While I was talking to the receptionist, I explained the problem... and she told me that "by law" the vet has to do a full examination on a new pet, and then, "if they see a problem," they can address it.
If they see a problem? First off, I'm telling you there is a problem. This is why I'm calling you.
Secondly, if that's really the law, then you are the only ones following it!
I've taken my pets -- cats, dogs, various rodents, and horses -- to many different vets in my lifetime, and I've never heard one tell me that they need to give my pet a full examination before they can even discuss the reason I've ome to see them. In fact, one of our dogs, Emma, has been to two different vets for the first time in the last two months -- she's been sick with pneumonia, and saw our regular vet for the first time while she was sick, plus went into emergency care -- and no one ever mentioned this supposed law.
I suspect that either there IS no such law... OR there is a law that says a vet cannot prescribe a treatment without examining the animal (to prevent malpractice), and this vet is willfully misunderstanding the law in order to demand expensive consultations of every new patient.
Which brings me to the point of this post: Always go with your gut when choosing a new vet. If you don't like a vet's policies, if they seem unusually aggressive or conservative in a way that doesn't sit well with you, if you don't get along with the vet or the staff, or if your cat doesn't get along with them, trust your instincts!
Obviously, as soon as the receptionist told me about the supposed exam law on the phone, I told her we would stick with our usual vet after all. If we are going to change vets, we will do it when the time for our pets' annual checkups comes around, but for this minor injury it makes sense to stick with the vet who has her records and knows her history.