Oxfordshire based vet removed from Register for multiple clinical and managerial failings

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that an Oxfordshire-based veterinary surgeon be removed from the Register for multiple clinical failings, including failing to provide adequate veterinary care, failing to provide test results and clinical records, and failing to comply with the RCVS to address client complaints.

The hearing for Dr Susan Mulvey, took place at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in London, from Wednesday 8 May to Thursday 16 May. Dr Mulvey was not present at the hearing nor was she represented. She had been made aware of the dates on multiple occasions, and failed to provide medical evidence as to why she was unable to attend, after stating that her health was the reason for her absence. Dr Mulvey also did not apply for the hearing to be held remotely, despite being offered the opportunity to do so.

Dr Mulvey had a total of nine charges against her. The full charges can be found in the documentation for the hearing on our Disciplinary hearings webpage. A summary of the charges are as follows: 

• Charge 1 – that Dr Mulvey failed to provide appropriate and adequate veterinary care to Millie, a dalmatian.
• Charge 2 – that, in relation to Penny, a cockapoo, Dr Mulvey failed to provide adequate information to an insurance company, failed to provide clinical records to a superseding veterinary practice despite requests, failed to respond to a letter from Penny’s owner, and failed to comply with reasonable requests from the RCVS for comments on the concerns raised by Penny’s owner.
• Charge 3 – that, in relation to Suki, a fox terrier, Dr Mulvey failed to provide Suki’s owners with her blood test results or give a reasonable explanation as to why the results were unavailable.
• Charge 4 – that, in relation to Sage, a cockapoo, Dr Mulvey failed to provide Sage’s information to a superseding veterinary practice despite requests.
• Charge 5 – that, in relation to Pepsi, a cat, Dr Mulvey failed to provide Pepsi’s owners and insurance company with adequate information relating to insurance claims for Pepsi, despite requests; and, failed to provide Pepsi’s records to a superseding veterinary practice, despite requests.
• Charge 6 – that, in relation to Ruby, a schnoodle, Dr Mulvey failed to provide Ruby’s clinical history to her owners and to a superseding vet practice, despite requests; and, failed to comply with reasonable requests from the RCVS for comments on the concerns raised by Ruby’s owners.
• Charge 7 – that, in relation to Poppy, a cat, Dr Mulvey failed to comply with reasonable requests from the RCVS for comments on concerns raised by Poppy’s owner.
• Charge 8 – that, in relation to Milo, a French bulldog, Dr Mulvey failed to provide adequate and appropriate care; failed to provide Milo’s clinical history to his owners and/or a superseding veterinary practice, despite requests; failed to provide an insurance company adequate information relating to insurance claims for Milo, despite requests; and, failed to comply with reasonable requests from the RCVS for comments on the concerns raised by Milo’s owners.
• Charge 9 – Dr Mulvey failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS in relation to details of her Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) and/or continuing professional development (CPD).

Dr Mulvey did not respond to the charges. She had, however, appeared before the Disciplinary Committee twice previously, facing a number of similar charges. In 2016/2017, Dr Mulvey admitted all charges she was faced with and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee then decided to postpone the sanction for a period of one year.

On 10 May 2019, Dr Mulvey appeared before the Committee for the resumed sanction hearing and faced further new charges relating to failures to provide clinical history, failing to communicate with clients, failing to respond to requests for information from the College concerning complaints made against her, continuing professional development and indemnity insurance. In that instance, Dr Mulvey admitted the new charges and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee then imposed a sanction, ordering that Dr Mulvey be suspended from the Register for a period of six months.

Taking into account the fact that this was not Dr Mulvey’s first time before the Committee, as well as new accompanying evidence, the Committee considered the facts of each subsection of each charge individually. The Committee found all charges proved, apart from one subsection of charge 1.  

The Committee then went on to decide if Dr Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. In order to do this, the charges were divided into five categories:

1)    Clinical matters

2)    Failures to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS

3)    Clinical histories

4)    Insurance claims

5)    Failures to respond to requests for information

In relation to each of the categories, the Committee analysed the relevant sections of the Code of Professional Conduct as well as the supporting guidance and any aggravating and mitigating factors. It was noted that the Committee is entitled to consider the facts on a cumulative basis, in that something which might not fall far below the relevant standard expected of a veterinary surgeon on a standalone basis, may do so when considered in conjunction with other failings that have been found proved.

Aggravating factors in the case included:

• Actual injury to animals, including death and amputation;
• Risk of injury to animals by reason of delays to treatment;
• Dishonesty, lack of probity and integrity;
• Recklessness;
• Breach of client trust;
• Abuse of professional position;
• Misconduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time;
• Blatant or wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession;
• Dr Mulvey has not shown any insight into her conduct; and,
• Previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee for similar concerns.

The Committee was unable to find any mitigating factors in this case.

Having taken all evidence into account, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee found that Dr Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee then went on to decide upon a sanction, taking into account the aggravating factors as set out previously. It also took into account the previous interventions and advice given by the Preliminary Investigations Committee (PIC) which were to no avail, which amounted to a further aggravating factor. Additionally, Dr Mulvey had caused real harm, including death, to animals in her care. The Committee also noted that there were no mitigating factors present, in particular that Dr Mulvey showed no evidence of insight. It therefore concluded that there would be a real risk of repetition.

In regard to the seriousness of the case, the Committee decided that further action needed to be taken and considered the available sanctions in order of severity.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that Dr Mulvey has demonstrated a wilful disregard for the role of her regulator and the systems that regulate the profession which are designed to ensure animal welfare. She has failed to learn from, or respond to in any meaningful way, her previous appearances before her regulator and advice given. The instant charges found proved dated back to shortly after the earlier suspension had elapsed. The Committee further noted that, if a period of suspension were to be imposed, at the end of the suspension Dr Mulvey would be entitled to resume practice without any preconditions.

“This is a case involving serious malpractice. It was sustained over a period of time. It followed previous adverse findings for almost identical failures. From as long ago as 2013, Dr Mulvey was given ample opportunity and support to remedy the deficiencies in her practice, which she squandered. Dr Mulvey’s conduct had very serious consequences for animal welfare. She continued, and continues, to display a wilful disregard for her responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon under the Code of Professional Conduct. Dr Mulvey’s conduct was a gross departure from the conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon.

“Dr Mulvey’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the upholding of standards.”

Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

This news story is a summary of the hearing to help understand the case and the Committee's decision. The full documentation for the hearing can be found on our Disciplinary hearing webpage.