Vet suspended for not having PII

RE: Vet suspended for not having PII

Bob Russell — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 16:50:17 GMT

I have to say that insurance is part of being a professional person. I would expect my GP and dentist to have suitable insurance should there be a mistake made.

Not sure how many people understand how little the insurance pay out is likely to be in a veterinary negligence case! Most costs involve protection of reputation!

All this person had to do was show a suitable alternative was in place. Despite warnings she failed to do so. I suspect the cost of the disciplinary process far exceeded any claims that might have been made against her in normal companion animal practice.

RE: Vet suspended for not having PII

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 16:22:35 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]Getting back to the OP, how is the issue of indemnity insurance a RCVS issue? [/quote]

Because it's considered unprofessional to have no insurance so make the wronged client have to fight and struggle and possibly even fail to get any compensation they've won. Especially if you have most of your money tied up in various cunning ways so that it's not accessible. i'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it's the reason.

It may be apocryphal, but I've heard of an American veterinarian who had this notice in his waiting room: "My house is worth ...dollars, it's mortgaged for ...dollars, I have a car worth ...dollars and about ...dollars in the bank. If you want to sue me in the hope of getting that much, OK, but you won't get yourself a fortune: I have no insurance "

RE: Vet suspended for not having PII

Clive Ansell — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 15:41:55 GMT

Getting back to the OP, how is the issue of indemnity insurance a RCVS issue?

claims for negligence are civil matters that are resolved in the civil courts, diddly squat to do with the RCVS I would have thought, whos remit is that of professional conduct.

I think not having VDS, or other adequate, indemnity insurance is crazy, but I cannot see if one chooses to have ones own funds available instead, why it should amount to misconduct?

RE: Vet suspended for not having PII

Bob Russell — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 14:07:22 GMT

Few, if any do not believe he did not get the paperwork. The simplest of steps such as recording delivery would have removed any doubt that he had received paperwork.

VetsNow provided the little defence there was and this included the suggestion that a patient might be arriving with a possible gastric torsion. A perfectly sound defence if you choose to believe it!

Chikosi has been done to death and I have no sympathy for the individual nor this lady either. In each case a little interaction would have potentially stopped the disciplinary process in its tracks.

One vet believing his employer was limiting his options plus concerns about leaving the practice and a second vet demonstrating that sufficient resources were available to cover any realistic claim.

Flawed though I believe the code of conduct is, there is a requirement to have a process in place to provide compensation for a 'wronged' client. The sums involved are usually fairly limited in small animal practice therefore a documented contingency fund may well suffice.

The DC comments (Chikosi) placed a large number of good, caring vets in a really difficult (and unsustainable) position that was later clarified.

This latest case was silly and completely avoidable IMO. No major implications for practising vets beyond 'invest in a VDS policy or have a bit of money available to pay up'. Also make sure you make a little effort to respond to the RCVS!

RE: Vet suspended for not having PII

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 13:35:39 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]i know i should let it go but.... i can't... [/quote]

yeh.....

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"] plus the idea that a vet is wrong for failing to drop everything to attend a patient.[/quote]

He wasn't doing anything - unless drinking a cup of coffee is vital...

[/quote]

He had been instructed – or thought he had been instructed – that he wasn't to leave the premises until a covering veterinary sugeon had been obtained. Whether he drank coffee, nervously chain-smoked while walking in a small circle, tapped his fingers on the desk or read the Guardian is completely irrelevant.

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]I do, however, agree that some of the DC advice/statements were daft..[/quote]

But you don't feel that that rather discredits their judgment?

RE: Vet suspended for not having PII

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 13:28:31 GMT

i know i should let it go but.... i can't...

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Chikosi was different...simple steps could have been taken to show that he had received paperwork relating to the case. [/quote]

He did receive it, besides which, it is our responsibility to ensure RCVS have contact details for us.

[quote user="Bob Russell"] plus the idea that a vet is wrong for failing to drop everything to attend a patient.[/quote]

He wasn't doing anything - unless drinking a cup of coffee is vital...

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Failing to interact with the DC is just rather foolish. No defence offered![/quote]

Exactly. Just like Chikosi!

I do, however, agree that some of the DC advice/statements were daft..

RE: Vet suspended for not having PII

Bob Russell — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:46:00 GMT

Having read more details on the RCVS website, it seems that there was little evidence that there was a a particular fund to cover claims nor did she provide much information to back up the claim that she had sufficient resources. The same funds were to be used for practice expenses.

She was warned previously and failed to take steps to correct the situation.

There is no requirement for insurance but there must be some form of 'equivalent arrangement' such as a reserve fund. If there is a safety net of tens of thousands in a savings account then this would presumably act as equivalent. If it is earmarked for tax payments etc then it would not be.

I have VDS cover more for peace of mind rather than as a pot to pay negligence claims from! It can be argued that accepting a claim for a few thousand is a lot cheaper than spending tens of thousands on legal advice to protect a reputation. I know which I would rather have.

I have little doubt that with a little creative 'accountancy' this would have been a case that did not happen.

Chikosi was different in that advice 'offered' by the DC was a load of cr+p and simple steps could have been taken to show that he had received paperwork relating to the case. Blanket nonsense plus the idea that a vet is wrong for failing to drop everything to attend a patient.

Failing to interact with the DC is just rather foolish. No defence offered!