This is my only issue with this. There is NO scientific data. They pretty much state this.It would be a bear IMO to prove the infection came from a dog in the first place and would be especially hard to prove it was the result of being fed raw and not from a nurse who wasn't observing proper sanitation. Any raw feeding dog owner worth their salt would be able to call in "experts" to verify that raw feeding is not only OK but actually a healthy diet and be able to educate a jury in spite of thier ignorance. Reasonable doubt would be established and in that case they would not be able to award a settlement to the grieving but greedy family. You may as well file suit against the wind unless you could PROVE that the only place the infection could have come from was the dog.
My bad.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).
Me too....and I am sorry that this policy (which seems unfounded) may dissuade dog owners from therapy work.
That would sooo not surprise me. Someone wrote an excellent letter on that link pointing out how misguided Delta's decision was.