Dr Radev faced three charges concerning his treatment of an American Bulldog in 2021.
The first charge, which contained a number of sub-charges, was that he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the animal.
The second was that he failed to keep adequate records.
The final charge was that his failure to keep records was misleading and dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted that, having recognised free fluid in the dog’s abdomen, he failed to take adequate and appropriate action and failed to aspirate the dog’s abdomen with regards to the possibility of it having septic peritonitis.
He also admitted writing the clinical notes approximately two months after the event.
After considering and rejecting an application by the RCVS to amend and withdraw elements of the first charge, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.
Sub-charge 1(a) was that Dr Radev repeatedly administered meloxicam to the dog when it had recently undergone intestinal surgery and had a recent history of vomiting.
The Committee found that this was not proven.
Dr Radev said it had been administered just once and the Committee was not satisfied so as to be sure that it was repeatedly administered.
Sub-charge 1(b) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise free fluid in the dog’s abdomen as shown on an ultrasound scan.
The Committee found this not proven.
Sub-charge 1(c) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog.
Sub-charge 1(e) was that Dr Radev failed to provide a full medical history when referring the dog to a different practice.
The Committee found the charge not proven.
Regarding charge 2 (ii), that Dr Radev had failed to include in clinical records a reference to the colonotomy surgery, the Committee found this charge not proven as it had been provided with clinical records disproving this charge.
Finally, regarding both aspects of charge 3, namely that Dr Radev had acted misleadingly and dishonesty, the Committee found this not proven.
The Committee then considered whether the charges that Dr Radev had admitted amounted to gross misconduct in a professional respect.
In all cases it found that, while Dr Radev’s conduct had fallen below what was expected of veterinary professionals, it did not fall so far below as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.