| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well this is bad news...I googled this and the very first one I looked at said this...
http://www.cavalierhealth.org/flycatchers.htm#Current_Research | Quote: | | Cavalier King Charles spaniels are pre-disposed to a disorder called flycatcher's syndrome. It is believed to be caused by a mutation in a specific gene which the dogs have inherited from their parents. |
I'm sorry but no matter how you cut it that is without a doubt genetic..
More bad news, it further states, | Quote: | | The Canine Inherited Disorders Database (www.upei.ca/~cidd/intro.htm) recommends that Cavaliers which have had seizures should not be bred, nor should their parents and siblings. |
From what I've read (and I read PLENTY)...The growth and this rouge gene/genetic predisposition to this, have nothing to do with each other...but the problem is, this too (your dogs condition) is CLEARLY thought to be genetic. So anything associated with the treatment of this disorder would be excluded in your policy. | Quote: | | The disease exists in multiple breeds |
None as much as the King Charles | Quote: | | so ti's unlikely genetic; also those breeds don't have chiara malformations |
That isn't what causes this..it's geneic..the other theory (re: behavioral) still doesn't remove it from genetics. | Quote: | | Pretty much anything could be genetic |
Why don't you google this disorder and see what pops up, I'll tell ya' "Cavalier King Charles spaniels"... | Quote: | | it just has nothing to do with her symptoms. |
I'm sorry but not according to all the vet articles I just read..
Try to remember...I'm not your enemy...I have NOTHING to gain by telling you this...
How old is your dog? Have you talked to the breeder?
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To answer your direct question, She's a year and a half. No other dog in her long lineage has this issue. Her brother (who we have) doesn't have any issues.
As for your research, I've read that all. It's entirely speculative. There is no actual research or demonstrated treatment. I've talked to the leading researcher in the world on these types of disorders and he agrees that the genetic component is conjecture (i.e. all doctors jump to genetics when they see patterns, even if they can't prove it).
He believes - and has been successfully treating my dog - that the disease is physiological (a chemical imbalance). Chemical imbalances may have a genetic predispositions but so does almost every disease - depression, anemia, blood clots, seizures, heart disease, cancer, etc. etc.
Anyway, we don't need to have this back and forth anymore. Thanks for taking the time. I don't think I'm going to get any help here.
I've had two additional vets look at her. BOTH agree that there is NO evidence to conclude a genetic or congenital disease other than conjecture, which could be applied to ANYTHING unexplainable. My original doctor feels the same way and is writing to clarify with the insurance company that she was stating it as a POSSIBILITY but not LIKELY. |
|
roybendor
New member
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 7
3.81 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
You got plenty of help here, you just didn't get the answer you wanted, and I'm sorry that you can't see that difference.
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Last edited by Lori on Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:59 am |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That's quite an insulting response. I got your opinion, which you are entitled to, but no real evidence or facts either in support or contravention. I respect your opinion but by no means did I learn anything new or hear any new arguments. Your opinion just makes the count 4-2 (me and three veterinarians vs. you and the insurance company). I apologize if you are insulted but all I had here was a debate with another party. I consider your arguments insensible. Under your definitions, nobody would ever purchase insurance, as anything that couldn't be 100% proven as non-congenital would not be covered. I can't see the market demanding such a product, certainly not at the prices of insurance. You're still entitled to that opinion, but I don't have to accept it or consider it a valuable contribution. I'm sorry you can't see that. |
|
roybendor
New member
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 7
3.81 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That's quite an insulting response |
It wasn't meant to be, and frankly I think you've been the same.
Look all I'm trying to get across to you is this...you're ticked off because you paid 2k (plus) for a dogs mri and thought your carrier would pay for it. (I'd be pretty disappointed too that's a lot of money !) They didn't and won't because your vet stated (and all the info I've read on the net) say this is a genetic disorder...your policy excludes that. Unless and until you can get some vets to say that it in no way, shape or form can this be genetic they aren't going to pay it. That's the way the policy you purchased was written. I didn't write or sell you this policy nor did I handle your claim. I'm just telling you why they ruled that way...and the reason they did is because your vet (basically) agree with them. You can bet they have vets on staff as well to handle and research claims, and apparently they are of the same opinion.
IMO, your only recourse is to (attempt) to sue this carrier for breach of contract or vicaious refusal to pay. But again my opinion based on all I've read, you don't have a shot.
If this policy is junk, it's junk. Cancel it.
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:12 am Post subject: This thread is way too long! |
|
|
Roy,
You read the contract one way -- and your claim is payable, the company reads it another way -- and the claim is not. This is the classic tale of a contract of adhesion, which nearly all insurance policies are.
There are two possible solutions: (1) file a complaint with your state's insurance regulator (Dept of Insurance in most states), and they will investigate for unfair claims practices. That could chill the ice water in a claims examiner's veins. (2) you could hire an attorney to sue the insurer for breach of contract, and leave the interpretation of the contract up to a judge (I would avoid a jury on this -- you get a bunch of cat lovers, and you're likely 'toast'). If the judge finds there is an ambiguity, it must be tossed in favor of the party who did not write the contract (the insurer).
Most people don't know about turning to their Insurance Commissioner for assistance.
_________________
California-licensed Property & Casualty Broker-Agent and Life & Health Agent. CA Insurance License #0596197. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. I live, breathe, and teach insurance! |
|
MaxHerr
Moderator
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 4234
Location: Pomona CA
164.47 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That's quite an insulting response. |
I don't see why you would see it that way either, I am not siding with Lori, but what she has posted is pretty cut and dry, not matter if you accept it or not or consider it an opinion, which it really is not.
If you agree there is a lot of info on the subject on both sides as you stated earlier, and as Max stated you see it one way, the carrier sees it the other, you would have to agree there is a difference. And according to how your policy is written it makes sense. Thats all that Lori and anyone else is trying to point out, but you don't like that answer. Thats fine, you bought the policy. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 911
Location: Kansas City
152.85 Dollars($)
|
|
Previous 1, 2
