Assistant, tech, or vet lied in cat's records

Awhile back I had a cat that died from what we believed was cancer. The vet offered to do a necropsy at no charge. I just looked at the cat's records and there's a note where the necropsy results were written that basically says that the owner declined a biopsy. That's not true. No one even mentioned anything about a biopsy to me. So whoever wrote that in the records lied. Is this something I should be concerned about? It doesn't seem right and actually seems illegal.

This is not the first time something like this has happened either. It makes me wonder what else people lie about. I don't think this was written to deceive me, because they never thought that I would look at the records. This is clearly written for their benefit, but for what reason?

Originally Posted by Taco

This is clearly written for their benefit, but for what reason?

Click to expand...

A shot in the dark: in case you decided to sue?

There's hardly enough information in your post to understand what actually happened. In the first sentence you state,"...I had a cat that died from what we believed was cancer." What did the vets TELL you? Do they have no idea why the cat died, or did they tell you it was probably cancer?

What it looks like to me is that the vet's best guess (at the time) was that the cat had cancer. Assume that is the case. If the vet suspected cancer, then a "necropsy" would have been done primarily to do a biopsy, i.e., operate and extract a tissue sample, and do a pathology on the tissue. I think it's safe to assume that the records meant that the owner declined a necropsy - but the necropsy would have been done in order to do a biopsy. I don't think they're intentially hiding anything. Besides, if the cat had inoperable cancer, then what's the difference.

Originally Posted by rewboss

A shot in the dark: in case you decided to sue?

Click to expand...

Sue for what!??

My guess is, it's because he offered to do the necropsy at no charge. He probably just wanted to get a look inside, no biopsy necessary, since he would have been charged for that. In a way, you "declined" the biopsy when you let him do it for free. I wouldn't worry about it; vet records aren't used for legal reasons except in neglect and abuse cases, and then only the records pertaining to the abuse case. Once the pet is deceased the records are pretty much moot. They probably only put that in there so somebody looking up the old records wouldn't be looking for biopsy results.

I wouldn't worry about it, unless you mentioned to them that you would want to do a biopsy if they found cancer during the necropsy. Did the vet acknowledge that he found tumors after he performed the necropsy?