RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 09 May 2013 08:48:57 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Arlo, I appreciate your faith in the veterinary profession. [/quote]

But Mark, it's not about faith in the profession. It's about disbelief that any salaried, educated person is going to go to all this effort to claim such a paltry amount of money. Indeed if you consider the hourly rate for a vet, and the amount of time needed to delete and recreate invoices / cover tracks, this strikes me as a fraud which would have resulted in a net LOSS to the criminal!

I believe something more along the lines that Anthony has outlined, though again it doesn't mean that I think there was a deliberate intent to defraud (I don't know either way), quite possibly just extremely poor systems / communication in place.

[/quote]

You'd be surprised; ask around and quite a few vets even on this forum will say that your time is free (the practice management KPI folks will argue passionately that this is false) so an activity that results in a positive income is a win. Even if it takes time and effort, money came in. (Obviously I'm not saying that we're all engaging in illegal activity, i'm just saying that vets have a slightly different way of looking at operational efficiency.)

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Caroline Murray — Thu, 09 May 2013 03:20:28 GMT

Yup, yet another of the long list of money-wasting activities of the RCVS. Has anyone ever found out what they actually do with all our membership fees that actually helps the vets that pay them?

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:10:08 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Arlo, I appreciate your faith in the veterinary profession. [/quote]

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:02:39 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I was going to say this but as Arlo is in namby Liberal mood he will probably accuse us of unfairly jumping to conclusions![/quote]

But I'm not in namby liberal mood.

I know I am saying it till I am blue in the face, I just don't believe that £10 profit per claim is sufficient motive for this person to have committed the crime. Nobody else agrees with me, so you all think it is perfectly believable that a vet, any vet, with their training and salary, could need £10 enough to fiddle an insurance company.

I know, it totaled £90 OVER 2 YEARS and 7 claims. But looking at each 'crime' individually, this would mean that someone would have to go to all that effort SEVEN times, and for what? A tenner? A tenner that wouldn't even be a tenner in the pocket. It would be a tenner you'd have to claim for.

I am not commenting on the morals of diddling an insurance company, or what I think the penalty should be. Just that I find it incredible that an educated, salaried person would go to all that effort over a tenner. A begger, maybe. A unemployed drug addict, sure. But an employed vet. I don't believe it. And that's why I think there must be something else going on with this story that we don't know about.

[/quote]

Arlo, I appreciate your faith in the veterinary profession. However, never rule out the fact that even highly educated and intelligent people can very easily do inexplicably silly things that seemed like a good idea at the time.

"in the race between engineers creating more and more foolproof equipment, and God creating bigger fools - God's currently winning."

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Anthony Todd — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:21:56 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

But however you put it, I don't believe it was a fiddle/theft/deception. I just can't believe that someone intelligent enough to qualify as a veterinary surgeon, who is presumably being paid enough that £10 is not going to make a difference, would be prepared to jeopardise their entire career in order to fiddle an insurance company out of ten quid (yes, I know it added up £90 over the years, but if she was fiddling, that would mean a conscious decision to do it each time, over an amount which was not much more than a tenner).

[/quote]

She entered items on the system at full price to generate an invoice to send to the insurance company, then deleted them off and re-invoiced them at cost price and paid that out of her pocket. I can't think of any reason to do this other than to get more from the insurance company than she paid the practice.

[/quote]

Of course, if the above is true, there's another rather logical but much more sinister explanation.

The "practice policy" with staff's insured animals is [was,I'll bet it's changed....]: Charge the insurance co. at full price but staff member pay the practice the cost price.

We used to let staff buy drugs and food at cost.

[by the way who did she pay and how did she pay it?]

This would explain:

the small amount involved [in this case].

the altering of records, with the associated faffing with computer records [to get the cost price]

the leniency of the DC. [they knew what was going on and realised the "defendant" was acting on instruction]

the small amount involved, versus the major loss of integrity and honour, [was the "defendant" happy doing it?]

No vet I know would defraud an insurance Company for £90!

If the DC or the insurance company had expanded their inquiries there would be an enormous can of worms [who gave the order etc.?]

I wonder how the practice accountant handles the cash contra- payment......?

I'll lay London to a jar of jam that I've hit the nail on the head, it explains so many anomalies!

What would you do, as an employee.......?

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Thomas Johnson — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:47:03 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

I don't want the poor lass to be hung drawn and quartered - I'm sure she's suffered plenty through all this. But to dismiss the case completely was basically saying she'd done nothing wrong. As has been said, vets have been punished harshly for a lot less.

[/quote]

I agree, and I imagine that having been through the process of a disciplinary hearing will make her think very carefully about her actions in the future.

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:36:06 GMT

I don't suppose she gave it all much thought at all. If she had, I'd hope she wouldn't have done it. That's the point -she should have been aware that what she was signing was not correct. I suspect she just thought that getting a bit of extra money from the insurers was harmless. As a vet, she should be above doing that.

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Thomas Johnson — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:05:16 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[/quote]

The actual amount may be irrelevant to the feeling of sucess of having 'beaten the system'. Also to turn your sentence round, I find it incredible that an educated, salaried person wouldn't realise that claiming more back from an insurance company than she had paid out was wrong.

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Bob Russell — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:39:50 GMT

I spent almost a full afternoon shopping for a tape recorder for booking my visits (pre-internet shopping days). This was to get the best deal and I saved £10 by wasting this time. Even 'a vet, any vet, with their training and salary, could need £10 enough' will do a lot for a tenner!

I was taught a lesson though. It took so long that I exceeded the time on the parking meter and got a £20 ticket!

The moral of this little tale is that any of us can be tempted by even a small amount of money!

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:25:16 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I was going to say this but as Arlo is in namby Liberal mood he will probably accuse us of unfairly jumping to conclusions![/quote]

But I'm not in namby liberal mood.

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Mark Rowland — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:23:39 GMT

If it was all a genuine error and not meant to be fraudulent why didn't she just do a direct claim so no money went through her hands

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:39:19 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[/quote]

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:47:07 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

It is not only the RCVS DC, government, society and the judiciary have an inconsistent approach to metering out fair and appropriate punishment too.

MP's were systematically milking their expenses system to the tune of 10's and 100's of £1000's and only 3 have ended up behind bars. Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman claimed £8500 for a TV and hi-fi system and £1500 for a luxury rug from New York, he was just asked to pay it back. None of the bankers responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown running in to £billions have been held to account or charged as far as I know.

On the other hand in the aftermath of the August 2011 riots a young man with no previous convictions was sent to prison for 6 months for stealing £3.50 of bottled water; and a young single mother with no previous convictions was given 4 months for receiving a pair of stolen shorts.

go figure

[/quote] I think Bob's reply summed this up really, the MPs were milking the system which was institutionally flawed and turned a blind eye until The Telegraph found it a newsworthy subject. The bankers, so far as I'm aware, were not committing any criminal acts, they were just gambling with other people's money, which to be fair was their working brief and if the world hadn't gone tits up those gambles could have reaped wealth for all of us (well those who have savings and shares anyway). We put our money in banks every day and expect interest on it, that interest only comes from banks lending (gambling) it to someone else, if you want your money to be safe hide it under the mattress. That's not to say that I'm not pissed off because I may have lost something as a result of the banks ineptitude but as we've said about the girl in the OP - she has a brain she knew what she was doing, we know we are taking a risk when we put our money in the hands of someone else. As for those convicted of minor offences in the riots, with the exception of a small minority, they were rioters and looters, regardless of whether they had previous convictions they were taking part in a much greater act than nicking a bottle of water. A firm message needed to be sent out to those who may consider such actions again in the future or the country is in danger of descending into anarchy.

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Bob Russell — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:48:02 GMT

I am very reluctant to give politicians any benefit of the doubt but these individuals were fiddling their claims with almost full approval from the system. It was usually passed on the nod because this is how things had developed to supplement the incomes without incurring the wrath of the general public with regard to MP's salaries.

This all went pear-shaped, backfiring badly when a newspaper blew the whistle! This was the way things were expected to be done (on the quiet). Most prosecutions were as the result of falsifying invoices. Oddly enough this is what this vet seems to have done by altering the computer entries.

A number of bankers should be in jail, others on Job Seekers Allowance.

I cannot see why the DC were so 'understanding' in this case, particularly when you consider the action taken against other MRCVS's recently. Perhaps the lack of action by the insurance company and Police put them in a position that left them exposed and uncomfortable.

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:11:29 GMT

To me this is clear The veterinary surgeon was dishonest. RCVS went to the expense of a full hearing, but then didn't punish-although the dishonesty was deliberate I'm one of those who can't believe it's possible for someone too thick to realise this was wrong could possibly pass veterinary exams. This is definitely conduct bringing the profession into disrepute

Don't compare us with MPs Please, please, please don't

Further point Veterinary surgeons who've posted are overwhelmingly and rightly condemning this behaviour.

Was DC over-lenient because of lay members -appointed by politicians???????????????????

Wynne

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:58:52 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]Ninety quid maybe the tip of the iceberg.[/quote] I was going to say this but as Arlo is in namby Liberal mood he will probably accuse us of unfairly jumping to conclusions!

[/quote]

You lot are sounding like the letters page of that newspaper you all revile so much.

I hope you can defend your insinuations.

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Clive Ansell — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:55:34 GMT

It is not only the RCVS DC, government, society and the judiciary have an inconsistent approach to metering out fair and appropriate punishment too.

go figure

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:07:20 GMT

Now then - even Conservatives fiddled their expenses! This is definitely a cross-bench issue!

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:00:06 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]Ninety quid maybe the tip of the iceberg.[/quote] I was going to say this but as Arlo is in namby Liberal mood he will probably accuse us of unfairly jumping to conclusions!

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:10:16 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]Make your own conclusions.[/quote]

Ah, there's no smoke without fire, eh?

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Phil Hyde — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:25:49 GMT

Picture yourself as the 'boss' of this practice. You discover that one of your employees is making fraudulent claims for insurance. Is this the only malfeasance? it is likely to be the only one easily documented. Who knows what else is going on? Maybe they do. But they can say nothing. Ninety quid maybe the tip of the iceberg.

Although they can go to the insurance company to back their action.

Make your own conclusions.

Phil

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:19:11 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]You are naive at times Arlo but you are taking naivety to new levels here.[/quote]

Then show me motive, because for me, £10 is not motive.

[/quote]

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:11:53 GMT

The excesses are irrelevant - you have still claimed that you have paid that cost to the practice. In all insurance claims with any excess, the amount the owner has paid to the practice would obviously be higher than the amount received; especially if there was more than one condition.

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Utlendigur — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:07:09 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]So she claimed £950.35. I don't know why petplan have only paid £596.60,[/quote]

Seven claims - could be seven excesses if for different conditions?

Re: RCVS fudge another disciplinary case

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:55:45 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]You are naive at times Arlo but you are taking naivety to new levels here.[/quote]

Then show me motive, because for me, £10 is not motive.

[/quote]

Unless I am reading it incorrectly, she seems to have claimed a lot more than that:

From the evidence submitted during the Hearing, the Committee calculated that the Respondent had submitted claims to Petplan totalling £950.35; that she had subsequently received and cashed cheques from Petplan totalling £596.60; and that she had tendered payment to Kinver, including a cheque for £180.64 which the practice chose not to bank, totalling £506.10. The Respondent therefore benefitted only in the sum of £90.50.

So she claimed £950.35. I don't know why petplan have only paid £596.60, but I assume it was because the problem was discovered before it was paid. Therefore, had the full amount been paid, she would have actually benefitted by £443.75.