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