RCVS News: Disciplinary Committee Restores Berkshire vet

LONDON, March 22, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) this week [20 March 2012] accepted an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by James Main, who was struck off in 2011, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.

At a Disciplinary Committee hearing held on 22 February 2011, Mr Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and his name was removed from the Register. The then-Committee established that, contrary to the British Horseracing Authority's (BHA) rules of racing, Mr Main had injected tranexamic acid into the racehorse 'Moonlit Path' on 19 February 2009, knowing that the horse was to race later that day. He was also found guilty of dishonestly concealing this injection in his practice records as a "pre-race check".

At yesterday's hearing, the Committee noted that the decision to remove Mr Main from the Register had sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of strict compliance with the BHA's Rules of Racing; it was the inevitable consequence of his breaches of those rules and his dishonesty in concealing the administration of the injection. In oral evidence, Mr Main said he accepted the findings and decision of the previous Committee, and he apologised.

The Committee also noted a number of changes since implemented at Mr Main's practice, including a pharmacy review to improve traceability of drugs; withdrawal of the use of tranexamic acid in the management of Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage; and a cautious approach to drug withdrawal times. Mr Main's practice had also reviewed its processes to ensure its veterinary surgeons complied with all relevant rules, regulations and guidance, and that any requests by clients to breach these rules would be refused.

The Committee accepted evidence that Mr Main had worked in a management capacity in his practice since 26 March 2011, performing no clinical role, and had undertaken appropriate continuing professional development since being removed from the Register. It also noted the large volume of testimonials and public support presented at the hearing from both veterinary surgeons and clients in the horse world.

Furthermore, it noted that removal had been financially and emotionally detrimental to Mr Main, his family and practice and, if his name were not restored to the Register, there would be a continuing detrimental effect on his family finances and the practice.

"The Committee accepts that Mr Main has found the removal of his name from the Register a humbling and salutary experience and accepts his apologies," said Committee Chairman Professor Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee. "It is satisfied that he is very unlikely to breach the rules of racing in the future and does not consider that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals by restoring his name to the Register".

"The Committee does not consider that any further period of erasure would be of benefit either to the public or the veterinary profession," he said.

The Committee directed that Mr Main's name be restored to the Register.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in the UK and deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the Registers of veterinary surgeons and of veterinary nurses and assuring standards of veterinary education. It also has a 'Royal College' role, which means that it is responsible for postgraduate veterinary and veterinary nursing qualifications.
   
2. RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has authority to deal with three types of case:
   
   A) Fraudulent registration
   B) Criminal convictions
   C) Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct
   
3. The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the 1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of law.
   
4. The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.
   
5. A respondent veterinary surgeon may appeal a Disciplinary Committee decision to the Privy Council within 28 days of the date of the decision. If no appeal is received, the Committee's judgment takes effect after this period.
   
6. Further information about the hearing can be found at http://www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

For more information, please contact:
Claire Millington (+44(0)20-7202-0783) c.millington@rcvs.org.uk
Communications Department, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons