Disciplinary Committee rules on double hearing

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week passed judgment on one veterinary surgeon, and dismissed the case against another, in an unusual double disciplinary hearing that involved two former colleagues.

At the four-day hearing which concluded on Thursday [19 June 2008], Marius Louw and Marthinus Botes MsRCVS were both charged with failure in their duties to Defor, a Yorkshire Terrier belonging to Carol Keeling, whilst they were in practice at Companion Care Veterinary Surgery in Broadstairs, Kent, in April 2007.

Mr Botes, who qualified from the University of Pretoria in 1990, received a six-month suspension from the Register; however, the case against Mr Louw, a 2005 graduate of the same university, was dismissed.

The Committee heard that after being seriously injured in a road traffic accident, two-year-old Defor was taken to Mr Botes’ practice where he was treated promptly and to a high standard.

Mr Louw was the veterinary surgeon on duty at the practice that night but had disagreed with his employer Mr Botes as to the extent of care required for Defor. Mr Louw considered that Defor would require constant monitoring through the night and should therefore be transferred to on out-of-hours emergency service provider. Ms Keeling made it clear that she did not wish Defor to be left alone.

However, Mr Botes refused Ms Keeling’s request to stay with the dog overnight, but instead offered to monitor Defor through the night via a webcam and indicated that he would visit the premises if required; he also agreed with Mr Louw that he would take full responsibility for the dog overnight.

That evening, before leaving the practice, Mr Louw realised that Mr Botes had not set up the webcam, but was unable to set it up himself as it was broken. He repeatedly tried to telephone Mr Botes but to no avail.

He sought a second opinion from a veterinary surgeon in another practice and was advised that, as Mr Botes had agreed to take full responsibility, he was not required to take any further action.

Mr Louw left Defor in a stable condition that evening, but on early arrival at the practice the following morning (Saturday), discovered Defor had died.

He telephoned Ms Keeling with the news at 8.30am, but was unable to reach Mr Botes until 3pm that afternoon. Mr Botes did not telephone Defor’s owners until the Monday morning.

At the hearing, Mr Botes admitted the majority of charges against him, including that he failed to provide care for Defor overnight. Mr Louw denied owing a duty of care to Defor as he maintained Mr Botes had agreed to take sole responsibility for the dog until the following morning.

The veterinary surgeon members of the Committee considered the loss of Defor that night was probably unavoidable due to the impracticality of continuous monitoring in general practice.

The Committee found that Mr Louw had discharged the duty he owed to Defor and Ms Keeling, and was impressed that a veterinary surgeon less than three-years qualified had twice sought a second opinion from another veterinary surgeon.

It also considered that Mr Louw was entitled to think that Mr Botes would visit the practice premises when he discovered the webcam was not working.

Mr Brian Jennings, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, said: “It is to [Mr Louw’s] credit that he has returned to the UK [from South Africa] at his own personal expense to defend the charge against him. The case against Mr Louw is dismissed.”

Turning to Mr Botes, the Committee found that the facts he admitted amounted to serious professional misconduct and that his failure to monitor Defor fell far below that expected of a member of the veterinary profession.

“Whilst we acknowledge that this incident was an isolated case and that, during the hearing, Mr Botes took full responsibility for the events that occurred, we consider it was not to his credit that in a previous written response to the College he implicated a junior member of the veterinary profession, when he knew he [himself] had taken responsibility for the care of Defor on the night in question,” said Mr Jennings.

Before deciding on sanction, the Committee heard that some ten years ago, in disciplinary proceedings in South Africa, a short period of suspension had been imposed on Mr Botes. In taking this into account, Mr Jennings concluded: “We consider that the proportionate sanction in this case is that Mr Botes' name should be suspended from the Register for six months.”

For more information, please contact: Ian Holloway, Senior Communications Officer, RCVS (020 7202 0727 / [email protected] )

Notes for Editors

1. The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of veterinary education.

2. RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has authority to deal with three types of case:

a) Fraudulent registration

b) Criminal convictions

c) Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct

3. The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the 1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of law.

4. The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5.  Further information, including the charges against Mr Louw and Mr Botes and the Committee’s findings and judgment, can be found via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.