This is serious enough for me to wish to take this matter further.

1: Nordmann, Flood and Serrano are obsessed with stating that I quibbled over the fees. They are lying. We have used Chantry Vets for over twelve years and NEVER contested the fees. Indeed, why would be keep using them if we disliked the fees?

2: Regardless of whether I signed a consent form or not, when I took Bozzy to Chantry Vets I trusted that they would care for him. Nordmann persistently states that Bozzy was too ill to be given 50 mg tablets of Tramadol, but that she did so because the 10 mg tablets were more expensive, and that I had quibbled over the cost. She is lying. Regardless of RCVS stating that 50 mg was the correct dosage, they were NOT present at the consultation. Nordmann told me, in front of witnesses who will be subpoenaed of necessary, that Bozzy was "very fit for an ancient dog". She needs to make her mind up, because he cannot have been both. If he was very ill, any RESPONSIBLE vet would not put an animal's life in danger the way she did, a decision which led to him losing that life.

The fact that Nordmann supplied the RCVS with a list of Bozzy's ailments and treatment leading up to the visit on 26 February 2016 when she prescribed the Tramadol illustrates my point precisely. She should have had more sense, professionally, than to prescribe this dangerous drug to a sick dog, and in such a strong dosage, irregardless of whether his owner signed a consent form or not. The owner is NOT qualified to know such things, which is why he consults the vet in the first place. I therefore accuse Birgit Nordmann of medical negligence and the canine equivalent of manslaughter, and further accuse the RCVS of supporting her.

3: Jordi Serrano has so far come up with three different stories over what happened. When he says he called me back to offer me medical advice, he is LYING. Serrano called my home once. My son answered the phone and could not understand a word Serrano was saying on account of his bad English. I called him back, and he told me to stop giving Bozzy the Tramadol. He did NOT call me back.

Jordi Serrano was LYING when he claimed in his statement that he 'double-checked' the potential side-effects of Tramadol and called me back. He did not. There was ONE three-minutes conversation between us only, much of this with me trying to work out his dreadful English. In his statement, Serrano says that Tramadol does not cause urine in the blood...then he goes on to state that he told me that if I stopped the Tramadol, the bleeding would stop. He further states that he 'double-checked' on the side-effects of the drug. He is contradicting himself, and quite clearly attempting to LIE himself out of a situation that he placed himself in, to such an extent that he does not know what he is is talking about. If this is not professional misconduct, I do not know what is.

4: I have no complaint with the Administrator, and would commend her for her kindness and compassion. It is a pity that these qualities do not rub off on the people she works for. She is the only one involved with this case who has not lied persistently.

5: Lisa Flood, I found to be rude and aggressive. When she states that she discussed Bozzy's medical history with me, she is LYING. When she states that I quibbled about the fees, she is LYING. The fact is that Flood categorically told me, WITHOUT having seen Bozzy, that if there was anything seriously wrong with him, then it was something that I had done, and not the vet. She must be an extraordinarily gifted veterinary surgeon of she can actually diagnose an patient WITHOUT seeing that patient.  It becomes patently obvious when reading her, Nordmann's and Serrano's statements that they have colluded to lie and invent conversations which never took place. There are so many holes in these that they become transparent. I can understand the RCVS not being aware that the wool has been pulled over their eyes with one concocted statement...but THREE?

I close in stating that the RCVS decision that incompetence has not taken place is, in itself, gross incompetence. Their closing statement, "Please rest assured that [your concerns] have been given very careful consideration" is no less ludicrous and offensive than the tissue of lies spun by the team of Nordmann, Serrano and Flood.

As I stated earlier, I would welcome Chantry Vets taking legal action against me, so that witnesses may be subpoenaed, and these three vets can be made to reiterate their statements while under oath, and before a media presence.



No comments:

Post a Comment