<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.vetsurgeon.org/utility/feedstylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Pontefract vet&amp;#39;s clinical failure was not &amp;#39;serious professional misconduct&amp;#39;</title><link>/b/veterinary-news/posts/pontefract-vet-s-clinical-failure-was-not-serious-professional-misconduct</link><description> The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has ruled that whilst the care given to a diabetic dog by Paul Roger MRCVS fell short, it did not amount to serious professional misconduct. 
 Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care,</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 10</generator></channel></rss>