What's the cost of a DC decision?

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

patrick murphy — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:09:06 GMT

Thank-you Wynne for the correction. It was a while ago and I lost grasp of the actual decision lengths. I think that our signature/certification is one of the most valuable commodities of all, especially as probably most of us have been asked to do otherwise (x-rays, insurance, vacc's, etc.) and not crossing that line is just so important.

Another consideration though, is that say a 3 month suspension to a senior partner in a very large practice is completely different than suspending say a solo practioner for life, as they have no other options to turn to.

A life time suspension is a very serious affair.

I lost 6 months due to illness, and if it had not been for insurance, that would have been my practice, my house, and I would be back on the locum trail after all this time.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:59:06 GMT

Bit of factual correction there Patrick. The equine veterinary surgeon was Alan Walker, who was originally struck off for life-which the equine community thought harsh, so raised funds to appeal to Privy Council-who reduced it to 6 months suspension-which the campaigners thought fair. That was for a false flu/tet cert. Another equine veterinary surgeon has since been struck off permanently for sloppy certification with respect toa show jumper going to compete in America, and that striking off was upheld by PC

I don't object to harsh penalties-we all know the rules, and should stick to them I do object to inconsistent sentencing. I do house visits, always have done,always will do,and think the rest of you should do as well . The only excuse for a refusal to visit is a genuine concern for one's own safety. I supported DC in striking off Patrick's friend, untila cold-caller phoned practices owned by members of DC-and Jill Nute's was the only one orepared to visit-the others either refuised, or were deputising to an OOH provider who refused-and nothing was done.That made me very angry

The fact that the public are so disgustingly immoral to see nothing wrong in lying is irrelevant-instead of joining them we should take pride in our superiority

Ancient joke which says it all

"Someone who's been vetted has been thoroughly scrutinised and found free of all fault-something that's been doctored has either been falsified ,or has bits missing "

Wynne

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

patrick murphy — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:49:47 GMT

yes, I do believe that it is true. a friend of mine (remember the not going out to a recumbent GSD one ) was suspended indefinitely.

that meant that he could not work anywhere in the world, including his own practice in NZ. now that is a punishment.

that was at the same time a homegrown equine vet got struck off for falsifying passports for a matter of months ( I think far mor serious) and the equine community raised money to oppose it.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Tim Cheyne — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:09:12 GMT

Do you think that anyone from DC or RCVS is reading these comments and taking note?

Presumably they cannot comment in reply for fear of affecting any appeal.

Tim.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Gareth Dowdeswell — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:37:15 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Is there a pattern of foreign MRCVS's getting more severe punishment from the RCVS? (or is that a kettle of fish we shouldn't open?)

[/quote]

Some people feel the McMahon case was harshly dealt with, and he was an Irish vet, so probably not viewed as foreign by the RCVS, so not sure there is a pattern there.

Has the full case report been published? I think it'd be interesting to know how the DC viewed his decision not to offer a defence.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:25:11 GMT

Is there a pattern of foreign MRCVS's getting more severe punishment from the RCVS? (or is that a kettle of fish we shouldn't open?)

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Bob Russell — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:58:18 GMT

I still think the sentence was heavy handed unless there are other factors involved. The courts are very reluctant to remove a persons ability to earn a crust in their given careers.The DC seem less so.

The DC could have achieved just as much with a more selective and IMO appropriate punishment!

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:35:44 GMT

There were 2 in a North Wales practice a little while ago-the boss sloppy with TB work-if I remember correcltly, he signed as though he had done the work,when it was actually done by an assistant who wasn't an OV, then an assistant was sloppy with equine vaccination certs-and both were treated far more leniantly

Wynne

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Bob Russell — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:49:04 GMT

Interesting to have two DC problems in one practice for certification issues. Is this unique? I agree with 'Alice'!

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:50:30 GMT

[quote user="bob lehner"]

[quote user="Wren"] I think that few people who don't routinely deal with livestock exports realise just how complicated the process is. If Pet Passports are GCSE exporting then Livestock exports are PhD level. [/quote]

Totally agree - years ago I was involved with livestock exports through Stansted and it could be a nightmare. I remember one occasion , a Sunday evening, with a 747 scheduled to take off in a couple of hours with pigs to Japan - 200 + pigs sitting in lorries by the 'plane, ready to load and all dependent on me signing a pile of incomprehensible legalese/Japanese paperwork, which included verifying ear tag numbers, which were clearly physically impossible to check. Phone MAFF emergency help-line (DEFRA equivalent in those days), who basically say 'It's your problem, not ours.' I was pretty glad when the quarantine station at the airport closed and we didn't have to do the work any longer.

[/quote]

I had a similar experience many years ago when I had just set up and was anxious to please a client. I'll admit I compromied my principles and would say pre-flight examinations were not completed as well as they should have been. Fortunately there was no repercussions but I wouldn't be put in that situation again, especially as the client did a runner and never paid his bill!! I would now say if I don't have time to perform an adequate examination or I am put under pressure to complete paperwork I'm not sure about I wont. To paraphrase MAFF above; 'its not my problem'.

As for the case of Mr Okana and his practice, as Alice would say; 'Curiouser and curiouser'.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

J G Wray — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:47:04 GMT

[quote user="Jillian Hall"]The RCVS seemed to allude that on of the reasons for a lenient sentence was diminshed responsibility as this was merely an assistant, not the boss. Should this logic not therefore mean that some of the responsibilty falls on the employer ? [/quote]

The PIC would have looked into this area and if there were grounds for another being culpable and proof were avaialble then they would have picked up on this.

[quote user="Jillian Hall"]Also if the sentence was lenient due to his relative inexperience he is going to be even more reliant on the guidance of his peers and superiors. [/quote]

Hmmm, an interesting and presumably ironic use of the word "lenient". The RCVS regulates the individual and expects all to act autonomously, yet recognises the need for guidance of juniors, e.g. through the PDP. They have not yet found a means of proving inadequate supervision of juniors and holding more senior vets responsible for the actions of their juniors and frankly I don't see that as necessary. There should be internal discipinary systems in place in the practice. Have you never been given a warning?

[quote user="Jillian Hall"]I know the employer has served his sentence as far as the DC are concerned but should he come under some level of scrutiny if he is going to be held partially responsible for his employees' actions?[/quote]

No. He is not the subject of the complaint and you don't know what happened during the PIC process. It is just as reasonable to speculate that the boss allowed the junior wide ranging freedom of professional activity, but that their judgement, their trust in their junior was misplaced.

JGW

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Jillian Hall — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:03:28 GMT

And 1 other small detail.

The boss appeared to have been struck off for false certification of horses from export.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Jillian Hall — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:01:19 GMT

What I found alarming is that this guys employer (as far as I can tell) was himself in front of DC not so long ago and only realtively recently was reinstated to the register. 2 DC convictions in 1 practice is quite a feat.

The RCVS seemed to allude that on of the reasons for a lenient sentence was diminshed responsibility as this was merely an assistant, not the boss. Should this logic not therefore mean that some of the responsibilty falls on the employer ? Also if the sentence was lenient due to his relative inexperience he is going to be even more reliant on the guidance of his peers and superiors. I know the employer has served his sentence as far as the DC are concerned but should he come under some level of scrutiny if he is going to be held partially responsible for his employees' actions?

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

J G Wray — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:18:03 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]It seems odd that he offered no explanation for his actions! Why not I wonder? [/quote]

Because it is his privilege.

[quote user="Bob Russell"]If you do not offer any defence I suppose the DC may assume the worst case scenario and consider it was falsification for personal gain. In this case a severe sentence is in order.[/quote]

The DC are not permitted to put any construction on this

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Perhaps this was the case here. Was this individual very badly advised I wonder?[/quote]

If so then he has redress against his advisors, if he can prove it. But this would only end up as a speculative exercise in respect of sentence not guilt.. It is just as likely that anything he might say would make little impression.

[quote user="Bob Russell"]If you admit to being under pressure to fill in the certificate whether time, practice or client pressure these could be taken into account and the sentence may possibly be reduced as a result. [/quote]

It cuts no ice whatsoever. DR JOHN ALAN WALKER was found guilty of falsifying certificates at the time he was being litigated in a Civil Court by the client and complainant. That's definitive client pressure. He was removed from the Register.

Incidentally, the complainant had been a client for twenty years.

SO, all those who sign certificates, whether for export or equine passports or "WOT-EVUH", how do you feel about the prospect of being handled by RCVS? You can be dobbed in by anyone from clients of twenty years to Defra pen-pushers. There will be a paper trail, or damning evidence to give it another name, so you won't get off on opinion. Your character and previous conduct will count for buggerall in sentencing and if anyone were to ask the "man on the street" how heinous they thought the crime is, they would give you no more than a blank stare.

In reply ,RCVS will come up with some outdated and outmoded stuff about preservation of professional integrity as a justification for the sentence. Sadly, that's all their stuff is. They are hidebound.

What's really needed is for vets representative bodies to organise some kind of written indemnification of certifiers actions from RCVS and Defra. This would show all that RCVS/Defra understand the difficulties and whilst not condoning falsification, would allow them to maintain confidence in the professionals' integrity, should there be a discrepancy. This is a good answer.

If the situation carries on as it is, then those who do make a mistake will be in exactly the same position as Mr Okano. The wilfulness or otherwise will not matter in fact of law. The precedent is now well established.

Watch the space between your shoulder blades chaps, it's got a bicycle spoke with RCVS written on it hovering close by.

JGW

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

bob lehner — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:15:08 GMT

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Gerry Henry — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:13:29 GMT

'I would also add to this that if you ever speak to DEFRA or RCVS about the clarifying aspects of this paperwork you get very little help. '

Applies to the VMD also; when applying last month for our SIC for French Ketamine (what a farce BTW) I had to choose between two inexact, basically erroneous, statements but I had to choose o/wise no Ketamine.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Bob Russell — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:53:58 GMT

It seems odd that he offered no explanation for his actions! Why not I wonder?

If you do not offer any defence I suppose the DC may assume the worst case scenario and consider it was falsification for personal gain. In this case a severe sentence is in order. Perhaps this was the case here. Was this individual very badly advised I wonder?

If you admit to being under pressure to fill in the certificate whether time, practice or client pressure these could be taken into account and the sentence may possibly be reduced as a result.

I realise vets should always be totally resistant to all outside pressures to cut corners and bend the rules but this is the real world so it happens.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

J G Wray — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:21:28 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Sounds like I rattled your cage Jonathan (meant in the nicest possible way)[/quote]

Understood. When this sort of thing happens, just say "RCVS" to me - it's like lighting the blue touch paper. This is clearly a character defect, but they could be so much better as regulators, on behalf of the public.

JGW

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:32:58 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Forgive me if I misunderstand the facts in this case but as far as I can ascertain this guy deliberately falsified a certificate and I thus find if difficult to comprehend why the overwhelming tone of this thread is that his punishment is too harsh to fit the crime.[/quote]

This "guy", this "oik" is called Mr Takeshi Okano MRCVS. He's not anonymous. The case is in the pulic domain. He has been found guilty with a burden of proof similar to that required for conviction in a criminal court. He has not offered an explanation, as is his privilege, but has presented evidence of character and commitment in mitigation of sentence - as is his privilege.

JGW

[/quote]

Sounds like I rattled your cage Jonathan (meant in the nicest possible way). I don't see the problem of referring to Mr Okana as 'this guy' and the word oik was not used to describe him. I was merely comparing the validity of the evidence of character witnesses - just because someone thinks hes a nice guy in another context does not mean he is incapable of a misdemeanour.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

J G Wray — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:20:33 GMT

That sentence looks, to me, to be driven more by precedent than by any relation to what society requires for the "punishment to fit the crime", even if a "higher" standard of behaviour is expected of a "professional", . Someone else has pointed out the disparity between this and a conviction for a driving offence, where life is endangered.

This sentence is the sort of thing which demonstrates to Defra and the profession how harsh and unreformed the RCVS are prepared to be. They will argue that they have too few sentences available to them, part of the argument to extend their powers under a new VSA. However, they have choice in respect of term, as others have said. They chose not to offer a lighter sentence, because of precedent, which they don't know how to break from.

RCVS are consistent in pointing out how the essence of the value of the professional's consideration of a matter and signature to verify it are paramount to them. Ironically, in this case they are demonstrating their support for a system to the very people (Defra) who are keen to undermine and restrict our profession's influence and privilege.

If RCVS are demonstrating to Defra, who are the ones behind paraprofessional, how to regulate in these matters, then this is a political sentence. That is distasteful.

There is an appeals process, to the Privy Council, which can only happen if certain criteria are met. In addition this would have to be self-funded. In the past , appeals have succeeded and the Privy Council has has been scathing about sentence and cut the sentence. However, the appeals were allowed because of procedural shortcomings on the part of RCVS, which they have tightened up on. So, we are in a position where an appeal is profoundly difficult to achieve.

I've posted my views on the integrity of a legal document - see prescriptions stuff. I have little truck with fraud. The client who forged my prescriptions received a letter from VMD, but If I had done it I would be facing eight months suspension. There may be a higher level of accountability required of me but not that disparity. By being so out-of-touch RCVS are proving how poor their nous, their judgment with a small "j" really is. It is as if they do not wish to command respect or trust, thay they require it. They are [R]emote, [C]ovetous, [V]exatious and [S]upercilious (sic) and have demonstrated this with this sentence

JGW

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Mark Holmes — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:14:23 GMT

[quote user="Wren"]

[quote user="i am ed"]

Secondly, I'm not so sure that the vet in this case did deliberately falsify the certificate. He doesn't appear to have presented any defence or mitigating factors so this is unknown really. However, it does seem that the problem only came to light when a DEFRA vet asked him to confirm the appropriate declarations in order to sign a replacement certificate on his behalf (the original certificate contain an error with an address). I don't think the DEFRA vet necessarily suspected a problem at this stage, and was merely asking for confirmation of the declarations as a matter of due diligence with regards to the replacement certificate. If the vet was acting deliberately dishonestly, I would have expected him to falsely confirm the declaration at this time as well. Not that I would condone this behaviour of course, but it seems like he would have 'gotten away with it'.

It may be that this vet was careless in not checking the declarations properly. Negligence certainly, but not necessarily with motivation of dishonesty. Personally speaking, I have dealt with many exports, and even when I am thoroughly familiar with a particular certificate mistakes are easy to make.

Should there be a difference in sentence between cases where there is deliberate dishonesty from those involving honest mistakes?

All supposition and guessing, but I do suspect that this vet was not adequately represented at the DC hearing.

[/quote]

Whilst trying not to sound patronising I think that few people who don't routinely deal with livestock exports realise just how complicated the process is. If Pet Passports are GCSE exporting then Livestock exports are PhD level. The amount of paperwork generated for one shipment is quite phenomenal, the ability of the EC legalese to fail to say exactly what it means is unending and the number of signatures required for each export are legion.

I am currently dealing with an export of 1200 lambs to an EU country. It took me 6 hours to complete and copy the required paperwork in the early hours of Friday morning. There are 3 different export certificates for this shipment alone amounting to about three-quarters of an inch of paperwork. As it happens the lambs are on a remote farm and the Dutch wagons and drivers have been stuck there since Friday afternoon because of the weather. They hope to travel tonight after a road has been ploughed and gritted so I shall have to go back up and re-inspect, re-sign, re-stamp and re-date the paperwork this evening. Several lambs have died in the interim and the wagon-drivers are circumspect about their chances of being able to load all 1200 but we won't know which lambs have been left behind until they try to load them. I have to put my signature to a list of tag numbers that I think is correct but cannot realistically re-check all 1200.

I would never knowingly sign anything I knew to be incorrect or omit anything that is required but I think that the EC/DEFRA have made the whole process so convoluted that if anyone makes a genuine mistake or omission then I will never join the queue to condemn them, merely think 'there but for the grace of God'....

[/quote]

I would also add to this that if you ever speak to DEFRA or RCVS about the clarifying aspects of this paperwork you get very little help. I used to oversee the export of skins, the paperwork suggested that I should have personally overseen and examined the whole process of production for each skin, be able to guarantee the source of and traceability of each skin in a consignment of perhaps 30,000. When I questioned to quite what level of satisfaction this had to be acheived the advice was "Well see what you think" Now I used to check the numbers against those coming into the plant and those leaving but was unable to determine beyond doubt that they were the same skins. There were perhaps 100-200K skins in varying stages of production at any one time.

The guidance and instruction given was really inadequate and I was always uncomfortable about process. How could I possibly be sure that each skin in 30,000 had been salted for the required length of time and at the required concentrations? (I forget what they were)

The fine iro £20K through lost earnings is disproportionate when you consider that dangerous driving (endangering life) is perhaps £1000 and 6 points.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Wren — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:55:55 GMT

[quote user="i am ed"]

Should there be a difference in sentence between cases where there is deliberate dishonesty from those involving honest mistakes?

All supposition and guessing, but I do suspect that this vet was not adequately represented at the DC hearing.

[/quote]

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Edward Jones — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:17:16 GMT

[quote user="Tim Cheyne"]Or can we, as a group, make our feelings known to the DC?[/quote]

I doubt the RCVS or the DC give a monkeys what you or I think. They don't represent us, they regulate us.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Edward Jones — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:08:23 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] I can ascertain this guy deliberately falsified a certificate[/quote]

Well yes, I agree somewhat with your sentiment.

BUT... Firstly I will say that this punishment is harsher than 'usual'. The well established male vet who falsified TB test results was off the list for a month. The young female vet who mistakenly signed a horse vaccination certificate received only a reprimand. The latter offence seemed to be 'honest' carelessness, I'd accept, but the former involved systematic falsifying of results and deliberate dishonesty. Perhaps the fact that this was an 'internal' matter to DEFRA allowed an easier sentence, whereas an offence involving dealings with foreign state vet services attracts a harsher, 'zero tolerance' sentence to help preserve the SVS's international reputation .

Should there be a difference in sentence between cases where there is deliberate dishonesty from those involving honest mistakes?

All supposition and guessing, but I do suspect that this vet was not adequately represented at the DC hearing.

Re: What's the cost of a DC decision?

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:23:36 GMT

Forgive me if I misunderstand the facts in this case but as far as I can ascertain this guy deliberately falsified a certificate and I thus find if difficult to comprehend why the overwhelming tone of this thread is that his punishment is too harsh to fit the crime. Not only did he commit fraud it reflects badly upon the whole profession and devalues the trust that is placed in us all.. It is one of the most serious offences a vet can commit and as such I consider his sentence light not severe. If culprits are not punished harshly it sends out the wrong message to others who may be tempted to do the same.The fact that he has only been qualified for 4 years is irrelevant, he knows the rules whether he's been qualified for 4 months or 40 years it makes no difference neither does the fact that he's generally a good bloke and has some colleagues and clients who can say this. Every little oik who commits a crime was 'a nice lad who visits his granny on a Sunday'! I get annoyed enough about incomplete pet vaccination certificates where the relationship of the vet with the 'breeder' is dubious - let alone this. There is no comparison with someone who is an incompetant surgeon the system is in place to deal with him - the owner can sue.