Is Hill’s vitamin D recall reimbursement to veterinarians “empathy” or is it damage control?
On February 4, 2019 – four days after the vitamin D recall – Hill’s Pet Food sent veterinarians a multi-page notice. The notice included suggested treatment protocols for dogs experiencing excessive vitamin D symptoms and information about an opportunity from Hill’s to reimburse the veterinarian for expenses incurred by pet owners to diagnose and treat pets suffering from excess vitamin D symptoms.
To read the full notice from Hill’s to veterinarians, Click Here. (Provided by a veterinarian friend of TAPF.)
Quoting from the Hill’s notice to vets (bold added):
“To support veterinarians in their relationship with their clients and their pets and as an expression of our empathy for pet parents, Hill’s will evaluate on a case by case basis, requests for reimbursement of veterinary fees including specific diagnostic tests and treatment for dogs who have eaten the voluntary recalled diets and the veterinarian recommends diagnostic tests and treatment for vitamin D Hypervitaminosis.”
“Your clinic will receive a reimbursement per the details provided in the ‘Patient reimbursement request form’ (up to a maximum of $500 per patient) as soon as possible after receipt of the forms if you are a Hill’s customer.”
What do pet owners think…
Is it appropriate for Hill’s to reimburse veterinarians and not the pet owners who incurred the expense?
Is this veterinarian reimbursement program from Hill’s actually a trust building program for vets (to maintain veterinarian trust of Hill’s products)?
Unlike how Hill’s has handled this situation, if a pet food company announced they would take full responsibility for their manufacturing error – such as publicly announcing they will pay for all testing and all treatment of sick pets (even if that treatment lasts a lifetime), would that influence you as a pet owning consumer?
Opinion: Hill’s and the other companies that recalled pet foods for excess vitamin D had ample opportunity to test their products and ingredients – prior to manufacturing and shipping the pet foods out to stores. But, not one pet food manufacturer bothered. The Hill’s website brags “Science has driven the creation of our nutrition since 1939“. Where was that science in testing ingredients when they came into the plant or testing finished pet foods? A simple quality check on incoming ingredients could have prevented the illness and deaths of an unknown number of pets. There is no excuse.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer
Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 5,000 cat foods, dog foods,
and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2019 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking pet food made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Woofielover
February 11, 2019 at 12:53 pm
And yet they’ll fight tooth and nail against any compensation to pet parents who have a claim due to Vitamin D Toxicosis. Disgusting…
Lynn Utecht
February 11, 2019 at 12:56 pm
Thats exactly what FrontLine did when my dog almost died from it. They threw 500.00 at the veteranarian. Must be a common money set point for not taking responsibility.
Terri Christenson janson
February 11, 2019 at 1:07 pm
They can take the 500.00 and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. 500,00 will heal a broken heart????? Not even 5 million…
Marguerite S Blake (@margie54)
February 11, 2019 at 2:23 pm
I do agree. You are so right.
Marguerite S Blake (@margie54)
February 11, 2019 at 2:32 pm
Very sorry for any loss you may have experienced. No Money could ever replace the loved one(s).
Concerned
February 11, 2019 at 1:21 pm
if the vet accepts the money would the pet owner then be able to take legal action against the vet clinic besides Hills since there is a financial tie between those two parties on the Vitamin D issue and that vet pushed you to use that Hills product because it is prescription food, there is no other alternative to choose from based on their science logic.
Casey Post
February 11, 2019 at 2:11 pm
I used to work in a chemical lab. We tested EVERYTHING that came in our doors before making any products with it. Even if we were just repackaging a chemical (say, breaking down a bulk barrel into little bottles), that chemical was tested and verified. Didn’t matter what the supplier’s testing said, we tested it, too. That’s how you catch mistakes made further up the supply line.
That Hill’s is cutting corners by NOT testing their ingredients tells me just how much they care about the safety of their products – not at all. Damage control is cheaper than testing, I guess.
Lisa P
February 11, 2019 at 2:28 pm
What a load of crap. Their hollow offers do not bring back pets who have died, nor ease the pain & suffering of those who have been made horribly sick.
Why don’t they offer to do a better job of making the food in the first place? And listening to people who know what they’re talking about when it comes to better quality food.
Fred St Clair
February 11, 2019 at 2:44 pm
Lisa P it would affect their bottom line, and, as we all know too well, that is the only thing they really care about.
Fred St Clair
February 11, 2019 at 2:41 pm
I wouldn’t call paying someone money that incurred no expense from the error trust building. I would call it a bribe, so that the vets will continue to “prescribe” Hill’s “prescription” diet.
Batzion
February 11, 2019 at 7:08 pm
A BRIBE is exactly what it is, and the matter of this BRIBE should be included in any lawsuits against Hills. Moreover, any vet who accepts this BRIBE should be sued as well and lose his or her license. In reality, this is something that belongs in the criminal courts as well as civil courts.
Betsy Dabbert
February 11, 2019 at 2:47 pm
DISGUSTED BY ALL OF THEM.
~Pet Owner~
February 11, 2019 at 3:17 pm
Just a thought. What if Hills tested the sample offered per protocol which passed. Yet the rest of the delivery was tainted unknown to the supplier. What if the failure was at the supplier’s end. What if the party responsible for testing was commjtting industrial espionage or had an ax to grind with Hills. Does Hills now have to test their testing system? This has happened to two other companies that I can remember. And many many companies have had some form of mistake somewhere along the line. I think the $500 is a token of their acknowledgement of responsibility without hiding behind a fake excuse or assuming that only an apology will do. There are hundreds of Vet practices out there. They’re starting with a compensation figure that will cost them. I don’t think it needs to be spelled out how serious the issue is, how it hurt pets and their families. (In fact I had a case of it myself, though the lot. no. was clear). This is just a reality of a complicated chain of custody. If anything can be learned, hopefully its a change in protocol and issuing a consequence to the party/person responsible. The bad publicity alone will hurt Hills, and send their clients to other providers. This is not a perfect world, and sympathy is extended to the families of those most affected by the mistake!
Fred St Clair
February 11, 2019 at 4:32 pm
Why should Hills compensate the vets when they have already been paid by the pet parent for services rendered? With the prices Hills charges for their pet feed, testing should not be a problem.
Beth Marousek
February 11, 2019 at 3:56 pm
They are referring to a “patient reimbursement request form”, not a “veterinarian reimbursement request form”. It sounds like the money belongs to the owner if the owner paid the vet for the treatment. If the money is distributed to the vet, then the vet should reimburse the owner from the money they receive from Hills. I would want to see the language in the reimbursement form.
Loraine Sullivan
February 11, 2019 at 5:23 pm
I’ve always felt that it’s a conflict of interest when a Vet sells dog food from their office.
landsharkinnc
February 12, 2019 at 9:18 am
Whada Crocka !
Brian
February 12, 2019 at 5:14 pm
So just exactly how does this help all of the grieving pet owners who have lost their pets due to Hills lack of quality control? I lost my best friend today do to hills and their toxic pet food. After months of suffering I had to finally let her go. These people need to be sued and put out of business. I am grieving, but I am also very mad.,
Concerned
February 13, 2019 at 12:24 pm
Law360 (February 12, 2019, 6:20 PM EST) — Three pet owners have accused Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc. of selling dog food containing dangerous amounts of vitamin D that led to their dogs’ deaths in a proposed class action in New York federal court.
In a complaint filed Monday, Kelly Bone, Christina Sawyer and Janine Buckley told the court that despite Hill’s recall in January of some of their specialty pet food products, the pet food company knew more of its products contained the dangerous vitamin D levels and should have instituted a recall much earlier.
Hill’s makes and sells dog food intended to address health needs for certain dogs under “Hill’s Prescription Diet” and “Hill’s Science Diet” labels, according to the complaint.
“Hill’s failure to promptly recall every contaminated product sold under the prescription diet and science diet lines is particularly egregious because it knew or should have known that these products contained toxic levels of vitamin D,” the pet owners wrote.
While dogs do require some vitamin D, too much can result in serious health issues, including vomiting, loss of appetite, weight loss, renal failure and death.
According to the suit, Hill’s should have known as early as February 2018 that its food contained too much vitamin D when online complaints started to surface from dog owners who said their pets showed symptoms of vitamin D toxicity.
Instead, the company “dragged its feet” on a recall, waiting until a month after the FDA issued an early December press release warning pet owners that it found a large variety of dog foods had potentially lethal doses of vitamin D, according to the complaint.
Hill’s initial recall began Jan. 31 and included only its canned products, while the proposed class claims its dry food was also contaminated and dangerous, adding Hill’s has not identified the cause behind the elevated vitamin D levels in its food.
In the complaint, Bone and Sawyer allege their vets recommended the Hill’s line of food for their dogs, Duncan and Taco, to help them deal with their pancreatitis. Each said they read the products’ labeling and decided to feed the food to their dogs based on the representations Hill’s put forth.
Duncan and Taco took drastic turns for the worse after being put on the food, according to the complaint, and needed to be euthanized in January.
Buckley alleged she fed her dog, Lily, Hill’s for several years based on a recommendation from her vet that it would help with the dog’s gastrointestinal issues and kidney disease, adding she, too, consulted the product label first.
According to the complaint, Lily was stable until May when she started exhibiting vomiting, loss of appetite and other symptoms. Lily was fed another food at the animal hospital and seemed to improve until she went back on the Hill’s diet in November, according to the complaint, at which point she began to decline and had to be euthanized.
The three are seeking to certify four classes of pet owners who bought the affected dog foods nationwide, in Florida, in North Carolina and in New York, and are seeking monetary damages and an injunction against Hill’s to keep the company from selling pet food with dangerous levels of vitamin D.
“We extend our deepest sympathies to all of the pet owners who have been impacted by contaminated food,” Nyran Rose Rasche of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, representing the dog owners, said in an email Tuesday. “We will work to hold Hill’s accountable for its role in causing so many pet illnesses and deaths.”
Representatives for Hill’s Pet Nutrition could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.
The proposed class is represented by Joseph S. Tusa of Tusa PC and Jennifer W. Sprengel, Nyran Rose Rasche, Daniel O. Herrera and John Scheflow of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.
Counsel information for Hill’s Pet Nutrition was not available Tuesday.
The case is Bone et al. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc. et al., case number 1:19-cv-00831, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
–Editing by Amy Rowe.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
Christina
March 3, 2019 at 5:07 am
I am actually one of the naked in the article. Hill’s did NOTHING but offer a coupon for our inconvenience. My dog is dead why would I want a coupon (yes I have other dogs but still that crap isn’t coming into my house at all!). No offer of reimbursement no nothing! A $10 coupon for my time. Hmmmmm I think not!
Mrs. Elinor McCullough
February 13, 2019 at 4:45 pm
I sometimes feel like I’m speaking to the wind or to totally deaf ears, but exactly why do people feed their fur pets bagged kibble? I know, its the “easy” button found. Kibble is not made for any animals its made for the pet owners to make it “easy” to feed them. Haven’t used kibble in years and feed raw and a special dehydrated food from Only Natural Pet (owned and directed by a homeopathic veterinarian) just in case I am missing crucial nutrients that are contained in the raw food I feed. Hills Pet Nutrition (as well as all the others) make the Mafia look like saints (this could also be said of all the alphabet agencies of our Government. If one cannot afford to feed your pet something you’d eat yourself then it is highly possible and probable that you should not own the pet. They do cost money to feed properly. Would you feed your own family members poisonous food. Again, I think not. But, when it comes to your beloved pet, “anything goes” including listening to Dr. Whitecoat who was bought off long ago. The whole situation pi$$e$ me off tremendously. Sorry guys about my venting. I usually don’t say anything and hope that people will learn from their gross feeding errors and without Truth About Pet Food I’d have not know just how horrible it is and so I changed and have major healthy & energetic 4 yr old dogs with no rotten teeth either (and I don’t brush their teeth but feed them bones … specifically raw [skin removed] chicken necks at every meal [they’re fed twice/day].
Dianne & Pets
February 14, 2019 at 3:27 pm
This isn’t the first time for recalls based on elevated D Looks like FDA uses the wayback machine for archiving.
July 20, 2012 Expanded Voluntary Recall of Land O’Lakes Purina Feed Products Due to Potential Elevated Vitamin D Level [ARCHIVED]
July 20, 2012 Expanded Voluntary Recall of Mazuri® and LabDiet® Feed Products Due to Potential Elevated Vitamin D Level [ARCHIVED]
July 13, 2012 PMI Nutrition International Initiates Voluntary Recall of AquaMax Products; Expands Voluntary Recall of Mazuri and LabDiet Feed Products Due to Potential Elevated Vitamin D Level [ARCHIVED]
July 13, 2012 Voluntary Recall of Purina Products Due to Potential Elevated Vitamin D Level [ARCHIVED]
July 13, 2012 Voluntary Recall of Feed Solutions Feed Products Due to Potential Elevated Vitamin D Level [ARCHIVED]
July 06, 2012 Expanded Voluntary Recall of Mazuri® Feed Products Due to Potential Elevated Vitamin D Level [ARCHIVED]
Louise
February 14, 2019 at 4:38 pm
They are probably thinking that it is in their best interest to keep the veterinarian happy so he/she will continue to recommend their products and don’t really care about upsetting one pet owner. A good veterinarian would apply that $ 500.00 to the owners account.