Mr Paschalidis faced three charges.
The first was that he failed to carry out an examination or vaccinate a dog called Beluga, but made entries in the clinical records for the dog indicating he had.
The second charge was that, on the same day, he failed to carry out an examination or vaccinate a cat called Simba, but made entries in the clinical records for the cat indicating he had, and told a veterinary nurse colleague that he had vaccinated the cat.
The third charge was that the conduct of Mr Paschalidis in relation to the other two charges was dishonest and/or misleading and that he was therefore guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee found the charges relating to the failure to carry out an adequate examination and vaccinate Beluga and Simba proven.
The Committee also found that Mr Paschalidis had been dishonest and misleading in relation to his clinical records for Beluga.
Although Mr Paschalidis admitted the charge that he had failed to examine Simba, he denied that the record was misleading or dishonest as he said he'd been interrupted by a colleague whilst making the notes, rendering them an incomplete draft.
The Committee found it unproven that Mr Paschalidis had dishonestly made entries in the clinical records for Simba indicating that he had vaccinated him when he hadn’t.
Nor did it find that that Mr Paschalidis had been dishonest in his entries which indicated that he'd examined Simba, instead finding that his conduct was misleading.
However, having found that Mr Paschalidis was dishonest in his recording of his examination/vaccination of Beluga and that he was dishonest in relation to his communication of vaccination of Simba to a colleague, the Committee found that his conduct amounted to conduct falling far below that to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.
The Committee took into account eight testimonials, which were all positive about Mr Paschalidis’ character.
The Committee also noted his Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record, which, from February 2020 to February 2023, totalled over 170 hours.
It also considered that there was no evidence of actual harm to either Beluga or Simba, no evidence of any gains for Mr Paschalidis, and that the episode lasted no longer that one hour.
Against that, the Committee considered the risk of injury to the animals from not being vaccinated or examined adequately and the breach of client trust.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee assessed that the conduct of Mr Paschalidis, which included dishonesty, was in the upper middle range on the scale of dishonest conduct as the breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct were committed deliberately and for dishonest reasons, rather than through inadvertence or mistake.”
"The Committee decided that all of the mitigating factors, combined with an absence of any further incidents or similar behaviour having been drawn to the College's attention, alongside the positive testimonials, led it to conclude that the risk of any repetition of similar conduct was reduced such that Mr Paschalidis no longer poses a significant risk to animals or the public."
"The Committee considered that the misconduct found proved was sufficiently serious to require suspension from the Register, which would have a deterrent effect and would satisfy the public interest in this case.
"However, because Mr Paschalidis had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon for two years since these events without complaint and had shown some insight, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension would not serve a useful purpose and would therefore be disproportionate. "
“The Committee therefore decided to direct that, as a deterrent, Mr Paschalidis’ registration be suspended for a period of six months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.