Mr Shillabeer faced five charges which largely related to his alleged prescription of contra-indicated NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
He was also charged with prescribing frusemide to a pregnant dog when there was no evidence of a benefit of so doing.
He was also charged with performing inadequate spay surgery.
Mr Shillabeer did not admit to any of the charges, engaged with the College and responded to all requests for information, as well as being present in-person at the hearing.
He made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment, subject to the Committee accepting his written undertaking to remove his name from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In support of his application, Mr Shillabeer’s legal counsel referred to his client’s witness statement, which set out that he had previously attempted to sell his practice but had been unsuccessful and that he had since closed it.
His legal counsel also asked the Committee to consider the fact that Mr Shillabeer is almost 85 years old and has had an unblemished 60-year career, has had no previous disciplinary findings against him, had put his practice up for sale and made efforts to guide his previous clients to ensure continuity of care elsewhere, and that he deeply regrets anything he has done, which has failed to protect the welfare of animals, or has caused concern or upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Shillabeer's counsel also asked the Committee to take into consideration that his undertakings would have the effect of protecting the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession as Mr Shillabeer is no longer in practice.
He stated it would be not proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and Mr Shillabeer.
The College’s legal representative stated that the RCVS did not oppose the application, and that it took a neutral stance.
She highlighted that Mr Shillabeer’s removal from the Register, together with his undertaking never to apply for restoration, would go far beyond anything the Committee could direct by way of sanction after a full enquiry, that Mr Shillabeer retired from practice on 23 July 2024 and does not intend to return, that a full enquiry would take a significant amount of time and expense, that the complainant supports the case being dealt with in the manner proposed by Mr Shillabeer, and that there are no previous findings against Mr Shillabeer.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the undertaking never to practice again, in conjunction with all of the circumstances and context set out, the Committee considered that by allowing the application, such an outcome would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
Mr Shillabeer was removed from the Register with immediate effect.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Mr Stuart Drummond, considered six charges against Dr Gunn.
The first charge alleged that, early in 2018, Dr Gunn failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the dog. In particular, having removed a mass from the right thorax, he undertook an excess number of surgical procedures, including under general anaesthetic, within a 13 day period; performed these procedures without offering alternative treatments or discussing referral with the owners; failed to recognise infected wounds; and administered an antibiotic when the dog was infected with MRSA and E-coli.
The second charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to communicate adequately, openly and honestly with the owners of the terrier on multiple occasions between 16 January and 3 February 2018. This included but was not limited to: failing to provide the owners with an estimation of fees; failing to inform them in advance of the procedures performed; failing to inform them of options for treatment; and failing to inform them that the terrier had an infection when he knew or ought to have known that she did.
The third charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to obtain informed consent in relation to the further procedures performed on the terrier in charge one.
The fourth charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to maintain adequate clinical records in relation to the management of the dog, and that he failed to record the prescription and administration of drugs to treat the terrier.
The fifth charge alleged that Dr Gunn indicated to the owners that euthanasia was the most appropriate treatment option and/or that there were no other realistic treatment options, when this was not the case and when he ought to have known this was not the case.
The sixth charge alleged that, during the course of a referral of the terrier to another practice, Dr Gunn failed to provide an adequate history of his management of the dog and that he informed the practice that the owners had no finances when this was not true, amounting to an incomplete account of his dealings with the owners and to a breach of their confidence.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted to a number of the allegations within the main six charges, which were found proved by the Committee.
Of the charges not admitted to, a number were found proved and the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Gunn’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that the dog’s suffering was prolonged because of the persistence of Dr Gunn in pursuing a single ineffective treatment approach.
With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee found that Dr Gunn was remorseful as to his actions, that there was no financial motivation on the part of Dr Gunn in respect of his treatment of the terrier, and that there is a low risk of repetition because Dr Gunn has sought to learn from this experience. A number of relevant and high-quality testimonials were also provided by colleagues and many satisfied owners on behalf of Dr Gunn.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Gunn’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon for a number of the charges.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Gunn. The Committee was satisfied that the misconduct found proved was in relation to the treatment of one dog only and therefore it was at the lower end of the spectrum. However, the conduct took place over a prolonged period of two weeks which in the Committee’s view required a sanction. In such circumstances, and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Dr Gunn and to warn him about his future conduct.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Mr Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee concluded that the effect of a reprimand alongside the Committee’s findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect was a sufficient and proportionate sanction. The Committee found Dr Gunn to have developed sufficient insight into his failings and it was satisfied that the disciplinary process had been a salutary experience and that he is very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future or to contravene professional standards.
"The Committee decided that a warning as to future conduct was necessary to reduce the risk of any repetition of any similar conduct for Dr Gunn in the future. It therefore concluded that the sanction of a reprimand and warning would be a sufficient in the circumstances of this case having taking into consideration all the powerful personal mitigation."
The complete list of charges and the Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a veterinary surgeon who failed to make sufficient enquiries about the location or condition of a cat; unreasonably refused to provide it with first aid and pain relief; and failed to provide it with adequate 24-hour emergency care.
Following a three-day hearing, the Committee found Marcus Kutschera, of South London Emergency Veterinary Centre, Streatham, guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to events on 16 May 2011. Mr Kutschera was Clinical Director of the practice, which provided out-of-hours emergency services to several London veterinary practices. At about 1.45am, the practice received two telephone calls from a representative of a registered charity about a cat, which the caller considered should be seen by a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible. The charity was itself a client of one of the practices whose out-of-hours emergency services were provided by the South London Emergency Veterinary Centre. The cat was later euthanased by the RSPCA.
After listening to a recording of a telephone call between a representative of the charity and Mr Kutschera, during which Mr Kutschera failed to ask about either the condition or location of the cat, the Committee was in no doubt that the caller believed Mr Kutschera would not see the cat unless he was able to pay when it was presented. The Committee said that, once the telephone call had been received, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon was the welfare of the animal, and Mr Kutschera had no good reason not to see the cat or to follow the procedures set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct 2010. If he had made proper inquiries, he would have been able to make a provisional diagnosis that the cat was likely to be euthanased. Mr Kutschera was guilty of unreasonably refusing to provide first aid and/or pain relief to the animal, and of failing to provide adequate 24-hour emergency care.
The Committee concluded that Mr Kutschera's conduct fell far short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon. Although he did recommend that the cat should be taken to the RSPCA, his primary concern was the ability of the client to make a payment on presentation of the cat, and not the animal's welfare. He had a responsibility for ensuring that proper emergency cover was provided.
In mitigation, the Committee noted that the event was a single, short telephone call between Mr Kutschera and the client in the early hours of the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest similar behaviour on his part on other occasions. Mr Kutschera accepted that he made no inquiries into the cat's condition or location, and the Committee accepted that he had shown some insight into what went badly wrong. He said that he had subsequently changed his practice when speaking to clients on the telephone. The Committee also took account of the impact on Mr Kutschera of the case hanging over him since the complaint was made in August 2011 and, as the cost of the Disciplinary Committee inquiry was not covered by his professional indemnity insurance, he had taken on a substantial financial commitment to pay for legal representation.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst there are undoubted financial issues that can arise in the operation of an out-of-hours service, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon is for the welfare of the animal."
The Committee recommended that Mr Kutschera undertake, within 12 months, continuing professional development training, with a particular emphasis on animal welfare, ethics and client care, in the context of providing out-of-hours services. It imposed on Mr Kutschera the sanction of a severe reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.
Prior to the start of the hearing, the RCVS received correspondence from Mr Kombert confirming that he did not intend to attend the hearing, either in person or via a video-link, nor did he intend to send legal representation in his stead.
The Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Kombert and any legal representation, on the basis that it was in the public interest and the interests of justice to proceed and that Mr Kombert had been given the opportunity to attend or be represented.
The Committee heard that staff at the practice where Mr Kombert was working as a locum had undertaken a check of the medicines kept in the practice’s controlled drugs cabinet and discovered that 5.5ml of ketamine and 1.5ml of methadone was missing. After the code to the controlled drugs cabinet was changed, Mr Kombert was observed taking an additional 3ml of methadone, which he then administered to himself while on duty at the practice.
After Mr Kombert was confronted with the evidence, he was given the details of the Vetlife charity for support and asked not to return to the practice.
The police were contacted and, on 4 January 2019, Mr Kombert was arrested and interviewed. He received a police caution for theft, with conditions that he should attend and complete a drug-use awareness course, and engage in a restorative justice process, which involved attending the practice to discuss his offences. At this meeting, Mr Kombert admitted stealing the drugs and administering them to himself while on duty, which meant he was not in a fit state to see patients. He apologised for his actions and the matter was then also reported to the RCVS.
In relation to the fact that Mr Kombert had accepted the police caution, made the admissions at the restorative justice meeting and had emailed the RCVS apologising for his actions, the facts of the case were found proven.
The Committee then went on to consider if Mr Kombert’s actions amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect (henceforth called ‘serious professional misconduct’), something which Mr Kombert had admitted to in correspondence with the RCVS.
The Committee found that Mr Kombert’s actions did amount to serious professional misconduct. Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s conduct was dishonest; it constituted both a breach of trust and an abuse of his position with regards to access to veterinary medicines; it risked animal welfare and jeopardised the reputation of colleagues. It fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee then considered what the appropriate sanction against Mr Kombert should be, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of harm to animals, his dishonesty, the premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of trust and the fact it was repeated.
It also took into account three previous matters recorded against Mr Kombert in the United States of America.
These were: a letter of admonition from the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine for practising when his licence had expired; a stipulation order from the same body in which he agreed to relinquish his licence in that state following an allegation that he took controlled substances from a veterinary practice and self-administered them; and a criminal conviction in New York State for obtaining an opioid controlled drug by deception, for which he was sentenced to three years’ probation. The Committee was made aware of the New York State criminal conviction after Dianne Norris, a Probation Officer based in that state, had contacted the RCVS after hearing about the inquiry and informed the College that Mr Kombert was in breach of his probation conditions.
Dr Whiting said: “The Committee has considered the witness statement of Ms Dianne Norris, a probation officer employed by Putnam County Probation in New York, who was responsible for supervising the respondent as part of his probation. Ms Norris explained that the respondent breached his probation on numerous occasions, which took place from November 2017 to 2018…. As a result of the breaches, Ms Norris required the respondent to increase his attendance at support groups to an inpatient treatment program for 28 days from 13 July 2018. He failed to attend.
"Ms Norris explained that warrants were issued for the respondent’s arrest…. The Committee noted that the conduct of the respondent in relation to obtaining controlled drugs from his employers for his own use while in the United States of America was similar to his conduct … [described in] the charges."
In mitigation the Committee considered that Mr Kombert had consistently admitted the charges against him as well as accepting and agreeing with the evidence against him.
However, the Committee decided that in light of the seriousness of his misconduct, including dishonesty and risk of serious harm to animals, removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Summing up, Dr Whiting said: "The respondent has failed to uphold the requisite standards to be expected of him on multiple occasions. The Committee considers that the only sanction that is sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct is one of erasure."
Mr Kombert has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Peter Keniry has convictions dating back to 1986 in his native South Africa for fraud and impersonating a veterinary surgeon. The College says that in the UK, he has been known to steal the identities of legitimately registered members in order to support fraudulent applications for employment or practise fraudulently.
The College says that in the past, Mr Keniry has been able to gain employment in large and small animal practice and greyhound racing. He is known to have ties in Norfolk, Swindon, Somerset and possibly Cornwall.
Michael Hepper, Chief Investigator at the RCVS, has worked with several police forces in order to bring Mr Keniry to justice. He said: "Peter Keniry’s modus operandi is to steal the identity of properly registered members to obtain work as a veterinary surgeon. As he impersonates members of the College whose names are legitimately on the Register, this can make it extremely difficult, even for practices that do check prospective employees’ credentials, to identify him.
"He is well known to the College and to the police having been convicted in 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2011 and has served custodial sentences for practising as a veterinary surgeon and fraud.
"Peter Keniry is a repeat offender and we suspect that he will continue to re-offend. We hope that by publishing his photograph it will help practices recognise him and contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department should he apply for employment as a veterinary surgeon."
The RCVS Professional Conduct Department can be contacted on profcon@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0789.
The Queen's Medal is the highest honour the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon.
Dr Johnson is the Chairman of World Horse Welfare, travelling internationally and lecturing on behalf of the charity with a particular involvement in fundraising, profile-enhancing and education. He is also the Chairman of the World Horse Welfare International Committee, and a regional representative for the Veterinary Benevolent Fund as well as being Deputy Lord Lieutenant for Lancashire.
After graduating from the University of Liverpool in 1969 he established an equine and farm animal practice in 1974 on the Fylde Coast. He then quickly became involved in many other lines of work, lecturing at the Myerscough College for thirty years, acting on the Agricultural Training Board, and serving as RCVS President from 1993-1994. He was also an RCVS Council Member for 28 years (1986-1998; 2000-2016) and served on many RCVS Committees.
Barry said: "This is an enormous honour for a practitioner from Lancashire. I have always enjoyed being a veterinary surgeon and am grateful to my colleagues and clients for making my career so fulfilling rewarding and fun."
He was nominated by fellow veterinary surgeon, Dr Peter Jinman, a current member of RCVS Council. In his nomination Dr Jinman said: "There are few members who have contributed so much of their personal time for the benefit of the veterinary profession both locally and nationally… That this has been done often without the knowledge of the public or the rest of the profession and at no little personal expense, demands recognition… Barry represents the very best of what a veterinary practitioner can achieve both in terms of his profession and in wider society."
The College has also announced that Kathy Kissick has won this year's Golden Jubilee Award, the highest honour that can be bestowed on a veterinary nurse.
Kathy is a trustee of the Alderney Animal Welfare Society and has previously acted as the Head of School for Veterinary Nursing and Farriery Science at Mysercough College in Lancashire. She qualified as a veterinary nurse in 1983 and, since then, has acted as an external examiner and adviser for a number of veterinary nursing course providers over the years and is currently on the editorial board for The Veterinary Nurse.
She has also been very active within the RCVS, initially as a nursing examiner and then as both a Member and then Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council.
Kathy said: "I am delighted, honoured and humbled to accept the Golden Jubilee award and hope that I can continue to inspire veterinary nurses, throughout their careers, to always do the very best for their patients, clients and colleagues but not to forget to follow their dreams."
The winners will receive their accolade at this year’s RCVS Day, which takes place on Friday 7 July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
The announcement came in the form of a written statement by the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid to the House of Commons on 23rd July, which said: "The Government is happy to accept all of the MAC’s recommendations on the composition of the SOL and the necessary amendments will be made in the Autumn Immigration Rules changes."
Being on the shortage occupation list means that employers do not need to advertise jobs for veterinary surgeons in the UK for 28 days before advertising abroad (the Resident Labour Market Test). In addition, there are lower visa fees and it provides exemption from the minimum income threshold.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: "Both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association worked together to ensure this outcome, which will see a lowering of the immigration barriers, for example, in terms of visa requirements, for overseas veterinary surgeons who wish to live and work in the UK.
"We also considered this a vital piece of preparation for the UK leaving the EU, as around half of those registering as veterinary surgeons with the RCVS in a given year are non-UK EU nationals and we would not want to see this vital supply of veterinary talent immediately dry up should ‘freedom of movement’ end when the UK leaves the EU.
"We thank Mr Javid for accepting the Committee’s proposals and congratulate his successor Priti Patel on her appointment and look forward to the decision being implemented. The new Prime Minister pledged on the steps of Downing Street to do more to promote the welfare of animals, and having veterinary surgeons on the Shortage Occupation List will help in our mission to uphold animal health and welfare and ensure that vital veterinary work can continue to get done, whatever happens with the relationship between the UK and the EU."
Dr Crawford sent the email to his client, Mrs X, on 15 July 2014, the day on which Mrs X’s horse was due for insemination using horse semen supplied from a horse in Germany. However, the semen had arrived without the Intra Trade Certificate, a requirement for intra-EU inseminations, and so Dr Crawford proceeded to contact the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for alternative authorisation.
Just after 4:30pm on that day, Mrs X received a text from Dr Crawford advising her that he had received authorisation from the AHVLA, and would forward to Mrs X the AHVLA authorisation email. It later transpired that that the email had in fact been fabricated by Dr Crawford using an email that he had previously received from the AHVLA regarding another matter.
Dr Crawford faced the following charges:
Fabricating an e-mail purporting to be from the veterinary officer at the AVHLA, authorising use of semen from a horse for insemination, when in fact he had not received such authorisation.
Dishonesty in relation to the e-mail described above.
His conduct gave rise to spread of infectious disease which had the potential to affect equine animal health and welfare in the region.
Dr Crawford admitted the first two charges, but denied that his actions had given rise to the risk of disease.
The Committee found the first two charges proved, and moved on to determine the facts of the third charge. They took into account that Dr Crawford had received verbal confirmation that the semen was safe, and that the health papers had been stamped accordingly. He had not, however, seen a copy of this certificate and so there was no guarantee that the semen was safe to use at the time he sent the fabricated email. On consideration of the facts, the Committee found this charge proved, as Mrs X’s mare could have been infected and subsequently could have adversely affected equine animal health and welfare in the region.
They also found that his entire course of action had fallen far short of what is expected of a veterinary surgeon, and that it amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When determining sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely the risk of injury to animals, an element of pre-meditation, a disregard for the role of the AHVLA, impersonating a fellow veterinary surgeon, and intending to deceive a veterinary surgeon as well as a member of the public.
It did also, however, take into account the mitigating factors – that there was no injury to the animal, and that it was a single isolated incident from which Dr Crawford did not stand to make any financial gain.
The Committee therefore decided to order the Registrar to suspend Dr Crawford’s registration for 12 months.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Crawford from the Register. However, in light of the significant mitigation in this case, the fact that this was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career, together with his acceptance from the outset that he had been dishonest and his assurance that he would never behave in this way again, the Committee decided that in all the circumstances to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate."
Dr Crawford can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council within 28 days of being notified of the Disciplinary Committee's decision.
Derbyshire surgeon Victoria Lilley BVSc CertSAM MRCVS has launched a petition calling on the RCVS to abandon its plans to remove Certificate and Diploma holders' post nominals from the RCVS Register at www.rcvs.org.uk.
Under the current plan, which followed a consultation in 2011 and a submission to Council in 2012, the College will only distinguish the new "Advanced Practitioners" and "RCVS Recognised Specialists" in the Register from some time after the autumn. Vets with old-style RCVS Certificates can apply for "Advanced Practitioner" status but must complete module A of the CertAVP or 100 hours of equivalent CPD and pay £50 to apply, plus £110 per year to maintain the status.
Victoria said: "I want to spread the word that this is happening, as I don't feel the RCVS has publicised it well enough. I did my certificate in practice, it was a lot of hard work and I feel that the RCVS removing my CertSAM post-nominals from the register undermines this. Whilst I acknowledge that I could apply for "Advanced Practitioner" status, I strongly feel that spending a large proportion of my CPD time and budget learning about ethics and public safety is not going to help me improve my small animal medicine knowledge or skills. I also don't feel that I should be penalised by having to pay to be an "Advanced Practitioner" when the Royal College should be supportive of vets who undertake further study. My biggest objection is to post-nominals being removed from the register, which I feel is very unfair."
Speaking at the RCVS's online Question Time on thewebinarvet.com, RCVS Treasurer and Vice-President-elect Dr Bradley Viner said: "To clarify the situation with the Register: the Register no longer goes out to members routinely as a printed document. It is now primarily online, and in line with other regulators such as the GMC, the only information that is in the official part of Register is whether that person is a Member or a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and their registrable qualifications, in other words the primary qualification they achieved which entitled them to become a Member or Fellow of the Royal College.
"But we are certainly not going to be inhibiting people from using their post-nominals freely. They can use any of the post-nominals that they have achieved as long as they are not misleading.
"But I think there is confusion between a qualification and a status. A qualification is something that you obtain and you've got for life, and of course the old style Certificate is one of those, the new RCVS CertAVP is another. A status is something that a qualification within our context might enable you to attain, but it is something that has to be maintained.
"So what is going to be happening, hopefully from autumn this year, is that in line with the recommendations of the Specialisation Working Party, [there will be] an extra tier. So there will be Practitioners, there will be Advanced Practitioners and there will be RCVS Recognised Specialists, and there will be lists of those available via the Royal College. An Advanced Practitioner will be somebody who has a relevant qualification in the area of their advanced practice, and that may well be an old-style Certificate, certainly the CertAVP but there are also other qualifications which can also be relevant and used for that purpose. But they also have to prove that they are working actively in that area of practice, and they have an advanced requirement for CPD.
"Now in the case of old style RCVS Certificate holders, that qualification will be in line with the qualification they require to be listed as an Advanced Practitioner, but within the first three years they will have to show that they have either done the RCVS A module which is part of the new RCVS Certificate, or have done work that is equivalent to that in various areas such as communications, teamworking and personal and professional development, because we think from a Royal College point of view that it is really important that those areas are included within the Advanced Practitioner Status."
To sign the petition, visit: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-keep-post-graduate-qualifications-on-the-rcvs-register?recruiter=89624244&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition
Mr Wood was removed from the Register in 2018 after being convicted of posessing indecent images of children and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
Mr Wood first applied to rejoin the Register in 2020 but his application was rejected.
At the outset of his second application last month, Mr Wood’s counsel argued that he is professionally competent to be restored, that he had strong mitigation for his offending, that he had consistently and repeatedly expressed and demonstrated profound remorse, that he posed a low risk of re-offending, that he had proactively engaged with the Probation Service and voluntary counselling to gain further insight into his offending, and that he had completed his community sentence and was no longer subject to any of the court orders arising from his conviction.
The Committee then weighed up whether Mr Wood had accepted its original findings in 2018, the seriousness of the offences, whether he demonstrated insight, protection of the public and the public interest, the future welfare of animals should he be restored to the Register, the length of time off the Register, Mr Wood's conduct since he was removed and evidence that he had kept up-to-date with veterinary knowledge, skills and practice.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that Mr Wood has done everything required of him in order to be able to satisfy the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register.
“At the last application in June 2020, he was unsuccessful largely because of the outstanding ancillary Court Orders that did not conclude until early 2023. Those Orders have now concluded
“He has shown significant insight into his offending behaviour. He has been proactive in his rehabilitation and taken significant steps to ensure there would be no repetition.
“He has a small, but strong, network of people around him who appear to genuinely care about him and support him. He has worked hard at maintaining his skills and knowledge, in so far as he has been able to in light of not being able to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
“He is thoughtful and realistic about his prospects going forward. His responses to questions about addiction were appropriate and persuasive. He has expressed genuine remorse and there is, in the Committee’s view, a public interest in allowing him to be restored to the Register.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Surrey vet Matthew Morgan has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted and imprisoned for four counts of pet insurance fraud.
Mr Morgan was convicted, upon his own confession, of dishonestly making false representations to make gain for himself/another or to cause loss to other/ expose other to risk on 22 July 2013 at the Central Criminal Court and, on 23 August 2013, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Morgan, who was not present at the hearing but represented by Mr Laurence Imrie, Solicitor Advocate, had, between 13 November 2009 and 21 December 2012, taken out 18 insurance policies for veterinary cover with four separate insurance providers - Direct Line, Pet Plan, Pet Protect and Sainsbury's - in relation to a number of pets. Of these pets, only one, namely his pet cat, actually existed - the rest were fictitious.
During this period, the respondent made 50 claims on the insurance policies, seeking payment to reimburse him for the cost of veterinary treatment for the fictitious animals and also making false claims for treatment for his own pet cat, including for invented injuries 'sustained' during a non-existent car accident. As a result of the claims, the insurance companies made 54 payments to Mr Morgan to which he was not entitled, totalling £198,295.
At the time he began committing the offences Mr Morgan was working as a veterinary surgeon at a practice in Kent and, in order to support his fraudulent claims, used the practice's official stationery and stamps to fabricate invoices, clinical records and insurance claims. He continued to make fraudulent claims after leaving the practice, having taken the practice's headed paper and stamp with him.
Mr Morgan's actions came to light in December 2012 after submitting a claim to Direct Line for an operation on the spine of his own cat. The insurance company became suspicious and contacted the Kent practice which confirmed he had not treated the cat. An investigation by the insurers and, subsequently, the police began.
On 31 December 2012 Mr Morgan voluntarily attended a police station where he admitted fraudulently claiming £5,534.52 from Pet Plan and £7,610.03 from Direct Line, citing financial pressure caused by divorce, but failed to admit to the rest of his fraudulent activities. He was arrested on 25 January 2013 and, upon searching his home, police found the stamp and headed paper along with documents relating to the insurance claims.
The Disciplinary Committee, in considering the conduct of Mr Morgan, took into account a number of serious aggravating factors. This included the very high degree of financial gain from the fraudulent activities, the fact that there were 50 separate premeditated acts of dishonesty over a three-year period, the betrayal of trust of his former employer and the insurance companies, the potential reputational risk for his former employer, the abuse of his position as a veterinary surgeon and the fact that completion of insurance claims is an act of veterinary certification.
The Committee also considered, in mitigation, a letter from Mr Morgan to the Committee, three testimonials and representation from his legal representative. These cited the fact that Mr Morgan, when he committed the fraudulent activities, was heavily in debt, had serious domestic difficulties and was suffering from depression, although no medical evidence was submitted to the Committee.
However, it was the Committee's decision that the sanction of removing Mr Morgan from the Register had to be taken, in order to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee is of the view that the Respondent's conduct in this case was deplorable ... Such conduct can only undermine public confidence in the profession. The Respondent abused his position as a veterinary surgeon to perpetrate a deliberate long-term fraud on insurers for personal gain.
"The Committee is conscious that its role is not to punish but to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession. Due to the serious nature of the matters before it...the Committee has no doubt that the only suitable sanction is to direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent's name from the Register."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The hearing proceeded in Ms Kay’s absence as she failed to attend. The Committee heard a number of charges relating to her practising while under the influence of alcohol, breaching undertakings to the College to abstain completely from alcohol, alleged serious clinical failings in relation to the treatment of two dogs, Izzy and Alfie, and making disparaging remarks to a client about other veterinary surgeons (the complete list of charges can be found on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/).
In relation to the first charge, (that in September 2016, while a locum veterinary surgeon at Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group, Great Yarmouth, she was under the influence of alcohol), the Committee heard from a veterinary nurse at the practice who told how on different occasions Miss Kay had appeared to need more assistance than expected, was overly friendly in speaking to clients, was unable to prepare a syringe correctly, and finally, on 14 September 2016, was found asleep in the car with an open can of alcohol by her feet. The Committee also heard from a number of other witnesses from the Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group who also provided evidence of Ms Kay’s behaviour on the day in question. Following deliberations, the Committee found the first charge to be proved.
The second charge related to the breaching of undertakings which Ms Kay had given to the College to the effect that she would abstain completely from alcohol. When samples were taken on 3 August 2017, however, it was found that she had been consuming alcohol in the recent past. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the second charge was proved.
The Committee then turned to the third charge, that in March 2017 Ms Kay had displayed a number of clinical failings when performing surgery on a cocker spaniel, Izzy, belonging to Mrs Debbie Coe. The Committee found the majority of the charges proved, amongst others that she failed to obtain informed consent for surgery, performed surgery in her own home when it was not registered as a veterinary practice and it was not possible to ensure sterility, and that she failed to provide suitable post-operative analgesia to Izzy.
The College then turned to the fourth charge, which concerned her treatment of Mrs Coe’s other dog, Alfie, a Miniature Schnauzer. The charge was that in March 2017, Ms Kay euthanased Alfie in an inappropriate manner, and used a controlled drug without having a registered veterinary premise from which to dispense it. After hearing from an expert witness the Committee found the charges proved.
Finally, the Committee heard evidence relating to the fifth charge, namely that in or around July 2016, Ms Kay made disparaging remarks to Mrs Coe about other veterinary surgeons who had treated Alfie, and that between 17 March and 31 March 2017 she had sent inappropriate texts and voicemail messages to Mrs Coe about the treatment of her dogs and payments owed in relation to this. The Committee thought there was not enough evidence in relation to the voicemails, but found the remainder of the charge proved.
Taking all into account, the Committee found that Ms Kay’s conduct had fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the veterinary profession and concluded that her conduct clearly amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considered that the only appropriate sanction is that of removal from the Register. Such a sanction is required to protect animals and to send a clear message to the Respondent, and to all veterinary surgeons, of the unacceptability of the conduct identified in this case. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the profession and fails to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided that removal from the Register is the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case."
Ms Kay has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Dhami, relating to events which took place while he was in practice at Vets4Pets in Market Harborough, Leicestershire.
The first charge against him was that, in November 2017, he used excessive force in kicking and stamping on a Staffordshire Bull Terrier he was treating.
The second charge was that, between in October and November 2017, he failed to pay adequate regard to the welfare of a Jack Russell in his care by leaving it in a sink without adequate reason and for an excessive period of time.
The third charge was that, between April and March 2018, he failed to have adequate regard to the welfare of a six-to-eight week old kitten, including providing bedding and warmth.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Dhami admitted to lightly kicking the dog, but denied forcefully kicking it and also denied that he had stamped on the dog, as well as denying the other two charges against him.
In considering the circumstances of the first charge, the Committee heard evidence from two of Dr Dhami’s colleagues stating that the dog had bitten him whilst he was cleaning its ears and, following this, he took the dog out of the consulting room, closed the door and whilst holding the dog’s lead then proceeded to kick her twice, knocking her along the floor both times, and then finally stamp on her when she was prone.
Dr Dhami disputed his colleagues' version of events and stated that he had only delivered two light kicks to the dog’s rump, that neither of these had made her fall to the floor and also denied in categorical terms that he stamped on the animal. Furthermore, he also denied the second and third charges against him.
In considering the evidence as to whether Dr Dhami kicked and stamped on the dog, the Disciplinary Committee found the evidence of his two colleagues to be credible and reliable, and so found all aspects of the charge proven.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee finds that the admitted kicks administered to [the animal] by the respondent were of significant force. The Committee rejects the respondent’s assertion that the admitted kicks amounted to mere taps on the backside. The Committee finds that the ‘stamping’ was also of significant force."
In regards to the second and third charges, the Committee was not satisfied that the charges had been proven by the evidence it heard and therefore dismissed them both.
Having found all parts of the first charge proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Dhami’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, something that Dr Dhami, following the Committee’s decision on the facts, through his counsel, had admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors, including the real risk of physical harm to the animal and the deliberate nature Dr Dhami’s conduct against the animal, committed in anger.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated incident and that Dr Dhami had been bitten and was in pain. The Committee therefore found that Dr Dhami’s admission of serious professional misconduct was ‘properly and prudently made’.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Dhami. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials and character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Dhami. The Committee was also satisfied that Dr Dhami had had a hitherto long and unblemished career, that he had apologised to colleagues immediately after the incident and that, since the events, he had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon without any problems.
In relation to insight about the event, the Committee accepted Dr Dhami had provided some evidence of reflection, in that he admitted kicking the dog and accepted that this conduct, once found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee decided that suspending Dr Dhami from the Register for four months would be the most proportionate sanction.
Ian Green concluded: "Having regard to all the matters urged by way of mitigation, and having taken into account all the evidence that it has heard, the Committee is satisfied that a period of suspension is sufficient in this case to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
Dr Dhami has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
RCVS President Neil Smith has issued a statement in response to the petition by Devon vet Jo Dyer which called for the removal of mandatory house visits from the Code of Professional Conduct and received just shy of 1300 signatures over the past 48 hours.
The statement reads:
"I am delighted to see that so many veterinary surgeons are taking seriously our call for views and evidence on all aspects of the provision of 24-hour emergency cover, including those who have signed up to veterinary surgeon Jo Dyer's petition calling for the removal of 'mandatory house visits' from the Code of Professional Conduct.
"However, I am concerned that the petition is working on a misunderstanding. Veterinary surgeons are not mandated to attend away from the practice just because an owner has requested a visit. It is a professional decision based on a range of factors.
"In fact, paragraph 3.13 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct states 'Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else, to provide the service.'
"I appreciate that recent disciplinary hearings, especially that of Mr Chikosi, have increased concerns in the profession that vets will be disciplined for not turning out to every single request for a home visit. This is not the case. In order for someone to be taken to a disciplinary hearing for refusing to attend away from the practice, first there needs to be a complaint, and second, the Preliminary Investigation Committee needs to be convinced that the veterinary surgeon could not justify their decision. Such cases are rare. In fact, last year, only 3% of the complaints we received were about 24-hour cover, and not all of those related to home visits.
"Having said this, the number of signatures received on Jo Dyer's petition, and the comments of the signatories, will be fed into the material reviewed by the Standards Committee, alongside formal responses to our call for evidence, and views gathered from animal-owner research. Clearly if so many veterinary surgeons believe that house visits are mandatory in all circumstances, the wording of our guidance needs to be reviewed, at the very least.
"It is likely that any recommendations for change in our 24/7 policy would go to the June meeting of Council, although this timetable is subject to change, depending on the nature of the report from the Standards Committee."
The committee considered 5 separate charges against Dr Radev, relating to his treatment of a Yorkshire Terrier and Shih Tzu cross called Pickles at a Vets4Pets veterinary practice in Oxford between 5 October 2015 and 1 November 2015. The charges related to Dr Radev failing to provide adequate and/or appropriate care to the animal and failure to keep detailed clinical records.
After hearing the evidence from Dr Radev and the complainant, the College submitted that it wished to withdraw charges 1(i) and 1(ii) on the basis of insufficient evidence. In addition, Dr Radev had already admitted charges: 1(iii)(b), 1(iv)(d), 1(v), 4(i)(a) and 4(ii)(a) but denied the remaining charges. Of these remaining charges the Committee found charges 1(iv)(a), 2(i), 2(iv), 3(i) and 3(ii) proven with the rest not being proven.
The charges admitted or found proven were that Dr Radev:
(1) On 5 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:
(iii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to offer and/or undertake:
(b) urine tests;
(iv) Failed to put in place and/or document an adequate management plan for Pickles, more particularly in relation to:
(a) adequate direction and/or advice regarding a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;
(d) collection of urine at home for analysis on review at the practice;
(v) Having noted that he suspected renal disease, prescribed meloxicam when the same was contraindicated for dogs with renal disease;
(2) On 28 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:
(i) Failed to take and/or record an adequate history from Mrs Pancott in relation to Pickles’ condition and/or clinical signs since 5 October 2015;
(iv) Failed to provide adequate direction and/or advice regarding a date for a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;
(3) On 30 October 2015, having been informed that Mrs Pancott had telephoned the practice with concerns about Pickles, including blood in the faeces;
(i) Failed to note the matter in Pickles’ medical records;
(ii) Failed to take sufficient steps to obtain more information from Mrs Pancott or to ensure that Mrs Pancott was advised to seek veterinary attention for Pickles in relation to her concerns;
(4) On 1 November 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:
(i) Failed to interpret the blood tests adequately and/or take appropriate and adequate action in relation to the results of those blood tests, more particularly with regards to:
(a) blood glucose;
(ii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to:
(a) offer and/or undertake urine tests.
In considering these charges the Disciplinary Committee found that only charge 4(ii)(a) – namely the failure to correctly interpret and act upon the results of a blood glucose test – amounted to serious professional conduct with the rest not passing the threshold of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee did not consider that in addition the cumulative effect of all the proven charges taken together amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to the cumulative effect of all the proven charges Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Dr Radev had made errors in relation to one patient but on four separate occasions. These were, for the most part, individual failures at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. Taking into account all of the failings, the Committee in its judgement did not consider that the nature and number of errors and the period of time over which they took place justified a cumulative finding of disgraceful conduct."
In considering the sanction for Dr Radev the Committee took into account a number of mitigating circumstances including the fact that Dr Radev had undertaken suitable training and development in the areas in which he made mistakes, had demonstrated good insight into his conduct and had made some open and frank admissions early on in proceedings. It also considered that the one charge that was found to be serious professional misconduct was a single, isolated mistake linked to Dr Radev’s inexperience.
Professor Barr said: "The Committee considered that taking ‘no further action’ was appropriate and proportionate having considered the history of the case, the Committee’s overall findings and the good reports of Dr Radev’s performance in the two years since the matter which had led to the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The decision to take no further action was also influenced by the length of time it had taken the charges to be heard by the Committee, the positive character references about Dr Radev from professional colleagues and the fact he was unlikely to repeat such conduct in the future.
Vets Now has published a response to the RCVS DC ruling in which Munhuwepasi Chikosi, a locum working for the company, was struck off for delaying an emergency OOH home visit.
The response is available in full here: http://www.vets-now.com/news/?item=4191
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a London-based veterinary surgeon from the Register for six months, having found that her falsification of clinical records amounted to serious professional misconduct.
At the two-day hearing, Dr Nicola Ersilova was charged with, and admitted to, three separate incidences of false and dishonest clinical record keeping following her treatment of a collapsed cat, whilst working at Vets Now in Thamesmead, London.
The Committee heard how Dr Ersilova had suspected that Lafite the cat, belonging to Mr Yingzhan Xiao, had been poisoned, so administered fluids and treated her with Lidocaine. A lay colleague, who was assisting with the treatment, subsequently observed Dr Ersilova standing staring at the cat, which had stopped breathing, then leaving the room to go and speak to Mr Xiao. The lay colleague's evidence confirmed to the Committee that Lafite's heart was still beating at this point, and that Dr Ersilova was then heard telling Mr Xiao that Lafite had died while being treated. The lay colleague later discovered that Dr Ersilova had listed calcium gluconate on Mr Xiao's bill and not Lidocaine and, when she questioned the entry, Dr Ersilova told her she was worried about getting into trouble if she had listed Lidocaine.
Whilst reporting these irregularities to the senior veterinary surgeon at Vets Now, the lay colleague noticed that Dr Ersilova had also written "CPR unsuccessful" in the notes, although she was certain CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) had not been attempted.
During a subsequent Vets Now investigation, Dr Ersilova admitted adding this false information concerning Lidocaine, calcium gluconate and CPR, saying during interview that she was aware it was serious professional misconduct and that she was prepared to take the consequences. Vets Now reported the matter to the RCVS.
The Committee considered that all evidence before it fully supported the charges against Dr Ersilova, that her conduct was clearly dishonest, and that her actions were inexcusable, especially for someone as experienced as she was. It stated that a veterinary surgeon's duty to make only truthful and accurate records was so manifest and well known to veterinary surgeons that there could be no real excuse to make such false, misleading and dishonest entries.
The Committee highlighted the comment by Dr Ersilova that she knew she had done something wrong but did not expect her colleague to report her, as providing no explanation, or excuse, for doing something which she knew to be wrong.
A number of submissions were made to the Committee in mitigation, including that Dr Ersilova had admitted her dishonesty to both her employers and the Committee; had an otherwise unblemished record over 22 years of practice; had received no immediate financial gain by her actions; and, did not cause any animal suffering.
Accepting these submissions, the Committee nevertheless felt it needed to balance them against other factors. Dr Ersilova's decision to falsify the records was premeditated and had not been taken without an opportunity for full reflection. There were numerous entries in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct that highlighted the importance of professional integrity and accuracy, and, given the importance which the Code attached to the duty of veterinary surgeons to be truthful and honest in all their dealings with their clients, the Committee found Dr Ersilova's conduct to be "most reprehensible".
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Professor Sheila Crispin, said: "It is of great importance that the public should be able to retain confidence in the honesty and integrity of members of the profession. Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the truthfulness of what a veterinary surgeon has written in the clinical records of any animal [they have] treated.
"It is [our] decision that the sanction of suspension adequately reflects the seriousness of the [Dr Ersilova's] conduct. The sanction imposed is ... the most appropriate to inform the profession how seriously such dishonest conduct will be taken, because such conduct clearly brings the profession into disrepute and ... cannot and will not be tolerated."
The Committee then concluded that the least period of suspension that could be justified was one of six months.
Ms Gatehouse faced two charges, the first being that she inaccurately assured another veterinary surgeon that she had vaccinated a horse against influenza and tetanus when she had not, and she subsequently failed to undertake adequate checks to confirm whether she had done so.
The second charge was that she later made a false entry in the same horse’s clinical records to cover up her previous inaccurate statement.
Ms Gatehouse admitted the facts alleged in relation to both charges and also admitted that in relation to the second charge she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having heard submissions from Counsel for the RCVS and Ms Gatehouse found her guilty of disgraceful conduct in relation to the first charge.
Under the first charge the Committee found that she had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records, and by acting in a manner that was likely to undermine public trust in the profession.
They also considered that her falsehood was unpremeditated, and that the decision was made in a moment of panic. Ultimately, however, by claiming the horse was vaccinated to another veterinary surgeon and not taking the necessary steps to confirm this, she failed to put the welfare of the animal first, potentially endangering it and any other horses it came into contact with, as well as potentially jeopardising the position of the veterinary surgeon she confirmed it to.
Having found Ms Gatehouse guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against her. In mitigation the Committee considered the fact that she had been in practice for 22 years without any untoward conduct, the testimony of three witnesses who attested to her being an honest and trustworthy practitioner, and the fact that Ms Gatehouse was in a troublesome relationship with the complainant until June 2014 which led her to be reluctant to contact him to correct her initial confirmation.
In summing up Stuart Drummond, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee has considers that it is material to have regard to the general emotional state to which the Respondent was reduced by the controlling and debilitating conduct of her then partner when they were living together and the consequential loss of self-esteem and ability to stand up to him and his demands. The deleterious effect of an abusive relationship lingers after such a relationship ends.
"Taking into account this knowledge, the Committee considers that the period of suspension that would, in other circumstances, be entirely merited, can properly be reduced in this instance to reflect the fact that this veterinary surgeon would not have acted as she did during this period but for the fact that her judgement was adversely affected by her experience at the hands of her then former partner.
"The decision is that, whilst it is necessary, in order sufficiently to protect animals and the wider public interest, to impose a period of suspension from practice, that period can be reduced to one of two months. In so concluding the Committee wishes to make it clear that this decision reflects the special features of this case."
Ms Gatehouse can choose to appeal the decision after a period of 28 days.
Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.
Mr Costello faced four charges against him:
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.
Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.
A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.
After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.
Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.
The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.
The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.
In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.
However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.
The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth.
"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."
She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The individual, referred to as Mrs D throughout the hearing and who was granted anonymity by the Committee on grounds relating to her health, faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that she posted the tweets from her Twitter/X account.
The second charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 1 below), she falsely stated or implied that she was a veterinary surgeon, and that, in some tweets, while falsely holding herself out to be a veterinary surgeon, she used language that was offensive and/or unprofessional.
The third charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 2 below) she made statements that were offensive, discriminatory and brought the veterinary professions into disrepute.
At the outset of the hearing Mrs D admitted all the facts of the charges against her, and also admitted that her conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
The Committee considered that there were a number of aggravating factors in Mrs D’s behaviour, including a lack of probity and integrity, as well as dishonesty, in holding herself out as a veterinary surgeon.
Her conduct was also premeditated and took place over a lengthy period of time, involved abuse of her position, and demonstrated discriminatory behaviour, as a large number of her tweets were highly offensive towards various minority groups.
In mitigation, the Committee heard from the respondent that she had a number of difficulties in her personal life which led to inappropriate use of social media, though she did not suggest these factors excused her behaviour.
The Committee also considered that Mrs D had a long and previously unblemished career of 15 or so years, had made early admissions (albeit she had initially denied being responsible for the tweets) and shown considerable remorse.
However, in terms of the sanction, the Committee considered that removal from the Register was the most proportionate sanction it could impose.
Paul Morris, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “For a registered veterinary nurse to pretend to be a veterinary surgeon on a public platform is itself an extremely serious matter.
"When that presentation is associated with the highly offensive language of the tweets in this case, extending over a period of years, the conduct is in the view of the Committee fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
“The Committee has concluded that removal from the register is the only sanction which is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in maintaining proper standards of behaviour for registered veterinary practitioners and public confidence in the profession and its regulation.”
The Tweets
Schedule 1
Schedule 2
On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.
However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.
In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that:
The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care.
Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.
At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).
Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).
In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.
However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.
The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.
Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.
A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.
She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.
Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.
The Committee found the admitted facts proved.
The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.
Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.
Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.
"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”
As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.
I had hoped that the increasing absurdity of the reasons given for the rise might have tipped everyone off to the fact that the story was a spoof.
The idea that the College would ask its members to fund some glitzy, showy, award-winning designer headquarters along the lines of London’s City Hall? C’mon. London City Hall employs 1000 staff, whilst the Royal College employs less than 100. And let's face it, the RCVS has no record of having showy offices. On the contrary, it has managed to operate out of a sardine can now for a great many years. Have you ever been in the lift at Horseferry Road? You need to breathe in.
Or that the College had set aside £6M to recruit and pay 20 veterinary surgeons as short term contracted OVs to help in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Let’s say a flight from Delhi to London costs £500, give or take. Twenty vets. That’s £10,000 to get them here. Let's say they’re here for 6 months. That’s £299,500 per vet. You really think the College is going to ask you to pay more than a quarter of a million pounds to fly in a single vet for 6 months? Or that 20 recruits would solve the predicted OV shortage?
Lastly, the quote, supposedly from an Indian vet, but one with a name that doesn’t really sound like a name (still less an Indian one), but does sound strangely like it may be an anagram of April Fool.
There have been a small number of reports of people being really upset by this story. I guess they must have skim read, or only read the headline.
To them I want to say sorry, I genuinely didn’t mean to upset anyone.
In fact, I thought it might cause some reflection on what good value the RCVS really offers. It maintains the register and thereby your ability to practice, it runs the disciplinary process (an essential component of maintaining public trust), it oversees and sets educational standards, it awards Fellowships, Diplomas and Certificates, it runs the Practice Standards Scheme.
All that, and more for £340 per annum?
Honestly? I think it would be cheap at half the price.
Photo: Truth is that the RCVS has operated out of a sardine can for years.By Rl - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link
Meantime, the school was given a “conditional accreditation” for its degree, as it had met only 27 of the 77 RCVS accreditation standards.
The visitation was conducted by an accreditation panel comprising representatives from veterinary academia and clinical practice, as well as student and international representatives.
As part of the accreditation process, the panel considered documents and records, discussions and interviews with students and faculty members, a tour of the teaching facilities, and meetings with other stakeholders.
Based on the evidence, the panel agreed 55 recommendations for improvement which were then discussed, alongside the formal response from the Department, by the RCVS Primary Qualifications Subcommittee (PQSC), the body responsible for considering accreditation reports and making recommendations to Education Committee.
By contrast, the accreditation visit to the University of Bristol this year generated just one recommendation, likewise the visit to the University of Surrey last year.
Due to the unusually high number of recommendations and concerns about the delivery of the Cambridge degree, PQSC recommended that the programme receive conditional accreditation for 10 months, which was then agreed by Education Committee.
An RCVS spokesperson said: “Following careful review of the evidence, during the Committee’s detailed discussions, it was unanimously agreed that the number of standards not currently being met, which extended across all domains, meant that the Committee made the difficult decision to grant conditional accreditation.
“In reaching a decision and timeframe, given the problems identified, and the impact these will have on student learning and experience, Education Committee members firmly agreed on the need to help the vet school support both existing students on, and future applicants to, the Cambridge veterinary programme.”
“At the next visitation in September 2025, a panel will consider the evidence submitted and then a decision will be made on the future status of the degree.”
"In the meantime, we recognise that both students and staff might have concerns about this outcome, so we remain able and very willing to work closely with the Department in the coming weeks to ensure it has appropriate support plans in place.”
The full list of recommendations, suggestions and commendations for Cambridge can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/visitations.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Southampton veterinary surgeon after finding him not guilty of serious professional misconduct, saying at all times that he acted in the best interests of a dog under his care.
At the start of the five-day hearing, the charges against Edward Gillams MRCVS were that, whilst in practice at Vets Now in Southampton in 2011, he discharged a dog that he knew or ought to have known was in no fit state to be discharged, and, at the same time, failed to provide adequate advice and information to the dog's owners, particularly with regard to an alternative plan to discharge and treatment options.
The dog, an Italian Spinone called Zola, had first been taken to the Vets4Pets veterinary clinic in Southampton at 4.30pm on 2 November 2011, where gastric torsion was diagnosed. During a subsequent gastrotomy, 3kg of sausages and plastic wrappings were removed. Zola was discharged three days later, with a guarded prognosis from the operating veterinary surgeon. Zola's condition deteriorated that same evening, so his owners called the Vets4Pets practice and were referred to their out-of-hours provider, Vets Now, where Mr Gillams was on duty. On admitting Zola, the only information available to Mr Gillams was what the dog's owners were able to tell him.
The Committee heard differing witness accounts from the dog's owners and from Mr Gillams regarding what tests and examinations were to be performed, and what advice and options were suggested. Ultimately, Zola was hospitalised overnight (despite some reluctance for this from one of his owners), given pain relief and antibiotics and placed on a drip; he was then to be collected by his owners first thing for transfer back to Vets4Pets. The next morning, Zola was described as 'sternally recumbent but responsive', holding his head up but not moving and not making any attempt to get up. Mr Gillams carried Zola to his owner's car for transport back to the Vets4Pets practice. He considered that he had discharged his duty to provide advice, as this was given the night before and in the circumstances prevailing in the morning there was no obligation to repeat this. Zola died on the journey between the two practices.
Before reaching a decision, the Committee considered, in detail, the expert evidence of witnesses for both the College and Mr Gillams, which provided some conflicting views on Mr Gillams' actions. It also referred to the RCVS guidance available to Mr Gillams at the time through the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010.
The Committee noted that both experts agreed that Mr Gillams could not have known Zola was about to die when he discharged him and that it was a difficult decision for Mr Gillams to make, but expressed differing views about the fitness of the dog to be discharged and whether it was in its best interests to be discharged. The Committee rejected the contention that Mr Gillams ought to have known that Zola was not fit to be discharged, and instead considered appropriate his decision to discharge him into the care of his original veterinary surgeon. It felt that continuity of care would actually be better maintained in this manner, rather than a third veterinary surgeon taking over the case.
Regarding provision of adequate advice, the Committee accepted Mr Gillams' evidence that he was frustrated that the owners refused him permission to undertake the diagnostic work necessary to treat Zola effectively, and that he had no other clinical information to work with.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee expresses its sincere condolences to [the owners] for the loss of their much loved family pet Zola and recognises that this loss caused the family great distress."
Ms Webb added: "The Committee accepts that [Mr Gillams] discharged his obligations to Zola and to [his owners] in a manner wholly consistent with the standards of a competent veterinary surgeon in difficult circumstances. He leaves with no stain on his character or professional ability."
The full detail of the Committee's decision is available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).