North Somerset vet found not guilty of serious professional misconduct

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee found a North Somerset-based veterinary surgeon not guilty of serious professional conduct following an enquiry which took place in June 2024.

The hearing for Dr Nikolay Kirilov Radev MRCVS took place from Monday 17 to Wednesday 26 June 2024 with three charges against him.

The first charge related to failing to provide appropriate and adequate care to an American Bulldog between 19 and 24 September 2021 (the full details of the charge and sub-charges can be found on our disciplinary hearings webpage). The second charge related to failing to make adequate or appropriate clinical records regarding the treatment of the same dog. The third and final charge related to the fact that the actions outlined in the second charge were misleading and dishonest.

At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted a number of elements contained within charges 1 and 2. For charge 1, he 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. For charge 2 he 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 charge 1, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.

Regarding charge 1(a), 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.

Regarding charge 1 (b) (i), 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.

Regarding charge 1 (c) (i), that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog, the Committee found this not proven.

Regarding charge 1 (e), 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.

Please note: this news article is a summary of the hearing to help in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. For the full details of the hearing please visit our disciplinary hearings webpage. Due to human error this article was not published until 8 August 2024.