Olie

This is my only issue with this. There is NO scientific data. They pretty much state this.

Marian

Wonderpup - The standard for winning a civil lawsuit is not reasonable doubt; it's much, much lower than that. The only thing a personal injury lawsuit has to demonstrate is that the possibility that the infection came from the dog is great enough that jurors might go, "Hmmm, I can see where that might be possible". The standard for proving a civil suit is a "preponderance of evidence"--meaning having more evidence saying it did happen than the other side has saying it didn't). In the lack of scientific evidence and data, a good personal injury lawyer will work on the emotions of the jury. It's not fair, but that's the way the system works. These lawyers have made a career out of exploiting the loopholes.

In addition, they also know that quite frequently, an insurance carrier will throw a couple thousand dollars their way just to make the issue go away. This is called "nuisance value" and is intended to avoid paying potentially hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars defending a suit that does not have real merit or is not worth defending. It's a judgement call on the part of the insurance carrier, and also on the part of the plaintiff attorney whether or not to accept it. If the attorney knows that he does not have a strong case, he may just accept the first offer the insurance company throws out. It's more often than not a win-win for personal injury lawyers. That's why they're so successful, even if their clients are not. The only definite outcome is that the insurance carrier will either increase the Delta Society's premiums, or drop them altogether.

There is nothing to stop owners from lying to Delta Society about it, however, if they lie, and if something like the hypothetical situation we're talking about were to arise, the Delta Society could then shift blame to the dog owner, if it is discovered that they were deceitful. I'm sure there's language tucked away somewhere in the contract you sign with them that indemnifies them in such cases. If you own any assets at all, you are opening yourself up to what could potentially be an expensive lawsuit (even if you ultimately win it).

Forget what's right or wrong here. That has nothing to do with it. Maybe I've been in this business too long.

ETA: I think the official term for all of this is CYA.

1Jurisdiva

I can put on my attorney hat for a minute - Marian is right about the standard for a civil suit. The Delta society is probably not concerned about enforcing the new policy, but protecting themselves from liability. Now if a dog owner misrepresents what they are feeding a dog and a patient were to contract a bacterial infection (I have no idea about the likelihood of this "bacterial shedding" raw food connection) the Delta Society can disclaim responsibility and it will be the dog owner who faces liability.

I do have one slight quibble - an attorney cannot just talk to an insurance company and accept a deal - they must first present it to their clients and get their consent to accept. Now I am not going to defend slimeball personal injury attorneys (there are many), but there are also some great personal injury attorneys as well. (Disclaimer: I worked at the Public Defenders office for a year and we are generally reviled as much as personal injury attorneys haha).

I am of two minds about the problem of personal injury suits. There are way to many suits being filed (caused by greedy attorneys and an overly litigious society) but some incredibly important regulations have come from such suits (think asbestos regulations, the requirement for chemical waste companies to disclose what materials are being dumped/and where, and many consumer protection laws)

Anywho, I think Marian is generally right on in this situation - and I am sorry that this policy (which seems unfounded) may dissuade dog owners from therapy work.

Cindy

Marian

My bad.

I'm a little jaded after working for insurance companies for the past 20 years.

Me too.

1Jurisdiva

No problem Marian! I don't blame you for being jaded - I imagine you have seen some truly egregious behavior in the past 20 years.

flufflvr

You nailed it Marian and 1Jurisdiva. That's exactly why they're doing this, and you both said it so much better than I could. There is a whole page of Delta policies and procedures. If you're not following those policies and procedures, your 1 million dollars coverage is null and void.

Believe it or not, this is pretty middle of the road. It's been suggested that animals not be allowed on beds, not be allowed to give kisses, that people shouldn't be allowed to give them treats, that they not visit immunocompromised patients at all, that every client we visit have a dr's note before we're allowed in their room, and the list could go on and on. I've heard some people go off on this stuff, and it's ridiculous. If all the suggestions given were taken, we'd be visiting behind a glass wall and the client would only be able to look at them! Fortunately, Delta hasn't acted on any of these suggestions, as obviously, the benefits of getting up close and personal with an animal outweigh the risks.

I look at this new policy as another casualty of a sue-happy society.

flufflvr

Did Purina Executive Influence Delta Society?s Ban of Raw Feeding?

Cdnjennga

That would sooo not surprise me. Someone wrote an excellent letter on that link pointing out how misguided Delta's decision was.

Marian

Very interesting.

Olie

It was an extremely bold and dumb (IMO) move on their part. It does not suprise me either. Thanks for sharing.