The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.

During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.

In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.

Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.

One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.

The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.

The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.

Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.

Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.

"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."

Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.

The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.