George Philippus Hauptfleisch faced three charges in relation to allegations of clinical failings surrounding three patients:
The first charge surrounded the allegations that in 2018, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Steel, a Cane Corso Mastiff, in that he performed surgery outside of his competence, failed to offer a reasonable range of treatment options as alternatives, failed to make adequate enquiries about the possibility of a referral to a specialist, failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The second charge, in relation to a German Shepherd, alleged that in 2019, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care when he undertook surgery which was outside of his competence and failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details to show that informed consent for the surgery had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The third charge, in relation to a Retriever, alleged that Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care with regards to surgery he performed when it was outside of his competence, failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details that showed informed consent had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Hauptfleisch made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment for an indefinite period, against his undertakings to request the Registrar to remove him from the Register, and never to seek restoration to the Register.
In deciding whether to grant the application, the Committee took into account a number of factors.
These included the fact that Mr Hauptfliesch had, in December 2021, returned to South Africa, after a career of over 32 years in the UK, and now resides there permanently, the fact that he has no intention of moving back to the UK, and that he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon since the day he left.
He had also removed himself from the equivalent register in South Africa and the Committee noted that the RCVS would inform the South African Veterinary Council of the outcome of these proceedings.
The Committee also noted that there were no previous disciplinary findings against him, that Mr Hauptfleisch now spends the majority of his time undertaking charitable activities, including running a mentoring programme for young people, and, that he expressed deep regret for anything which he did or did not do which failed to protect the welfare of animals or caused upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Hauptfleisch also drew attention to the fact that the charges did not allege dishonesty and that the reputation of the profession would be upheld as Mr Hauptfleisch would no longer practise as a veterinary surgeon and would not return to practise.
Therefore, it would not be proportionate, nor in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and for Mr Hauptfleisch.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the removal from the Register and the respondent’s undertaking never to apply for restoration, in conjunction with all of the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that allowing the application would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as a regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, and taking into account the nature of the charges which relate to the alleged inadequate standard of clinical practice, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which there were wider issues relevant to the profession at large, such as those which had public policy implications and which required full consideration at a hearing.
“The Committee was satisfied that neither the public interest nor the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing in this case.
“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.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.