Example of report prepared by Dr. Polsky for settlement purposes
in personal injury lawsuit
To: Teresa Vint (adjustor, Liberty Mutual) &
Barry Goldberg, Esq. (Woodland Hills, CA)
From: Richard H. Polsky, Ph.D.
Date of report: May, 2003
I've undertaken or reviewed the following with this purpose in mind: (1) Interview with Ken Schweibish in his home on April 2, 2003; (2) Interview with Gloria Bender in her home on April 5, 2003; (3) Behavioral examination of the adult male Great Pyrenese owned by Ken Schweibish name Rocky. This inspection occurred on the day of my interview with Schweibish;(4) Behavior examination of the adult female Rottweiler owned by Gloria bender named Mac. This inspection occurred on the day of my interview with Schweibish (5) Telephone interview with Craig Podell on Saturday, April 12th, 2003; (6) Site inspection of the location where the incident happened, a public facility named Bark Park; (7) Follow-up examination and interview with Ken Schweibish on April 10th, 2003 in my office for the purposes of further review of his account of how the incident happened and further examination of the bite wounds on his right forearm; (8) Review of the photographs of canine teeth measurements of Rocky provided to me by Ken Schweibish and taken recently at his veterinary hospital (9) Review of the photographs of the injury to the right forearm of Ken Schweibish taken shortly after the injury occurred; (10) Other miscellaneous discovery, such as interviews taken by Terri Vint, and the medical records on Ken Schweibish.
Based on my detailed scrutiny of the all of the material I have collected or have been given in this case, I will state below the conclusions and opinions I have reached. First, I will summarize a description of how the incident occurred. Second , I will state the assumptions I have made which form the bases for my opinions. Next, I will provide discussion of the issues in this case most germane to determining which dog bit Schweibish. Last, I will state my overall conclusions.
Background
The incident the lead to the injury of Ken Schweibish occurred in late afternoon in a facility known as the “Bark Park”. Bark Park is an off lead, fenced-in park of approximately 2 acres. It is similar to the many other so-called "doggy" parks in the Los Angeles area. People ostensibly take their dogs to these parks for exercise and social interaction. While dogs are in the park they have the opportunity to freely interact and socialize with other dogs and people without restraint. Many of the people who utilize this park are regulars in that they know each other and they know each other's dog. Accordingly, dog owners who regularly patronize the Bark Park have considerable familiarity with the behavioral patterns and habits of the dog who are brought to this park. The principal humans in this case, Craig Podell, Gloria Bender, and Ken Schweibish, were all regulars of the park and their dogs all had some degree of familiarity with each other.
The principal dogs in question were the Great Pyrenees dog, Rocky, owned by Schweibish, the Rottweiler dog, Mac, owned by Bender, and a husky-like dog, named Icon, controlled by a person known as Dan. The whereabouts of Dan are not known and he was not available for interview nor was Icon available for examination. The dog owned Craig Podell, a Dingo named Jersey, was not involved in the incident that led to the injury to Schweibish.
Relevant information about Rocky, Mac and Icon are as follows:
Rocky is large, 4 year-old reproductively intact, male Great Pyrenees male dog weighing approximately 110 lbs. At the time the incident, Schweibish says Rocky was in good health. He appeared in good health at the time of my examination. Schweibish has occasionally shown Rocky in dog shows usually without any problems, according to Schweibish. During my examination of Rocky, he did not display any signs indicating established aggressive propensities towards humans. He did not demonstrate tendencies of dominance. He accepted my handling and physical manipulation without incident. He reacted with normal territorial barking and charging, but without growling or snarling, when I approached and provocatively banged on the front gate to the Schweibish property. Past aggressive displays by Rocky towards other dogs were confirmed by Schweibish. However, Schweibish claims that Rocky only became aggressive towards another dog, for defensive reasons, when another dog tried to mount him. Schweibish asserts that Rocky was generally well-behaved and non-aggressive while at dog shows with the possible exception of one incident. On the other hand, Podell and Bender both adamantly assert that that Rocky was considerably more aggressive and dominant to dogs than Schweibish would lead one to believe. Prior to the incident, Rocky knew Icon and Mac and generally tolerated these dogs during his encounters with them. A photograph of Rocky appears in Figure 1.
Distances between Rocky’s canine teeth
The distance between Rocky’s two upper canine teeth and his two lower canine teeth are shown in Figure 2. These recent photographs were provided to me by Schweibish. The measurements are as follows:M
The 8 year-old neutered female Rottweiler owned by Gloria Bender, Mac, impressed me as a submissive dog towards humans both in a dominance and territorial sense. Mac showed no reactivity when I intentionally banged on the front door of the Bender residence at the time of my inspection. Bender says Mac was in good health and Mac impressed me generally as a healthy, friendly and temperamentally sound Rottweiler. I encountered no problem in physically manipulating Mac inside the Bender residence. Mac readily assumed a supine submissive position with relatively little resistance during my attempt (with the help of Teresa Vint) to measure the distance between her two upper and two lower canine teeth.
The distances were as follows:
Distance between the two upper canine teeth 2 inches;
Distance between the two lower canine teeth 1.5 inches.
Photographs to verify these distances were not taken during the measurement procedure. Teresa Vint assisted in the measure procedure and she should be able to confirm the accuracy of these distances.
In addition, I attempted to gather information from Bender regarding Mac's patrolling behavior, or as Schweibish calls it, Mac's policing behavior. Apparently, according to Schweibish, while at the Bark Park Mac has the tendency to insert herself between two dogs who became engaged in emotional, aggressive- like, encounters. Mac's tendency to display this sort of inserting behavior was confirmed by Bender, but she dismissed the notion that it was ever done with aggressive intent. Craig Podell also confirmed that, at times, Mac had the tendency to display this kind of behavior. Podell also stated that in contrast to Rocky, Mac was non-aggressive towards other dogs and very friendly towards people. Bender cogently emphasized that Mac was a very friendly dog and had never displayed any aggression whatsoever towards a human. Moreover, during my cursory examination of Mac at the Bark Park confirms what Bender says in that Mac appeared well-behaved, non-aggressive and relatively indifferent towards the other dogs and people who were present.
Relatively little is known about Icon, the Husky type dog controlled (at the time of the incident) by Dan. Craig Podell and Schweibish both characterized Icon as dog-aggressive. I would estimate that Icon's weight to be approximately 45 lbs. Based on the assumption that Icon was a husky- type dog (independently confirmed by Bender and Schweibish), it would be fair to assume that the distance between Icon's two upper canine teeth and distances between the two lower canine teeth were not as great as the distances between the corresponding teeth for Rocky or Mac.
According to Podell and Schweibish, they along with Bender, were seated on a bench approximately 6 ft. from where the incident occurred. Prior to the incident, on that same day, Rocky had engaged in two previous aggressive skirmishes with Icon. These skirmishes were momentary and they did not resulted in injury to anyone. The second of these two previous skirmishes had concluded approximately five minutes prior to the incident that led to the injury of Schweibish. According to Schweibish, things appeared to have settled down between Icon and Rocky prior to the start of the third skirmish involving Rocky, Icon, Mac, and possibly one or two other dogs.
According to Schweibish, the incident started when Icon came from behind the bench and started to engage Rocky aggressively. Rocky was standing nearby the bench. Schweibish says that when he noticed this happening, he immediately left the bench, came to the right of Rocky to position himself in front of Rocky, and then used his hands to push Rocky away from Icon.
Next, according to Schweibish, he immediately restrained Rocky by putting his left arm around the chest of Rocky while simultaneously forceably pulling backwards on Rocky’s neck with his right hand. Figure 2 illustrates the posture Schweibish says he was assuming. When Schweibish approached Rocky to push him away from Icon, he makes no mention of the presence of any other dog, including Mac.
Shortly after Schweibish assumed the posture shown in Figure 2, he claims Mac suddenly came charging from his left in what he believes may have been an attempt to attack Rocky. He is unsure if Mac was successful in biting Rocky. He says when this happened he tried to thwart the advance of Mac by pushing Mac back with his left arm. This was momentarily successful. However, Mac immediately came forward again and, according to Schweibish, latched onto his right forearm which was position flush on the cervical part of Rocky’s spine.
Next, Schweibish says Mac released his bite and then immediately regripped with considerably more force and pressure. Schweibish says that he felt intense pressure with the second bite. Schweibish then believes Mack was pulled away from him, resulting Mac’s tooth tearing his right arm. Icon in turn continued to be restrained by Dan, thus ending the skirmish which according to Podell lasted approximately 10 seconds from start to finish. The bite marks to Schweibish's right arm, including the tearing injury, are shown in Figure 3. Distances between the bite marks are illustrated in this photo.
Podell's version of the skirmish is slightly different. He claims that all three dogs, Icon, Rocky, and Mac were already engaged in what he terms "mixing it up" when he and Schweibish left simultaneously the bench to intervene. He makes no mention of Mac suddenly coming into the left side into Schweibish. However, he places Mac to the left of Schweibish when Schweibish first started to intervene. He believes that Schweibish, in its attempts at intervention, put his arm between the dogs who were fighting and because of this action he was bitten. He is not sure which dog, or dogs, bit Schweibish, however. He did not witness the bite because he says was focused on Mac. Podell separated Mac from the other dogs by grabbing his hind legs and pulling him away “like a wheelbarrel.”
Based on the above description of how the incident happened along with my understanding of the behavioral and physical features of Rocky, Mac, and Icon, I will list the main assumptions I have used in forming my opinions. These assumptions are as follows (not necessarily in order of importance):
1. The only eyewitnesses to the incident were Schweibish and Podell. Podell did not actually see a dog bite Schweibish, however. Therefore the only eyewitness to the actual bite(s) is Schweibish. On the other hand, Podell has knowledge of the bodily position of Schweibish relative to the dogs during the incident;
2. Three principal dogs involved in the incident were Rocky, Icon and Mac.
3. The bite to Schweibish occurred when these three principal dogs, and possibly two or three other peripheral dogs, started “mixing it up” in an aggressive manner;
4. The incident lasted approximately 10 seconds. Intervention by Podell and Schweibish happened within 5 seconds after the incident started. At some point during the incident, Rocky, Icon and Mac were all close enough to bite each other or bite Schweibish;
5. Schweibish was able to intervene before Podell started pulling Mac away. Podell began pulling on Mac when Schweibish was in front of Rocky pushing him away from Icon or after repositioned himself to a bending position beside Rocky;
6. For the entire duration of the incident, Mac was positioned to the left of Rocky and Schweibish. Prior to Schweibish repositioning himself beside Rocky (i.e. assuming the bending position besides Rocky – Figure 3), Schweibish when he first approached was to the left of Rocky (i.e. Rocky on his right). When he started to push on Rocky, Rocky became positioned directly in front of Schweibish thereby placing Mac to the right of Schweibish. After Schweibish repositioned himself, Mac became positioned to the left of Schweibish. The position of Icon varied in relations to the position of Schweibish: first he was to the right, then behind, and then to the front after repositioning.
6. Schweibish was bitten by a dog who at the time of the bite had to have been perpendicular to his right arm.
7. Rocky was momentariarly perpendicular to Schweibish only at the very beginning of the incident – that is, just as he approached the dogs and before he started to push Rocky away from Icon.
8. Icon was momentariarly perpendicular to Schweibish only at the very beginning of the incident – that is, just as he approached the dogs and before he started to push Rocky away from Icon.
9. Mac was perpendicular to Schweibish at all times during the incident: namely, when he first approached, after he turned to push, and after he repositioned himself.
10. Schweibish was bitten either by either Rocky, Mac, or Icon, or possibly by more than one of these dogs, and not the peripheral dogs involved in the incident;
11. Schweibish was bitten at least twice, and possibly as many as three or four times. The bites to Schweibish occurred at the beginning of the incident when he first approached, or when hw was pushing Rocky backwards, or the bite(s) were inflicted after he repositioned himself besides Rocky.
12. Distances between the upper and lower canine teeth for Mac as well as those distances between the canine teeth for Rocky have been accurately measured as stated above. The distances between the canine teeth for Icon are less then the distances for either Rocky or Mac.
13. Podell removed and Mack from the incident by pulling on his hind legs and dragginghim away “like a wheelbarrel”;
14. At the time of the incident, Mac, Rocky, and Icon were all in a heightened emotional state conducive for the display aggressive behavior. Because of this heightened state of emotional reactivity and the past history of these dogs, any on one of these dogs, including Mac, had the potential to bite Schweibish.
15. Mac, in most circumstances, possessed a decidedly non aggressive temperament towards people and other dogs. Rocky and Icon, on the other hand, possessed tendencies for aggression towards other dogs. Rocky, like Mack, also probably possessed a non aggressive temperament towards people in most circumstances.
16. Two of the most noticeable bite marks on the right forearm of Schweibish show an exact separation of two inches between a single puncture wound and a tear of approximately 3 in. in length (Figure 2). Two other noticeable the puncture wounds are located towards the wrist on the left underside of the right forearm and the distance between these two wounds is exactly 1 inch.
17. Based upon the alignment of the two wounds separated by a distance of 2 in. (i.e the tear and the puncture), the direction of the tear on the right arm of Schweibish moves from his outside right forearm to the inside. Therefore, this injury was inflicted by a dog who was positioned to the left of Schweibish and perpendicular to Schweibish.
Issues relevant to determining which dog bit Schweibish.
In order to determine which dog inflicted the bites to Schweibish, the following four issues must be scrutinize:
1. The position of Rocky, Mac and the Icon relative to Schweibish during all phases of the incident;
2. The bite wounds relative to the distance between the canine teeth;
3. The significance of the tear across the arm of Schweibish;
4. The temperament of the dogs and their past behavior in the context of the dog park.
According to Podell, Rocky, Icon and Mack were “mixing it up” when Schweibish attempted intervention. According to Podell, he went between the dogs. Podell says that Mac was to the left of Rocky.
Note that some aspects of Podell’s version differs from that of Schweibish’s. According to Schweibish, Mac was not near him. Rather, Rocky and Icon were face-to-face, both aggressively aroused, and he moved towards these two dogs in an attempt to push Rocky away from icon before he repositioned himself, kneeling down, to the left side of Rocky. After he was kneeling down is when Schweibish says Mac came from his left. Hence. If Schweibish version is believed, then during the first part of the incident Mac was not positioned properly (i.e. perpendicular) to inflict the injury. On the other hand, if Podel is believed, then Mac was properly positioned.
Regardless of which version one chooses to believe, it appears that Mac was positioned to the left of Rocky, and depending on which direction Schweibish was facing, Mac was either to the left of Schweibish or to his right. In the beginning of his intervention and before he turned and repositioned himself , if one believes Schweibish, Mac must have been to the right of Schweibish. After he repositioned himself and as he started to restrain Rocky with his left arm, Mac therefore must have been positioned to his left. Schweibish claims that Mac came from his left which is consistent with the recollection of Podell. Given this, Mac was properly positioned to inflict injury to the right forearm of Schweibish at any time during the approximately 10 seconds in which Schweibish was attempting intervention.
Position of Rocky
According to Podell, he believes Schweibish was bending down alongside Rocky and restraining Rocky in a matter similar to what Schweibish describes. Thus Podell's account confirms the account of Schweibish after he repositioned himself. This being the case, Rocky's head had to have been positioned away from Schweibish towards Icon, thus making it impossible for him to bite his right arm. Further it is unlikely that Rocky bit Schweibish In the approximately three to five seconds Schweibish was in front of Rocky pushing him backwards because of the position of the right arm of Schweibish relative to the position of Rocky. that this is say, according to Schweibish, he and Rocky were head on thus effectively putting his arm in a position to avoid a bite from a dog coming across his arm in a horizontal manner as depicted in figure two.
It's possible, but unlikely, that Rocky bit Schweibish when he was approaching Rocky at the very beginning of this attempted intervention. However , the horizontal nature of the bite - that is, a dog's mouth coming across the arm - does not seem to make this possibility feasible. Moreover, it is just as unlikely that Rocky bit Schweibish just when Schweibish was approaching and before any physical restraint of Rocky. In this very brief period of time, it's likely that the focus of Rocky remain on Icon, thus making it unlikely that he would turn and bite Schweibish.
Podell confirms the account of Schweibish in that icon was in front of Rocky, either directly or slightly to the right. This would put icon in the same position relative to Schweibish since Schweibish approached Rocky front the right side of Rocky. Given this positioning, the was a very short period time, where the right arm Schweibish may have been properly positioned for Icon to inflict a bite across his right arm. If this did happen, then it would have probably occurred simultaneously when Schweibish was first attempting to reach for Rocky while icon was attempting to bite Rocky. this account is consistent with Podell's belief that Schweibish inserted his arm between several dogs who were mixing it up.
Further, if the version of Schweibish is believed, then Icon probably would not have been properly positioned to bite Schweibish on the right arm during the first phase of his intervention (i.e. pushing Rocky backwards). During this first phase, the right arm of Schweibish would have been juxtapose to Icon. During the second phase of his intervention (i.e. kneeling on the left side as Rocky with his right arm on top of the spine of Rocky), the right arm of Schweibish became more accessible to Icon given that Icon was either directly in front or slightly to the right of Rocky. Given this, icon was properly positioned to bite Schweibish on the right arm.
Both Mac and icon were physically positioned to make a bite to the right arm of Schweibish possible. In contrast, It is unlikely that Rocky was properly positioned at any point during the intervention of Schweibish to bite Schweibish on his right forearm.
Nature of the bite wounds on the right forearm of Schweibish and distances between the canine teeth
(a) Distances between the canine teeth
Distances between the canine teeth for each dog have been noted above.
(b) Nature and distance between the bite wounds
At the time of my examination of Schweibish four distinguishable wounds were apparent. Specifically, there were two small punctures, not very large in diameter, spaced 1 in. apart on the inside right forearm near the wrist. Next, there was a single large diameter puncture wound on the topside of the right forearm exactly 2 in. away from an approximately 3 in. length tear across the right-central forearm. The scar from the 3 inch tear was quite obvious. It appeared that other puncture wounds on Schweibish’s arm were present; however, these were not clearly defined, hence accurate measurement and identification became difficult.
It is significant to note that the larger puncture wound, spaced 2 in. away from the tear, corresponds exactly with the distance between the upper canine teeth of Mac. This distance does not correspond with the distance between either the upper canine teeth of Rocky. in contrast, the distance between the two smaller puncture wounds clearly does not match the separation between the canine teeth in either Mac or Rocky. On the other hand, they may approximate more closely the distance between the canine teeth in Icon. In the absence of specific measurement on Icon, this is only speculatively, however.
There is a perfect correspondence between two distinguishable bite wounds and the separation of the upper canine teeth for Mac. The two other distinguishable smaller bite wounds that are present suggests more than one bite occurred during the incident. these latter bite wounds were more likely to have been inflicted by icon rather than Rocky or Mac because of their small diameter and the relatively closer distance between the two wounds.
The significance of the tear across the arm of Schweibish
as noted above, one distinguishable wound consisted of a tear across the top of the arm of Schweibish approximately 2 in. from a relatively large puncture wound. Moreover, of considerable significance, is the fact that an approximate even alignment exists between the one end of this this tear and the puncture wound. If one uses this alignment, then the direction of the tear appears to move from the outside of the arm to the inside. In other words, the tear appears to move from right to left.
This is significance because according to Schweibish, Mac came from his left, as he was kneeling, and seize his right arm. Podell, in turn, confirms Mac's position relative to Schweibish and the fact that he pulled Mac from the where the dogs and Schweibish where positioned. In light of this information, it seems fairly straightforward to conclude that the tear on the arm of Schweibish was a result of Podell pulling Mac from Schweibish, from right to left, just at the time when Mac had the arm of Schweibish in his mouth.
The tear on the arm of Schweibish is consistent with a ripping motion from a dog's canine tooth. Given the position of Podell and Mac relative to Schweibish and the facts that (a) Podell says he pulled Mac backwards, and (b) that tear appears to move from outside right of the arm of Schweibish to the inside left, it seems likely that the tear was caused as a result of Mac being pulled away from Schweibish just the time when he had the arm of Schweibish in his mouth.
The temperament of the dogs
the owner of Mac, Gloria bender, repeatedly stressed to me the Mac was said entirely passive dog, well tempered, and that he had never displayed any aggression to any person whatsoever. Certainly my observations of him during my inspection in the bender home and at the park confirm the claims of bender. Moreover, she supplied me with the names of several other people who would confirm the fact that Mac was a well tempered dog. I chose not to contact these people because I do not believe they would have added anything to my impression of the fact that Mack was very well tempered and non aggressive in nearly all circumstances. I believe the propensity to bite a human in this dog in nearly all circumstances would be virtually nil.
However, I also believe that in certain specifically defined circumstances this may not hold true. specifically, I am referring to the kind of circumstances that arise when two or more dog start displayed aggression towards each other . It is important note that Podell, Schweibish and even bender herself acknowledge that Mac had an interest in so-called police work. That is, the pattern seemed to be that when Mac was in the park and two two dogs got into a "tif", Mac would approach and intervene. Bender says when this happened Mack would place her body between the dogs is a non aggressive manner. Essentially the same pattern of behavior was confirmed by Podell and Schweibish, all Schweibish says that the interventions by Mac had more of an aggressive tone to them. The motivation for this relatively odd behavior is unclear, but in the least I believe this sort of behavior sets the foundation for aggressive responding, particularly if the dogs Mac approached were already in a fairly intense aggressive state.
During my interview with Gloria bender, I feel she cogently implied that it would have been impossible for Mac to have bit Schweibish because Mac had never displayed any signs of aggressive behavior in the past toward humans. This may very well be true with regard to her generally non-aggressive and friendly demeanor. On the surface, it would appear this she is a very sociable dog and lacks the potential for aggressive responding in the contexts in which I examined her. on the other hand, I believe that the circumstances created by aggression between icon and Rocky and the fact that Mac possessed of the tendency to approach for intervention purposes in these sort of situations could have well aroused aggressive tendencies in Mac. In short, despite the beliefs of Bender and others who were familiar with Mac, given the circumstances present at the time the incident happened, I believe Mac had the potential of becoming aggressively aroused with the consequence of being motivationally capable of directing biting behavior to either Schweibish or Rocky.
It is important to note that the literature in animal behavior documents cases where, in certain circumstances, a previously non aggressive placid adult dog, such as golden retriever, can become aggressive and attack its owner. Likewise many placid dogs with decidedly non-aggressive tendencies towards other dogs have the potential to become aggressive towards other dogs depending on the circumstances they are confronted with. Owners with such dogs nevertheless find it difficult to understand how their dog could turn aggressive. Taking this into consideration and given Mac's attraction and interest in dogs who squabbled via her policing behavior, I feel that it was entirely possible that when the incident began between Rocky and Icon, Mac took notice and became aggressively aroused. Therefore, I believe she had the potential to engage in aggressive behavior directed towards Rocky. The fact that she was probably involved in the squabble, or started to become involved, is confirmed by Podell. Given this, it would be naïve to assume that she was not aggressively aroused.
Moreover, there is obviously no doubt that both Icon and Rocky were likewise aggressively arouse. Like Mac, either of these two dogs were in a motivational state conducive to making them capable of biting Schweibish.
Conclusions
Given that all three dogs were in an motivational state making them capable of biting Schweibish, in order to determine which dog(s) inflicted the bites to Schweibish one must utilize the following sources of information: (1) the position of each dog relative to Schweibish and Rocky as the incident unfolded , and (2) the nature of wounds on the arm of Schweibish in relation to the width between the canine teeth of each dog. Using this information, it seems reasonable to conclude that:
1. Rocky probably did not inflict bites to Schweibish. His positioning relative to Schweibish lends credence to this conclusion. Moreover, the distance between his canine teeth do not match any visible wounds on Schweibish.
2. The nature of wounds and the positioning of Mac make it certain beyond a reasonable doubt that she was responsible for inflicting some if all not all of the bites to Schweibish. In particular, the tearing on Schweibish’s arm could only have been caused by the action of Podell pulling on her away from Rocky and Schweibish. Of great significance is the two inch distance between the tearing wound and the relatively large puncture wound. This is an exact match with the distance between Mac's upper canine teeth, thus conclusively demonstrating that Mac inflicted this injury onto Schweibish.
3. It is uncertain if icon inflicted any bites. Some of the smaller puncture wounds and other puncture wounds not clearly visible may have come from Icon. His positioning relative to Schweibish at the start of the incident make this a possibility.
Given that Mac was the dog responsible for inflicting some of the wounds to Schweibish, it is likely he was bitten not as a result of Mac intentionally directing her bites to his arm but rather because his right arm and hand were on the neck area of Rocky and flush on the back of Rocky. The focus of Mac was probably entirely on a Rocky and her intention was to bite Rocky and not Schweibish. It's likely that Mac directed her biting behavior to the neck area of Rocky (as is common for many dog fights embroiled in a dog fight) and in the process mistakenly seized the arm of Schweibish. The incident ended and disengagement occurred as a result of Podell pulling backwards on Mac on her hind legs which in turn caused the tear to the arm of Schweibish.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Polsky, Ph.D.
Certified applied animal behaviorist 
Contact Info:
Animal Behavior Counseling Services, Inc.
2288 Manning Ave.
Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: (310) 474-3776
Nationwide: (800) 605-2227
email