/b/veterinary-news/posts/86359 The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon said to have been dishonest in claims made against insurance following a dog&#39;s veterinary treatment. At the end of the four-day hearing, the Committee found Sheenaen-USTelligent Community 10https://www.vetsurgeon.org/b/veterinary-news/posts/86359Fri, 10 May 2013 07:57:54 GMT146601cc-3922-4be7-9974-7e1d4e45a66b:cc1ac926-f56a-41e4-b57d-c6b92c8ef552Barbara Bennett0<p>I find it interesting that the RC dismiss apparent dishonesty as &quot;naivete/misguided&quot; when a case of non attendance for a night call resulted in much harsher sanction.</p> <img src="https://www.vetsurgeon.org/aggbug?PostID=86359&AppID=5&AppType=Weblog&ContentType=0" width="1" height="1">https://www.vetsurgeon.org/b/veterinary-news/posts/86359Wed, 01 May 2013 14:49:37 GMT146601cc-3922-4be7-9974-7e1d4e45a66b:cc1ac926-f56a-41e4-b57d-c6b92c8ef552David Carser0<p>It is interesting that the disciplinary committee applied the criminal law standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) in this case, instead of the civil law standard of proof (on balance of probabilities) that is usually applied in disciplinary proceedings. </p> <p>But given that disciplinary proceedings are far more like criminal proceedings than civil proceedings, and the effect on the defendant veterinary surgeon are similar to those in criminal proceedings, surely the higher standard of proof, being “beyond reasonable doubt”, should be applied to all veterinary disciplinary proceedings?</p> <img src="https://www.vetsurgeon.org/aggbug?PostID=86359&AppID=5&AppType=Weblog&ContentType=0" width="1" height="1">