Jeane Best- River City Reptiles (Bad Guy)

[Lucille]

Threat of lawsuits in the BOI ? Nah !!! No disrespect meant to Erin, but I know from your background Jim, and I believe you know from mine, that what many people assume about the civil process is a far cry from reality. It helps that I have a brother who is a civil/business law attorney, and now a daughter who is likewise. But the best teacher is to actually help an attorney put their kid thru college. Done that more than once. Doing it again now, as a matter of fact.

BTW, the veterinarian told a different story than Nicole related of what he had, and had not, stated regarding diagnosis and how far back one could reasonably assume the illness had begun. He was adamant that without a necropsy it was very difficult to draw such conclusions, and even then would have been a good deal conjecture. His verbatim words were much more as one would expect of a professional than what Nicole led us to believe. So who do we trust, the vet or Nicole ? That's a tough one !

Hope all is well.

Congratulations on the daughter making it through!

 

[Chameleon Company]

Dad is proud of all his kids ! Thanks.

 

[KelliH]

Whatever guys, I still wouldn't buy from Jeanne Best or Wendy. Too much negative drama.

 

[ravensgait]

In Civil Law it is 'What is more likely' a lower threshold than Criminal law.

In this thread there isn't a More Likely anything as there has been nothing offered in the way of proof.. Randy

 

[monkeywrench133]

I really enjoyed this attempt at humor. Oh wait, you didn't mean it to be funny.


C'mon Erin, you can do better than that. Look at the four elements required to collect damages in a malpractice suit, namely duty of care (conceded in this situation), negligence, causation, and damages. Before you get to monetary damages you have to prove negligence, and that said negligence was the cause of monetary damages.

In order to prove negligence, generally the standard applied is that of the "average qualified [professional -in this case a veterinarian] in the community". Reading through this whole silly thread I'm thinking that the "average qualified veterinarian" would have thought of simple things first and not rushed to look for a spinal malignancy as the cause of illness in an animal still well enough to breed. The animal was not that sick. He would have thought of common and treatable things first (when he hears hoof beats outside his office he thinks of horses not zebras). Even if the diagnosis was made earlier, what are the odds that a successful intervention could have been made on a Bearded Dragon with a malignancy? Radiation? Chemotherapy? Potentially crippling surgery? Thousands of dollars of expenses to try to save an already dying animal? Get real.

But even if the attempt were made to sue, in order to prove professional malpractice, one needs an "expert" to explain to the jury why an "average qualified veterinarian" would have done something different and how that would have made a difference. That "expert" is going to charge perhaps $300 to review the records and another $500-1000 plus expenses (travel, meals, lodging) to testify at trial. So we already have perhaps $1300 in expenses, for a suit that the plaintiff will lose. No reasonable attorney will take such a case on a contingency fee basis, because it's a loser from the start. So add $300/hour for a malpractice attorney, costs of depositions (court reporter, etc.), court filing fees, etc. On the other hand, the veterinarian is defended by his insurance company so it costs him nothing. He has the deep pockets here. In his defense also is the fact that she thought the animal was "off" from the beginning but didn't bring it in. So who is the negligent (from a strictly legal perspective) party in that case?

Even if Nicole wins a lawsuit here, which even she (I'm sure) has more than enough sense not to file, what are the monetary damages? A couple of hundred dollars? Not even close to enough to make it financially worthwhile.


Erin, I'm not disputing that the veterinarian had motivation to fabricate, or at least to embellish, but fear of a lawsuit was not one of the motivating factors. I thought that his whole story was a crock from the start, but raising the lawsuit issue was silly.


Reference: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusfavrevetmalpractice.htm

What's the matter Jimmy? Someone piss in your Wheatties, or did you just feel the need to be a pompous ass?

While I have no doubt that your technical explanation of what it would take to win a malpractice lawsuit is correct (doubtless based on personal experience) I never said anything about the OP winning such a lawsuit.

No, the merest threat of a lawsuit is enough to drive many professionals into the hills screaming because win or lose, they still have to take the time and spend the money to defend themselves. Not to mention the fact that simply having a suit against them filed may be enough to raise their E&O, or Malpractice insurance. Many professionals will cave in and pay off the "offended" party strictly to avoid the possibility of a suit. So your ASSumption that Nicole wouldn't dare to threaten such a lawsuit, since she clearly can't win in your expert opinion, is overly optimistic at best, dangerously naive at worst.

I am curious though, if you aren't disputing that the vet had reasons to fabricate, what, other than financial were they?

Actually, don't bother, because your speculations wouldn't really add anything more to this thread, but thanks anyway.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Any conjecture based on what one thinks the vet said or did, relying on anything Nicole said, is to waste efforts on an exceedingly flawed premise. Nicole has lied repeatedly here. There never was an improper action by any veterinarian here.

No, the merest threat of a lawsuit is enough to drive many professionals into the hills screaming because win or lose, they still have to take the time and spend the money to defend themselves.

Sorry, but in this thread, with Nicole being the one feeling she was wronged by her vet there is not a professional out there that is going to lose a wink of sleep, much less "into the hills screaming". Nicole got caught up in her own lack of honesty. That's all. Erin, I appreciate your comments here being able to cut through Nicole's other nonsense, but the "professionals" out there are a bit more professional than your comment ascribe them to be, IMMHO.

 

[monkeywrench133]

Sorry, but in this thread, with Nicole being the one feeling she was wronged by her vet there is not a professional out there that is going to lose a wink of sleep, much less "into the hills screaming". Nicole got caught up in her own lack of honesty. That's all. Erin, I appreciate your comments here being able to cut through Nicole's other nonsense, but the "professionals" out there are a bit more professional than your comment ascribe them to be, IMMHO.

Jim, I can recall two times in the last five years when I have seen professionals of my own acquaintance pay off a bogus $1000 claim in order to avoid spending $10,000 to defend themselves against it. So it does happen. Is it right? no. But it is expedient.

As you and I both know, anyone can sue anyone else for anything. Would a suit by Nicole have merit, I think we can agree not, but that doesn't mean she couldn't file it. And BS or not, the Vet would still have to take the time to defend himself. To my thinking, that would be enough motivation for him to try and shift blame in an effort to avoid further entanglement. That was my original line of thinking. Such tactics might not be logical in a legal sense, but are very valid in the business world. I believe the term is "loss mitigation".

Either way though, this part of the discussion really isn't serving the purpose of the thread, entertaining as it might be. So why don't we agree to disagree, and focus on the actual topic?

 

[Chameleon Company]

Agreed, that there certainly are lawsuits settled every day where it was cheaper to throw a bone to it than to spend 10 bones fighting it. I would suggest, based on my experience there, that those lawsuits had "one bone" of merit regardless. Nicole's claim would have been frivolous from the beginning. Relating that back to this thread, Nicole's allegations regarding both Jeane's culpability and Nicole's own vet were not true. The harassment in Jeane's register, and the threat to then come to the BOI, and then doing it, was nothing more than an attempt at extortion. Nicole expected more traction from whatever lynch mob she could assemble here. Didn't happen.

 

[Jim O]

What's the matter Jimmy? Someone piss in your Wheatties, or did you just feel the need to be a pompous ass?

No, I felt the need to correct wrong information. Big difference.

While I have no doubt that your technical explanation of what it would take to win a malpractice lawsuit is correct (doubtless based on personal experience) I never said anything about the OP winning such a lawsuit.

An ASSumption. My post was based on knowledge of the law. Please search public records and you will find that there has never been a successful malpractice claim made against me.

No, the merest threat of a lawsuit is enough to drive many professionals into the hills screaming because win or lose, they still have to take the time and spend the money to defend themselves. Not to mention the fact that simply having a suit against them filed may be enough to raise their E&O, or Malpractice insurance. Many professionals will cave in and pay off the "offended" party strictly to avoid the possibility of a suit. So your ASSumption that Nicole wouldn't dare to threaten such a lawsuit, since she clearly can't win in your expert opinion, is overly optimistic at best, dangerously naive at worst.

"[D]angerously naive"? Now you're a drama queen too. I'll bet you a year of my income against a week of yours on my naïveté. No malpractice here.

Your ASSumptions about malpractice insurance rates and claims are also erroneous. I never said that Nicole wouldn't "dare" I said that she wouldn't. Big difference. Just an offer of proof (an expert letter, required to even file the suit) would cost more than the recovery might be.

"[R]unning into the hills" over a Bearded Dragon of limited value that was terminally ill the first time he saw it?. Your misunderstanding of what a professional might or might not do is obviously limited by the fact that you aren't one (sorry, but I consider a profession one for which a college degree is required for licensure, not a three month course in how to write a P&S agreement and suck 3-6% from the seller's equity). And no, no professional is going to pay a claim out of his pocket. It just won't happen. His out of pocket cost of defending himself is zilch. Malpractice insurance is generally first dollar coverage (zero deductible) and includes ALL legal fees. So a professional has the incentive to clear his name, not to cave and write a check.

am curious though, if you aren't disputing that the vet had reasons to fabricate, what, other than financial were they?

Do you think that professionals are all strictly motivated by fear? That shows a very serious shortcoming in your understanding of human nature generally and professionals specifically. It's the same reason you are insisiting you are right when you are so obviously wrong here.

Actually, don't bother, because your speculations wouldn't really add anything more to this thread, but thanks anyway.

Too late.


Basically Erin, your post was all wet. If you are the type that thinks that you can get something by threatening a lawsuit then you don't understand the legal system. I'm not defending the tort system. It sucks. But I'm not afraid of it. If anyone ever threatens to sue me my answer is always "See you in court".

What sends professionals "running to the hills" is a client like you, one who thinks that lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are an answer to a problem. Bad outcomes happen. Death is not unavoidable. Juries recognize that. Evidently you do not. Even when a professional makes a mistake in judgment, so long as he was using his best judgment based on the situation it's not negligence. Only when it deviates so far from the "standard of care" does it stray into the realm of negligent. Even if we take all of Nicole's story at face value, there was nothing negligent about the care rendered. If a suit were filed a judge would throw it out and probably chastise the lawyer for clogging the court's case load and schedule with meaningless drivel (like both of your last two posts).

I'm out. Go ahead and get the last word if you feel the need.

 

[Otter_23]

With reasonable self restraint, this will be the last efforts I waste in this thread.
.

Jim you may want to work on your self restraint either that or this statement was a lie, which would make you dishonest.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Great post Jim. Well over the head of many assclowns who post here. Speaking of which, the "legends in their own minds" continue to foam at the mouth. Hi Mark !

 

[monkeywrench133]

No, I felt the need to correct wrong information.

What wrong information Jimmy?

Veterinarians can be sued for Malpractice.

That's a true statement.

The OP's Vet failed to diagnose the animal correctly,

Again, a true statement according to the information available in this thread, Jim F's hearsay statements by the anonymous vet not withstanding.

who knows if there might have been a hope of treating this animal if the problem had been diagnosed correctly the first visit.

A rhetorical question, not a statement of fact, therefore neither right or wrong.

However, when the OP's Vet finds out that the dragon had substantial value, then the seller MUST have known about the problem? And MUST have been trying to dump the animal to make a quick buck? Sounds fishy to me.

That is a statement of my opinion, which you are free to disagree with, not a statement of fact.

So, where exactly is the wrong information Jimmy? Huh? Which of my two statements of fact were inaccurate?

Now, I did express some opinions which you may disagree with about what may or may not have motivated the veterinarian, but none of the facts you've cited about what will or won't win a malpractice suit proves my opinion wrong, any more than it makes you right.

I'm very sorry if you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, but I'm not surprised that you don't.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Fortunately for many of us, since we are constantly presented with "hearsay" in these threads, we also put on out thinking caps and evaluate whether or not it passes the stink test. The vet seemed very competent and professional btw, not as portrayed by the OP.

Have to thank all who took time here, and have knowledge of which they speak, again not to be confused with those "legends".

 

[monkeywrench133]

The vet seemed very competent and professional btw, not as portrayed by the OP.

Another statement of opinion that's neither right or wrong.

But one that should be taken with a large grain of salt considering the bias of the person making that statement towards the person who would benefit the most from the competence and professionalism of the vet.

 

[Otter_23]

LOL it takes such a small stick to work you up Jimbo, ironic you should talk about legends in their own minds. Carry on psuedo intellect. It is amazing the school yard names you call and attempt to bully others. Guess I thought you more professional. OH hell who am I kidding.

To the topic at hand. Just curious though why in this instance when someone was called out and they have refused to answer they are getting a free pass from some? Jeannne has had the opportunity to answer the questions herself and ask any questions she wants yet she lets her minion do her work. In conclusion based on this accusation alone I wouldn't avoid doing business with Jeanne but based on this and her other wonderful transactions at this point I would. Some say she may have changed, I would need to see a thread with numerous names and proof that people have had positive transactions recently with her until I would even consider looking at her ads.

Jim, you can call names be condescending etc... if those are truely your best tools in debate then I have the place for you. We have a group of 8th grade girls at our middle school that will give you a run for you money. You define the word hypocritical. Until then I really have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Chameleon Company]

The parade continues. Words of wisdom from those in the know.

 

[LoverOfAll]

WARNING!!! Jeane and Wendy are at it again! They have opened up a shop in the Spokane Valley!! Buy and sell with caution!!!
(You may want to keep an eye on your credit card statements!! Wendy likes to spend!!)

Reptile Addictions
11518 East Sprague Spokane, Wa. Bowdish Plaza behind Blockbuster.
Mon, Wed, Thurs 10-7pm Fri, Sat, Sun 10-5pm CLOSED TUESDAY
509-927-3008
Over 150 different species.Lizards, Snakes, Frogs, Turtles, Tortoise, and Tarantulas!
Be sure to check it out!

 

[Junkyard]

They have a website too, reptileaddictions.com

 

[Junkyard]

Sorry, this one for now http://www.freewebs.com/rivercityreptiles/index.htm the reptileaddictions.com is still under construction.

 

[LoverOfAll]

BEWARE OF JEANE & WENDY - RIVERCITYREPTILES AND NEW BUSINESS REPTILE ADDICTIONS

Thank you for the information, however when I went to the "freewebs" website you mentioned, it had a virus attached to it and crashed my computer and even stole some of my personal information.

PLEASE BE AWARE OF DEALING WITH THESE WOMEN!

Wendy's last name is no longer "CHILDS" it is now "IWANOW".