| DISCIPLINARY
INQUIRIES
OF THE VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD
TABLE OF CONTENT
| ___________________________________________________________________________ |
| Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 2 November 2000 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The veterinary surgeon was charged
with an offence alleging misconduct or neglect in a professional
respect by failing promptly to notify the owner of the death
of a cat following post-surgical treatment.
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 12 October 2000 and 22 November 2000 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The veterinary surgeon was charged
with an offence alleging misconduct in a professional respect
by hitting a dog on the head several times when examining
it in his capacity of a registered veterinary surgeon.
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 21 March 2001 (Case Summary) |
| |
|
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The veterinary
surgeon was charged with the offence of committing a misconduct
in a professional respect by (a) failing to properly advise
and refer the owners of an injured dog to seek timely treatment
from a better equipped clinic; (b) failing to provide the
owners with a written referral letter or to use other means
to provide the receiving veterinary surgeon with all pertinent
information of the injured dog; and (c) suppressing and/or
advising the owners to conceal the fact that the dog had
received treatment from him.
|
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 19 and 20 June 2001 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The defendant veterinary surgeon
was charged with the offence of committing misconduct in a
professional respect by performing a sterilization operation
on a female grey and white Persian cat, which was not up to
the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon,
in particular:
|
| |
| (a) |
only about one third
of the abdominal muscle wound had been stitched; |
| |
|
| (b) |
the left ovary had only been partially
removed; |
| |
|
| (c) |
both uterine horns had been inadequately
double ligated; |
| |
|
| (d) |
the right ovarian stump was inadequately
ligated; and |
| |
|
| (e) |
massive abdominal haemorrhage
and blood clotting was present. |
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 24 April 2002 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The defendant veterinary surgeon
was charged with a charge alleging misconduct in a professional
respect, the particulars being that he, being a registered
veterinary surgeon, on 2 June 2001, at his clinic, behaved
in a disgraceful or dishonourable manner towards the client
in relation to her request for the refund of HK$500 deposit.
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 25 March and 14 May 2002 (Case Summary) |
| |
|
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The veterinary
surgeon was charged with the offence of committing a misconduct
in a professional respect in that she, being a registered
veterinary surgeon, during the period from 26 December 2000
to 2 January 2001 at her clinic, in relation to treatment
given to the complainant¡¦s dog for an injury to its proptosed
left eye, failed to provide proper care and treatment for
the said dog
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 17 March, 19 June and 4 July 2003 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The defendant veterinary surgeon
was charged with the offence of committing a misconduct
in a professional respect in that he, being a registered
veterinary surgeon, on a date unknown but prior to about
13 June 2001, he,
|
| |
| (a) |
obtained or caused or instigated
the obtaining of confidential information, including
information relating to the names, contact telephone
numbers and addresses of clients, from another clinic;
and |
| |
|
| (b) |
made use of the said confidential
information to solicit and/or canvass business from
clients of the said clinic. |
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 21 - 22 October 2003 and 18 November 2003 (Case
Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The veterinary surgeon was charged
with the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional
respect by failing to remove completely the ovaries of two
dogs referred to him by their respective owners for sterilization
operations. The inquiry involved two separate complaints
and complainants.
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 6 and 12 February 2004 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The defendant veterinary surgeon
was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in
a professional respect by failing to provide proper care
and treatment for the complainant¡¦s rabbit, in particular,
(a) failing to diagnose or correctly diagnose the medical
conditions of the rabbit; and (b) giving inappropriate treatment
and/or failing to give appropriate treatment to the rabbit.
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 18 May 2004 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The defendant veterinary surgeon
was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in
a professional respect by, being a registered veterinary
surgeon, in or about October and/or November 2002, seeking
to acquire an unfair personal advantage over or at the expense
of another veterinary surgeon (¡§Complainant¡¨), in particular,
(a) by targeting the Complainant¡¦s clients and canvassing
business from them by distributing name cards and offering
discounts outside the Complainant¡¦s clinic; and (b) by advertising
through distributing name cards and offering discounts outside
the Complainant¡¦s clinic.
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 22 - 24 November 2004 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The defendant veterinary surgeon
was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in
a professional respect by failing to provide proper care
and treatment for the complainant¡¦s dog. In particular,
she, being a registered veterinary surgeon, during the period
between 19 February 2002 and 18 March 2002, in relation
to treatment given to the complainant's Pekingnese dog,:
|
| |
| (a) |
failed to offer further diagnostic
testing and/or pursue differential diagnosis when the
dog's medical conditions failed to improve; |
| |
|
| (b) |
adopted inappropriate treatment
methods for the dog in that: (i) by prescribing human
cold preparations in the treatment of productive coughing
which indicates lower respiratory disease; and (ii)
by prescribing dexamethasone in a case where the drug
is contra-indicated; and |
| |
|
| (c) |
compounded different medications
together without due or any regard at all to the risk
that the efficacy and safety of each of the drugs prescribed
might be compromised. |
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 6 - 7 January and 18 February 2005 (Case Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The Defendant was charged with
the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect
by :-
|
| |
| (a) |
upon being informed over the telephone
by the owner of a female Pomeranian dog (¡§the dog¡¨)
about the emergency situation of the dog, failing to
make proper arrangements for emergency services, appropriately
advise and/or to make appropriate response in a timely
fashion; |
| |
|
| (b) |
after the owner brought the dog
back to her clinic for the dog¡¦s emergency situation,
failed to make proper arrangements and inappropriately
restrained the dog during medical examination causing
the dog unnecessary distress, serious pain and/or suffering;
and |
| |
|
| (c) |
having taken on the care of the
dog, negligently in the provision of treatment to the
dog by, failing to give priority to the investigation
of airway obstruction and/or taking of appropriate action
to the relief thereof. |
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held between 20 September 2004 and 9 April 2005 (Case
Summary) |
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The Defendants were charged with the
offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by
:- |
| |
| (a) |
in about September 2002 to October
2002, carried out or authorized the carrying out of
treatments to the left hind leg of the said dog in a
negligent and/or inappropriate manner; |
| |
|
| (b) |
at the night of 1 October 2002
or in the early hours of 2 October 2002, failed to provide
proper and/or adequate arrangement for emergency after-hour
service to the said dog; |
| |
|
| (c) |
on 17 October 2002, carried out
or authorized or condoned the carrying out of surgical
operation on the said dog without performing any or
any adequate or appropriate pre-surgical investigations,
and |
| |
|
| (d) |
(for the 2nd Defendant) during
the period from about September 2002 to October 2002,
as the principal of the Clinic, and as the 1st Defendant's
employer and/or supervisor, failed to adequately supervise
and/or provide adequate support, monitoring or advice
to the 1st Defendant in the treatment of the said dog. |
|
| |
| Back
to Top |
Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 14 April 2005 (Case Summary)
|
| |
Summary of the charge(s): The Defendant was charged with
the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect
that he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on or about
23 February 2004, in a veterinary clinic, performed a castration
operation on the complainant's dog, without the prior consent
or authorization from the owner.
|
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
| ___________________________________________________________________________ |
| Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 2 November 2000 |
| |
| 1. |
Under section 18 of the Veterinary
Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529 (the ¡§Ordinance¡¨),
the Veterinary Surgeons Board referred a complaint alleging
a disciplinary offence on the part of a registered veterinary
surgeon to an inquiry committee for decision. The inquiry
committee subsequently met on 2 November 2000 to hear
the complaint. |
2. |
The veterinary surgeon had been charged with an offence
alleging misconduct or neglect in a professional respect
by failing promptly to notify the owner of the death
of a cat following post-surgical treatment. The cat
had been returned to the veterinary surgeon's care two
days after having undergone a surgical operation. It
died the same evening, at 9:30 p.m. The owner was not
informed of the death until the next day, at about 10:30
a.m. There were methods available to enable the veterinary
surgeon to contact the complainant at an earlier stage,
in the evening, but he had considered it more appropriate
and less distressing to the owner to delay the information
until the next day. The committee found that in all
the circumstances of the case it was not wrong for the
veterinary surgeon to delay reporting the death and
dismissed the charge.
|
3. |
The committee was satisfied that owners of pets must
be informed of the death of the pets in a timely manner.
However it noted that there were no guidelines, written
or otherwise, as to when such communications must be
made. The expectations of the public, and of registered
veterinary surgeons themselves, may vary. The committee
therefore made a recommendation to the Board that consideration
be given to requiring registered veterinary surgeons
to obtain instructions in advance from a client who
leaves a pet with them as to the manner and timing of
any communication to the client.
|
4. |
The Board considered the recommendation made by the
inquiry committee at its meeting held on 3 November
2000. After careful consideration, the Board decided
that the inquiry committee's recommendation should be
adopted and that with immediate effect, the following
guideline would be promulgated for observance by registered
veterinary surgeons ¡V
¡§A registered veterinary surgeon should
obtain instructions in advance from his/her client who
leaves an animal with him/her regarding the timing and
manner of any communication with his/her client as to
the occurrence of any emergencies including serious
complications or death of the animal, etc.¡¨ |
5. |
Registered veterinary surgeons are advised to observe
the above guideline. The Board's Code of Practice for
the Guidance of Registered Veterinary Surgeons will
be suitably amended to incorporate this guideline in
due course
|
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
Disciplinary Inquiry held on 12 October 2000
and 22 November 2000 |
|
1. |
Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration
Ordinance, Cap. 529, the Veterinary Surgeons Board referred
a complaint alleging a disciplinary offence on the part
of a registered veterinary surgeon to an inquiry committee
for decision. The inquiry committee subsequently met
on 12 October 2000 and 22 November 2000 to hear the
complaint.
|
2. |
The veterinary surgeon had been charged with an offence
alleging misconduct in a professional respect by hitting
a dog on the head several times when examining it in
his capacity of a registered veterinary surgeon. The
dog was being examined because of an apparent weight
loss. There were unsuccessful attempts to weigh the
dog and it was after these unsuccessful attempts that
the veterinary surgeon was alleged to have hit the dog.
The veterinary surgeon agreed that he had slapped the
dog once, on its shoulder, to elicit a submissive response.
The committee was satisfied that the dog was hit more
than once. It was unable to resolve the issue as to
the amount of force that was applied and was not satisfied
that in this case there was misconduct. The charge was
dismissed.
|
3. |
The committee stated that a veterinary surgeon must
control his patient and may be justified in applying
some force to the animal, but any force used must not
be excessive. It is not acceptable to cause pain or
injury to an animal and veterinary surgeons must approach
the application of any force with caution. A single
application of force may not be acceptable
|
4. |
Registered veterinary surgeons are advised to take note
of the views of the inquiry committee (para. 3 above)
for observance, where appropriate.
|
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
Disciplinary Inquiry held on 21 March 2001 |
| |
1. |
Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration
Ordinance, Cap. 529, the Veterinary Surgeons Board had
referred a complaint alleging a disciplinary offence
on the part of a registered veterinary surgeon to an
inquiry committee for decision. The inquiry committee
subsequently met on 21 March 2001 to hear the case.
|
2. |
The veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence
of committing a misconduct in a professional respect
by (a) failing to properly advise and refer the owners
of an injured dog to seek timely treatment from a better
equipped clinic; (b) failing to provide the owners with
a written referral letter or to use other means to provide
the receiving veterinary surgeon with all pertinent
information of the injured dog; and (c) suppressing
and/or advising the owners to conceal the fact that
the dog had received treatment from him.
|
3. |
An injured dog was taken in the late evening to the
veterinary surgeon. He treated the dog but then advised
the owners to go to another, unspecified, clinic in
order to have X-rays because internal bleeding was suspected.
The committee heard that the owner had understood from
the veterinary surgeon that there was no urgency; and
that she was not to tell the receiving surgeon of his
treatment.
|
4. |
Upon seeking treatment with a second veterinary surgeon,
the owner initially denied the earlier treatment. The
first veterinary surgeon had also not provided the owner
with a referral letter but did respond with details
of the treatment, when paged by the receiving veterinary
surgeon.
|
5. |
The committee found that it was possible that there
had been a misunderstanding between the first veterinary
surgeon and the owner. It was not satisfied that he
had advised the owner to conceal the fact of his treatment.
Nevertheless, the committee was of the opinion that
a better practice in referring the patient would have
been providing a referral letter. The committee dismissed
the charges.
|
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
Disciplinary Inquiry held on 19 and 20 June
2001 |
| |
1. |
An inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board
of Hong Kong after due inquiry held on 19 & 20 June
2001 in accordance with section 18 of the Veterinary
Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the
Laws of Hong Kong, was satisfied that the defendant
veterinary surgeon (¡§Defendant¡¨) had been guilty of
misconduct or neglect in a professional respect in that
he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, performed
a sterilization operation on a female grey and white
Persian cat on or about 9 March 2000 at his clinic,
which was not up to the standard expected of a registered
veterinary surgeon, in particular:
| (a) |
only about one third of the abdominal muscle
wound had been stitched; |
| |
|
| (b) |
the left ovary had only been partially removed; |
| |
|
| (c) |
both uterine horns had been inadequately double
ligated; |
| |
|
| (d) |
the right ovarian stump was inadequately ligated;
and |
| |
|
| (e) |
massive abdominal haemorrhage and blood clotting
was present. |
|
|
| |
2. |
Three witnesses were called to give evidence by the
Counsel for the Secretary. A registered veterinary surgeon
working for the SPCA (¡§Dr A¡¨) gave evidence that the
cat in question was brought to the SPCA clinic for emergency
treatment at 5 a.m. on 10 March 2000 by the owner of
a pet shop. The cat was lying on its side, in a lot
of pain, pushing its forelegs forward in a circular
motion; that it was quite pale. The history that she
was given was of the cat having been spayed by the Defendant
the previous day at about 2 p.m. and having been returned
to him at 11 p.m. because of bleeding. She was informed
that the Defendant had surgically explored the abdomen
and that he had checked the ligatures.
|
|
| |
3. |
Dr A said that she had checked the CBC; it was normal.
There was no blood obtained from an abdominal tap. She
put the cat on a drip and gave it analgesics. She replaced
its bandage, which was loose, with a tighter body bandage.
She handed the cat over to another vet of her organisation
(¡§Dr B¡¨). She explained that she decided not to surgically
explore the abdomen in view of the information given
to her by the Defendant, including that there had been
an exploratory laparotomy earlier; that her concern
was that the cat was in shock with low blood pressure;
that further anaesthetic at that time could compromise
the blood pressure and lead to death.
|
|
| |
4. |
Dr B gave evidence that she examined the cat at 9.30
a.m.; it was brought out from its cage and when the
bandage was removed blood came out of the wound. She
said that the bandage itself was fairly clean but when
the pressure was released the blood came. She therefore
surgically explored the abdomen. She stated that only
part of the abdominal muscle wound had been stitched;
that the left ovary had only been partially removed;
both uterine horns had been inadequately double ligated;
the right ovarian stump was inadequately ligated; and
there was what amounted to massive abdominal haemorrhage
and blood clotting. She said there was 80 ml. of blood.
She also said that photographs had been taken at the
time, which she asserted were photographic representations
of what she had seen. The committee decided to allow
the photographs to be admitted in evidence.
|
|
| |
| |
|
| 5. |
An overseas expert was called to
give expert evidence. He opined that the operation was
not of a standard to be expected of a registered veterinary
surgeon, with inadequate ligation of both uterine stumps
and ovarian pedicles, incorrect clamping of the left
ovarian pedicle and inadequate closure of the abdominal
incision. He also commented on the blood loss, both
the amount and the timing. In his opinion the anaesthetics
had caused low blood pressure, the anaesthetics would
be wearing off resulting in blood being seen at the
time of the second operation; that it was probably normal
at the time Dr A saw the cat and by the time Dr B saw
the cat there was active on-going seepage. He said that
it was impossible for the blood to have accumulated
from a nicking of a mammary gland's blood vessel. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 6. |
The Defendant described the steps
and procedures that he took in the operation; that he
had performed the operation correctly. He denied the
allegations in the charge. He said that two of his colleagues
(¡§Dr X¡¨ and ¡§Dr Y¡¨) were present and observed the operation.
In cross examination he said that there was no particular
reason for their presence other than that it was their
practice to come in and greet each other. He said Dr
X was present for about 5 minutes; that he came in when
he had already sutured the muscle layer and was starting
on the subcutaneous layer; that Dr Y was present for
about 10 minutes, coming in when he sutured the muscle
layer. He described the return of the cat later that
evening at around 11 p.m.; that there was blood seeping
from the wound; he applied a half dosage of anaesthetic
and cut the stitches of the outer layer. He saw 2-3
cc of blood around the breast part. He applied a bandage
to mop the blood and held it there for a minute. There
was no more seepage of blood. He said he believed the
blood had come from around the mammary gland, so did
not cut the stitches in the muscle layer. He resutured
the wound and put the cat on a drip. He gave the cat
back to the pet shop owner with instructions as to the
cat's care. |
|
| |
7. |
Dr X and Dr Y gave evidence of having been present during
the operation. There were some discrepancies between
their evidence and that of the Defendant but both gave
evidence of being present at a time when the Defendant
was suturing the wounds. The pet shop owner gave evidence.
He said that he had taken the cat back because there
was blood seeping from the abdomen and the Defendant
had advised him to bring it back. He said that he was
called into the operating theatre to observe the cat.
He said that at that time there was not much blood seeping
from the wound; that the abdomen was open.
|
|
| |
8. |
There was one matter that the inquiry noted. There was
evidence that the cat had been released into the care
of a lay person whilst on a drip. The committee was
concerned as to this practice and would refer this issue
to the Veterinary Surgeons Board for its consideration
of issuing an advice as to this practice. The committee
did not take this into account in deciding the issues.
|
|
| |
9. |
Whilst the committee accepted that the Defendant perceived
that he performed the operation correctly, from what
he had presented to the committee by way of his descriptions
and diagrams, and his demonstration of surgical knots,
even allowing for the difficulties of presenting the
situation on paper and the difficulties for the demonstration
the committee was satisfied that he did not perform
the operation to a standard required of a registered
veterinary surgeon.
|
|
| |
10. |
The charge particularised five matters in which it was
alleged the operation was not up to the standard expected.
In respect of the first matter the committee was satisfied
that when Dr B observed the site, there was a gap in
the abdominal muscle wound but they were not satisfied
that this was because only one-third of the wound had
been stitched.
|
|
| |
11. |
The committee accepted that the photographs were an
accurate depiction of what was seen and done by Dr B.
From the evidence of Dr B, the photographs and the drawings
of the Defendant which reflected his lack of knowledge
on anatomy and notwithstanding the lack of histology
the committee was satisfied that the left ovary had
only been partially removed. The committee was satisfied
that massive abdominal haemorrhage and blood clotting
was present. From Dr B's evidence and the fact that
the blood in the abdominal cavity could only come from
the surgical sites of the ovaries and the uterine horns
with inadequate ligation, the committee was satisfied
that both uterine horns had been inadequately double
ligated and the right ovarian stump was inadequately
ligated. Even if there had been contributory factors,
such as a clotting problem, the main factor was inadequate
ligation. Dr A had considered whether there was a clotting
problem. There was no evidence that there was. The committee
was satisfied that the Defendant was guilty of misconduct
or neglect in a professional respect.
|
|
| |
12. |
The committee had been urged to consider a lenient disciplinary
order; that the cat was still alive, that the cat owner
did not complain. The committee put little weight on
these matters. The committee was concerned that this
was not an isolated incident, it was not a momentary
lapse. Rather, from the evidence before them there was
a real concern that the Defendant had inadequate surgical
skills and was in need of remedial training. The committee
had taken into account that there was no facility in
Hong Kong where he could obtain such training. However
the committee would be failing in their duty to the
public to allow him to continue to practise surgery
with his present skills. The committee therefore on
20 June 2001 ordered the Secretary to remove the name
of the Defendant from the register; that the order would
not take effect for the period of 12 months from 20
June 2001; that for that 12-month period the Defendant
must not practise surgery; and that within the 12-month
period he must produce evidence, to the satisfaction
of the Board, that he was competent to practise surgery.
If the Defendant failed to produce such evidence, his
name would be removed from the register at the end of
12 months. If he practised surgery within the 12-month
period, his name would be removed from the register
immediately.
|
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
Disciplinary Inquiry held on 24 April 2002 |
| |
1. |
The defendant veterinary surgeon (¡§Defendant¡¨) was charged
with a charge alleging misconduct in a professional
respect, the particulars being that he, being a registered
veterinary surgeon, on 2 June 2001, at his clinic, behaved
in a disgraceful or dishonourable manner towards the
client in relation to her request for the refund of
HK$500 deposit.
|
|
| |
2. |
There was little dispute on the basic facts of the events
that gave rise to the charge. The complainant's dog
had been X-rayed at the Defendant's clinic on 27 May
2001. She had later decided to take the dog to the SPCA
for a second opinion and had requested to borrow the
two X-ray films. She had been allowed to do so, upon
the payment of a deposit of $500. On 2 June 2001 she
had returned to the clinic, with the X-ray films, and
sought to recover the deposit. She failed to do so,
and it was the manner by which the Defendant declined
to do so that gave rise to the charge. The Committee's
duty was not to determine whether the complainant was
entitled to a refund of the deposit but whether the
Defendant had behaved in a disgraceful or dishonourable
manner towards his client.
|
|
| |
3. |
The complainant gave evidence that she had decided to
return the films on her way back from a visit to the
SPCA. She handed the films to the receptionists who
took them away to the back office. It was not clear
whether both the Defendant and the Practice Manager
of the clinic came out at the same time, but she was
told in the reception area by them that the films had
been damaged and the deposit would not be refunded.
The films were not produced in evidence, but it seemed
to be accepted that marks had been made, possibly by
the SPCA vet.
|
|
| |
4. |
After some talk in the reception area, the Defendant
and the Practice Manager left and the complainant waited.
She said that in this period she telephoned her sister
and brother in law asking them to come. Fifteen minutes
later she was asked to go into a consultation room where
the Defendant and the Practice Manager were. She said
that the Defendant's attitude in the room was angry
and rude and frightened her. She agreed that he used
no obscenities or foul language; that no one prevented
her from leaving the room and that there was no physical
contact between the staff and her. She said that after
looking at the X-rays he thrust the envelope containing
them onto her chest; she told him that he was very rude
and was not satisfied with his explanation; she said
that he then frightened her by trying to pass the Practice
Manager to reach her. (The layout of the consultation
room was such that the length of the consultation table
separated the Defendant and the complainant who were
facing each other; the Practice Manager was at the short
end of the table.)
She left the consultation room and
was still there when her sister and brother in law arrived.
When the Defendant and the Practice Manager were leaving
the clinic they stopped the Defendant and attempted
to speak to him. Nothing was resolved. |
|
| |
5. |
The Practice Manager gave evidence. The Committee took
into account that he was still employed at the Defendant's
hospital. His recollection of the incident was not as
clear as that given by the complainant, but it did not
appear that he was attempting to tailor his evidence
to put the Defendant in a good light. The Committee
did accept his evidence as to the layout of the consultation
room, in particular as to the location of the second
door of that room. This was relevant as to whether the
Defendant was intending to approach and threaten complainant,
rather than to simply leave the room. He gave evidence
that they were in a hurry to get to another clinic at
the conclusion of this meeting. (complainant said that
she was in the consultation room some 15 to 20 minutes;
the Practice Manager said that this was 30 minutes.)
|
|
| |
6. |
The Committee accepted that the complainant was an honest
witness, but believed that she may have misinterpreted
the Defendant's actions. It appeared to the Committee
that the Defendant had been prepared to spend time discussing
the matter with the complainant on an unscheduled appointment,
but it was also apparent to the Committee that he was
in a hurry to meet his commitments at the other clinic.
The situation was obviously not resolving itself, and
this may have precipitated grievances on the complainant's
part that had not been intended or appreciated. The
Committee did not find that the charge had been proved
and dismissed the complaint.
|
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
Disciplinary Inquiry held on 25 March and 14
May 2002 |
| |
1. |
Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration
Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the
inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board met
on 25 March and 14 May 2002 to hear a complaint. The
veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of committing
a misconduct in a professional respect in that she,
being a registered veterinary surgeon, during the period
from 26 December 2000 to 2 January 2001 at her clinic,
in relation to treatment given to the complainant's
dog for an injury to its proptosed left eye, failed
to provide proper care and treatment for the said dog.
|
|
| |
2. |
The said dog was injured in an accident and, inter alia,
had its left eye proptosed. The dog was then taken to
the veterinary surgeon concerned for treatment from
26 to 29 December 2000. On each of the 4 days, the treatment
given by veterinary surgeon consisted of a physical
pushing back of the proptosed eye into the eye socket
by simply using lubricants. It was alleged that during
this process there was no anaesthetic used, nor was
there any lateral canthotomy ¡V a surgical incision in
the corner of the eyelids to allow relaxation of the
constriction around the base of the proptosed eye so
as to replace the eye back into its normal position.
On each visit, the veterinary surgeon attempted to replace
the proptosed eye into the socket but failed on each
occasion. Eventually on 29 December she succeeded in
doing so. However subsequently the dog was taken to
another clinic and it was discovered that the left eye
was already dead and so had to be removed.
|
|
| |
3. |
The case against the veterinary surgeon was that the
procedure adopted by her was completely unacceptable,
the reason being that the eye itself being a very delicate
structure, would not tolerate the pressure required
to push the eyeball back into the socket forcefully;
that in order to properly replace the eyeball into the
socket a surgical procedure is required that would require
putting the dog under anaesthesia, either general or
local, and then performing lateral canthotomy so as
to allow the relaxation of the constriction and to facilitate
the easing back of the eye. Furthermore, it was alleged
that the delay in that treatment, the replacement of
the eyeball into the socket, reduced the chance of recovery
of the eye completely; that whenever a proptosed eyeball
occurs, it should be immediately replaced since every
hour of delay would seriously reduce the chance of recovery;
that because of the four days' delay in replacing the
eyeball into the socket that had reduced the chances
of full recovery to zero.
|
|
| |
4. |
The committee was satisfied that the veterinary surgeon
concerned did fail to provide proper care and treatment
and that she did not offer the client a lateral canthotomy.
On the defendant veterinary surgeon's own evidence,
she appeared not to appreciate what a lateral canthotomy
entailed, nor did she appear familiar with both the
surgical procedure and the medical treatment of the
condition. In this regard, the committee considered
that that it did amount to neglect in a professional
respect. In accordance with section 19(d) of the said
Ordinance, the committee ordered on 14 May 2002 that
a warning letter would be served on the veterinary surgeon
who was also required to undergo 40 hours of continuing
professional education which was to be completed within
12 months from 14 May 2002. She must supply proof of
having completed such continuing professional education
to the Board.
|
|
| |
5. |
In accordance with section 23 of the Ordinance, the
veterinary surgeon concerned subsequently filed an appeal
to the Court of Appeal against the order of the inquiry
committee. However, on 26 March 2003 she abandoned the
said appeal.
|
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
Disciplinary Inquiry held on 17 March, 19 June
and 4 July 2003 |
| |
1. |
The inquiry committee met on 17 March, 19 June and 4
July 2003 to hear the case in which both the complainant
and defendant were registered veterinary surgeons. The
defendant veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence
of committing a misconduct in a professional respect
in that he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on
a date unknown but prior to about 13 June 2001, he
and that in relation to the facts alleged
he had been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect
thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary
Surgeons Registration Ordinance. |
|
| |
2. |
The defendant veterinary surgeon entered into a franchise
agreement with the complainant to run a clinic in November
1998. In June 2001, the former veterinary surgeon opened
his own clinic. He was alleged by his previous franchiser
to have obtained confidential information, including
information relating to the names, contact telephone
numbers and addresses of clients, from the previous
clinic. The defendant veterinary surgeon was alleged
that he had used such kind of information to solicit
and/or canvass business from clients of the said clinic.
|
|
| |
3. |
The committee was satisfied that the facts alleged in
the charge have been proved, and that they amounted
to misconduct in a professional respect. In accordance
with section 19(d) of the said Ordinance, the committee
ordered on 4 July 2003 that a warning letter be served
on the defendant veterinary surgeon.
|
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
Disciplinary Inquiry held on 21 - 22 October
2003 and 18 November 2003 |
| |
1. |
Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration
Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the
Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary
inquiry on 21-22 October 2003 and 18 November 2003.
|
|
| |
2. |
The veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence
of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by
failing to remove completely the ovaries of two dogs
referred to him by their respective owners for sterilization
operations. The inquiry involved two separate complaints
and complainants.
|
|
| |
3. |
The facts of both cases in relation to the charges were
the same. Two dogs were sterilized by the defendant
in July 2001. After the operations, both dogs still
exhibited signs of estrus. The owners took the dogs
to another clinic for further examination, and ovarian
tissues were found present in the left ovarian stumps
of both dogs. Ovarian bursa tissue was also found in
the right ovarian stump in one of the dogs. These tissues
were then removed by the other veterinary surgeon and
the dogs did not have any further signs of estrus. An
overseas expert was invited to give expert evidence
on the two cases.
|
| |
|
|
| |
| 4. |
The Inquiry Committee ruled that
given the purpose of sterilization operation was to
remove completely the ovaries and the uterus, the non-removal
of the ovarian bursa is irrelevant to the propriety
of the operation. The overseas expert who attended the
inquiry to give evidence also accepted that the presence
of the cystic ovarian bursa had no clinical significance.
The Inquiry Committee therefore dismissed the part of
the charge relating to the presence of ovarian bursa
tissue. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 5. |
In deciding whether the subsequent
finding of the ovarian tissue in the two dogs was the
result of the surgical errors on the part of the defendant,
the Inquiry Committee noted both the overseas expert's
views that these were remnants of the ovaries which
should have been completely removed during the sterilization
operations; and the defendant's claim that this could
have been the result of the unusual position of the
ovary in the case of one of the dogs and the possibility
of an accessory ovary in the case of both dogs. After
hearing the evidence, the Inquiry Committee accepted
that in one of the cases, the position of the ovary
of the dog was so unusually close to the kidney that
a competent veterinary surgeon exercising proper care
could still have left some ovarian tissue in the dog.
The Committee therefore could not be satisfied that
it was a surgical error on the part of the defendant
in that case. For the other case, the Committee noted
that there were reported cases in cats, cows and women
of accessory ovaries or of ovarian tissue extending
into the ligament of the ovary. Although similar cases
in dogs had not been reported in those studies, it had
not been ruled out, nor was the overseas expert able
to deny, that accessory ovaries could exist in dogs.
Furthermore, the manifestation of two episodes of estrus
within a month, which according to the evidence of the
owner of the dog occurred after the sterilization on
the dog, tended to reinforce the likelihood of the existence
of an accessory ovary. The Inquiry Committee therefore
could not be satisfied that the ovarian tissue subsequently
found in this dog was the result of a surgical error
on the part of the defendant and not the result of the
existence of an accessory ovary or ovarian tissue extending
into the ligament. In the circumstances, the Committee
dismissed the charges in both cases. |
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
| Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 6 and 12 February 2004 |
| |
| 1. |
Under section 18 of the Veterinary
Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the
Laws of Hong Kong, the Veterinary Surgeons Board held
and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 6 February 2004
and 12 February 2004. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 2. |
The defendant veterinary surgeon
was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect
in a professional respect by failing to provide proper
care and treatment for the complainant's rabbit, in
particular, (a) failing to diagnose or correctly diagnose
the medical conditions of the rabbit; and (b) giving
inappropriate treatment and/or failing to give appropriate
treatment to the rabbit. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 3. |
The facts of the case were that
the owner of the rabbit found that the rabbit had stopped
eating. She took the rabbit to the defendant for consultation.
The defendant examined the rabbit and gave an injection
to the rabbit. He also prescribed medicine to be given
to the rabbit at home. Then, the complainant took the
rabbit home and gave it the Papaya tablets in accordance
with the defendant's instructions but not the other
medicine prescribed. That evening the rabbit developed
diarrhea and died the next morning. An expert was invited
to give expert evidence on the case. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 4. |
There were conflicting accounts
of the defendant's diagnosis and treatment given by
the complainant and the defendant. According to the
complainant, the defendant told her that the rabbit
had a heat stroke which affected its digestion. She
said that the defendant never mentioned that the rabbit
was in a critical condition and never suggested hospitalization
or treatment in the form of drip. The defendant, on
the other hand, explained in his letter to the Preliminary
Investigation Committee in response to the complaint
that the rabbit was nearly dead when it was presented
for treatment. He also gave evidence in the inquiry
that the rabbit was in critical conditions and might
not survive. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 5. |
Having considered the evidence,
the Inquiry Committee found that the complainant was
an honest and reliable witness and accepted her evidence.
Her evidence was also corroborated by the medical history
recorded in the defendant's medical record. The Inquiry
Committee did not accept the defendant's allegation
that, despite his diagnosis that the rabbit was critically
ill and required hospitalization and treatment on drip,
he did not record that finding in the medical record
owing to the brevity of time. That allegation was wholly
incredible given his recognition that this was a situation
which called for detailed records. Furthermore, that
allegation was inconsistent with the fact that in the
defendant's letter to the complainant earlier he only
stated the diagnosis of ileus and bloat, and no mention
whatsoever was made about the critical condition of
the rabbit nor his suggestion of hospitalization and
drip treatment. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 6. |
However, according to the complainant
the rabbit was not in a poor condition when it was taken
to the clinic for treatment. Even the expert witness
was uncertain whether the rabbit was in a critical condition
at that time. There was insufficient evidence for the
Inquiry Committee to come to the finding that the defendant's
diagnosis of bloated stomach, heat stress and maldigestion,
as recorded in the medical record, was incorrect. Therefore
the allegation in Charge (a) was dismissed. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 7. |
The Inquiry Committee noted that
the treatment given by the defendant according to the
complainant and the medical record dealt only with the
gastro-intestinal problems. It also accepted the expert
evidence that the treatment given by the defendant did
not deal with the problem of heat stress. The Inquiry
Committee was satisfied that in the circumstances of
the case fluid therapy was required to be given in the
clinic before the rabbit was released. It rejected the
defendant's allegation that hospitalization and drip
treatment were suggested but refused by the complainant.
It was also satisfied that fluid therapy was not given
to the rabbit, nor was it suggested to the complainant
in the first place. |
| |
|
|
| |
| 8. |
Therefore, the Inquiry Committee
was of the view that the treatment given by the defendant
had fallen below the standard expected of registered
veterinary surgeons and that this amounted to misconduct
or neglect in a professional respect. It therefore found
the defendant guilty of Charge (b). |
| |
|
|
| |
| 9. |
Having considered the gravity of
the offence and the mitigating factors advanced by the
defendant, the Inquiry Committee ordered that the defendant
be reprimanded in writing and that the reprimand be
recorded on the register. |
| |
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
| Disciplinary
Inquiry held on 18 May 2004 |
| |
1. |
Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration
Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the
Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary
inquiry on 18 May 2004.
|
| |
|
| 2. |
The defendant veterinary surgeon
(¡§Defendant¡¨) was charged with the offence of misconduct
or neglect in a professional respect by, being a registered
veterinary surgeon, in or about October and/or November
2002, seeking to acquire an unfair personal advantage
over or at the expense of another veterinary surgeon
(¡§Complainant¡¨), in particular, (a) by targeting the
Complainant's clients and canvassing business from them
by distributing name cards and offering discounts outside
the Complainant's clinic; and (b) by advertising through
distributing name cards and offering discounts outside
the Complainant's clinic. Charge (a) was laid as an
alternative to Charge (b). In other words, if there
was a finding of guilt on Charge (a), there was no need
to move on to consider Charge (b). |
| |
|
| 3. |
Both charges were based on the
same facts. The case was that the Defendant was an employee
at the Complainant's clinic from October 2000 to 31
July 2002. After the Defendant left the employment he
opened his own clinic in Hunghom. In around October
and November 2002 a lady distributed the Defendant's
new name cards showing his new clinic just outside and
in close vicinity to the Complainant's clinic. Two clients
who went out from the Complainant's clinic testified
that when the name cards were handed to them the lady
also told them that discounts would be given to clients
from the Complainant's clinic. One of these two clients
also testified that the lady told her not to attend
the Complainant's clinic next time. |
| |
|
| 4. |
The evidence of the witnesses
was challenged by the Defence on the basis of inconsistency.
The Inquiry Committee (¡§Committee¡¨) was aware of the
inconsistencies which in their view did not affect the
evidence of the two witnesses. Given the independent
status of the witnesses, the Committee saw no reason
for them to make up the evidence. Having regard to the
standard of proof appropriate to the circumstances,
the Committee was satisfied that the lady did distribute
the Defendant's name cards just outside the Complainant's
clinic. The Committee was also satisfied that she also
told the two witnesses that discounts would be offered
to clients from the Complainant's clinic. |
| |
|
| 5. |
The Inquiry Committee then had
to determine whether the lady did what they found proved
at the instigation of the Defendant. The Defendant gave
evidence that he specifically told the lady not to distribute
the name cards in the vicinity of other veterinary clinics,
as he knew it was wrong to do so and was an issue of
importance to his profession. The Committee did not
accept his evidence, as in none of his two letters to
the Preliminary Investigation Committee was this mentioned
although he was specifically asked to explain the allegation
that he sought to acquire an unfair advantage over the
Complainant by distributing name cards and offering
discounts outside her clinic. |
| |
|
| 6. |
Taking the totality of the evidence
into consideration, the Inquiry Committee found as a
fact that the distribution of name cards right outside
the Complainant's clinic was instigated by the Defendant.
The Committee saw no reason at all why the lady worker
would go and distribute the name cards in a place which
was not within her instructions from the Defendant.
The Committee gave the Defendant the benefit of the
doubt as to whether he instructed the lady worker to
also offer discounts, as the lady might have done so
out of her own motivation to do the job. However, the
Committee was of the view that he had a duty to take
precautions to prevent his lady worker, acting under
his instructions, from breaching the relevant principle
of acceptable advertising as set out in paragraph 18.2
of the Code of Practice. The Committee was satisfied
that he had not taken such precautions. |
| |
|
| 7. |
The Inquiry Committee found also | | |