The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has found Mr Leslie Higgott, of Wallasey, near Liverpool, guilty of Disgraceful Conduct in a Professional Respect and has directed that his name be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

The hearing held last week concluded a case that started on 29 April and adjourned on 2 May 2008.

At the previous hearing, the Committee had heard a number of charges regarding Mr Higgott’s in-patient treatment of a Springer Spaniel, Fliss, in June 2007: namely, that he had not carried out any or sufficient investigative procedures; had not sought any additional veterinary opinion; and, did not sufficiently observe or monitor the animal. Further, that he did not provide an adequately-sized and clean cage/box for the dog’s hospitalisation, and that by his remarks and behaviour, he had failed to treat his client with respect, courtesy and consideration.

The facts of all of these charges were denied by Mr Higgott, although he admitted that, despite advice from the College, he had failed to keep up to date with continuing professional development and had kept no clinical notes for animals he had treated between April 2006 and August 2007.

The Committee heard that the dog, displaying symptoms of depression and vomiting, was diagnosed by Mr Higgott firstly as having gastritis, then a liver problem, and finally as having a kidney problem. When symptoms persisted, the owner returned the dog to Mr Higgott where it remained hospitalised for a period of 11 days, until it was found dead by the owner. A subsequent post-mortem examination revealed that the dog had suffered from a heart tumour.

The Committee heard that during the period of hospitalisation, the dog was kept in a travelling box and that the owner, who visited almost daily, repeatedly complained to Mr Higgott about the conditions in which the dog was being kept, with vomit, faeces and urine on the floor of the box. The owner told the Committee that Mr Higgott had dismissed these concerns. Mr Higgott also maintained it was an unfortunate coincidence that the owner had visited at times when the dog was dirty. The Committee also heard that the owner, on several occasions, asked Mr Higgott if blood tests or x-rays would be useful, but was told that these were not necessary as the dog was responding to treatment.

RCVS representatives had visited Mr Higgott’s practice on several occasions between 2005 and 2007. They reported at the first hearing that, despite a move to new premises, inadequate standards of hygiene and cleanliness persisted at Mr Higgott’s practice and that, regardless of advice, Mr Higgott had failed to maintain clinical records or to undertake any CPD. During one visit, they pointed out the travelling box in which Mr Higgott had kept the Spaniel; the Committee heard veterinary evidence that while this might have been suitable for 24 hours, it was wholly inadequate for longer periods of hospitalisation.

In April, the Committee had found the facts alleged to be proved. At the resumed hearing (28-29 July), the Committee gave anxious consideration to letters and oral evidence provided in support of Mr Higgott, and took account of the fact that there had been undoubted improvements in hygiene in the practice in recent times. However, it was concerned by the fact that Mr Higgott had undertaken only minimal CPD since April 2008 and that his treatment of Fliss was so inadequate that he would require very considerable training over a substantial period of time before he could begin to attain the standards of diagnosis and treatment properly to be expected of a competent veterinary surgeon, and that it was unlikely that he would undertake such training.

The Committee decided that Mr Higgott’s activities amounted to Disgraceful Conduct in a Professional Respect and agreed that the Sanction should be the most severe that the Committee can make – removal from the Register. This renders Mr Higgott unable to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Mrs Alison Bruce, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, said: “[the Committee] could not envisage how any period of training or supervision during any period of postponement would bring about that change in attitude in the Respondent which would be necessary before the Committee or the public could repose confidence in the belief that there would be no repetition of this lack of respect for, or feeling for, the suffering of an animal in his care.”