[Other documents available]


Allegation (#3) The RCVS raised eight charges against Dr. Hutber. For any given case, an impartial regulatory body balances the importance of maintaining standards against the importance of the background events.

Dr. Hutber commented: "Normally, I should have received assistance from the RCVS where colleagues had acted unethically. The RCVS chose to ignore those abuses at the hearing [by not disclosing them from my written reports and statements] and to follow an apparently political agenda. Farcically the RCVS called the people who'd acted unethically as hearing witnesses and the witnesses could not be impartial."

"The RCVS stated that I consistently blamed others for my failings and the RCVS listed twenty witnesses who testified against me. The RCVS did not disclose that the complaints came from clients who'd transferred to Whitelodge Vets [when they opened up 500 yards from my practice] and that RCVS witnesses were relatives, friends, acquaintances, etc. of the tranferred clients. Nor did the RCVS disclose that the person who'd encouraged my clients to transfer was the person who'd recently sold me the practice. This person had become the practice manager for Whitelodge Vets. The RCVS did however call her as a hearing witness."

"The first RCVS charge related to an anal sacculectomy that I'd performed. The RCVS stated that I lacked surgical skills and had allowed the animal to experience unnecessary pain and suffering, whilst the press reported that I'd botched an operation. The RCVS didn't disclose that my encountered complications were textbook hazards of the surgical procedure, such that the vet who'd handled my defence insurance had also experienced similar complications with sacculectomies. The RCVS didn't disclose that no suffering was recorded in clinical notes relating to the case. The RCVS didn't disclose that Whitelodge had disuaded my client from returning to my practice (at scheduled zero cost) and that the Whitelodge vet had used less pain relief than I'd done ie. my pain relief was correct."

"The second charge related to client consent for my sacculectomy. The RCVS stated that I'd failed to obtain consent. The RCVS didn't disclose that they'd chosen not to ask my staff at the heating whether they had obtained written consent for the surgical procedure (as is the usual situation in most practices). My staff always obtained written consent for operations. Nor did the RCVS disclose that I'd provided the RCVS with copies of the consent proformas used at my practice. Nor did the RCVS disclose that the vet at Whitelodge had used the same approach that I'd done with respect to informed consent, and this became evident in the written statement of the client."

"The third charge related to a case handled by Kris Kaminski [a vet I had employed]. Kris had lied [under oath/in testimony] on three occasions: initially to state that he'd forgotten to take out the reproductive tract during a spey. Secondly to state that he had not volunteered to perform the sacculectomy, despite Jenny Sumpter [my Animal Assistant] testifying that Kris began the sacculectomy. Thirdly to state that he left a note transferring another of his cases to me. I was recorded with eighteen cases that day and Kris was recorded with one case. Both the notions of case transfer and transfer by a note on a desk, remain absurd. The RCVS stated that I was the practice owner and therefore in charge of all practice cases. This suggestion is novel but impracticable, since [under such a rationale] every practice owner would be required to review every clincial decision within a practice. Practice owners can be non-veterinarians. Owners are not therefore clinically liable for patients because each veterinarian is liable for their own case(s). Kris understood this principle in attempting to argue the transfer of his case. The RCVS failed to acknowledge that Jenny Sumpter [my Animal Assistant] had identified the case as being handled by Kris. The RCVS stated that I was the senior clinician in the practice. The RCVS did not disclose that Kris was in fact employed as a veterinarian with (three times) greater veterinary experience than my own, having lectured at a European vet school. The RCVS stated that I had paid Kris a low [veterinarian's] wage, suggesting that Kris was not employed as an experienced veterinarian. The RCVS did not disclose that Kris' wage was five times more than he received in eastern Europe. The RCVS did not disclose that I had paid Kris 25% more than my other east European vet, who was a Senior Lecturer in Slovakia. Lawyers are not required to perform the tasks of the opposing legal counsel but they are required to be honest in not intentionally misleading a hearing."

"The fourth charge related to a visit of Mrs. Lang to my practice. The RCVS stated that I was rude to Mrs. Lang and quoted me as saying I 'had had enough verbal'. The RCVS did not acknowledge that the quote befitted farmyard banter rather than veterinarians' terminology, and the quote was disputed. The RCVS did not acknowledge that Mrs. Lang had admitted she was justifiably angry [due to a previous encounter with Kris Kaminski]. The RCVS did not acknowledge that Mrs. Hadleigh [a collaborating witness] admitted colluding with Mrs. Lang by phone, and that Mrs. Hadleigh had presented written grievances to me re her failure to secure credit on account. The RCVS failed to acknowledge that Mrs. Lang swore at me and that I refused to serve her until she desisted. The RCVS did not acknowledge that I provided Mrs. Lang with the tablets she required for her dog. For the RCVS to misrepresent the events and to misquote my conversation with Mrs. Lang was partial and dishonest."

"The fifth charge related to Mrs. Walker's transfer to Whitelodge Vets. The RCVS stated that I didn't treat Mrs. Walker with respect and suggested I'd said her dog would die if she didn't give her dog the prescribed tablets. The RCVS stated that I had prescribed antibiotics without performing the relevant diagnostic tests. The RCVS didn't report that Whitelodge had similarly prescribed tablets prophyactically [for Lyme Disease] before conducting any relevant diagnostic tests. The RCVS didn't report that the dog had died within weeks [whilst under the care of Whitelodge Vets], and I had disputed Mrs. Walker's quote for me. The RCVS didn't report that I had discussed with Mrs. Walker the dangers of suspected distemper in the area. The RCVS didn't report that Mrs. Walker admitted informing me she 'thought I looked a mess' and that she 'didn't like me', and had terminated the phone conversation whilst I'd attempted to discuss a differential diagnosis with her. The RCVS didn't report Mrs. Walker had failed to accurately remember the phone conversation details ie. Mrs. Walker stated she'd read my mobile number from her home phone, even though my mobile number was withheld and mobiles didn't function in the surgeries [so business landlines were used]."

"The remaining charges related to clinical notes. The RCVS stated that I had failed to keep adequate clinical records. The RCVS didn't report that the existing computers were not in fact owned by the practice vendors [as reported at purchase] but were leased for circa 10k GBP annually. The RCVS didn't report that I had worked in the Computing industry for a decade and had run commercial software [used successfully in previous practices] in parallel with the existing system for about 6 months. The RCVS didn't report the subsequent incompatibility of the existing computers with new commercial software, nor did the RCVS report the relevant technical details that I had forwarded to them in relation to providing an insurance company with twenty years of clinical history [see Paragraphs 8 & 9]. The RCVS did not report that clincial records included consultation notes, records of drugs administered and drugs dispensed, laboratory tests, correspondence with referral centres, prescriptions, vaccination booster records, consent forms, correspondence with clients, etc., and that taking consultation notes in isolation did not constitute an accurate reflection of the clinical records in use. The RCVS did not report that the RCVS' preoccupation with voluminous consultation notes is not viewed by some general practitioners as synonymous with adequate clinical records, and can become onerous and counter productive for assisting colleagues, whilst concise, accurate notes can be considered preferential."

The question remains, if the RCVS did not release many facts to the hearing, to the press and likewise into the public domain, why did it not do so? Subjectively in the case of Dr. Hutber the trail appears to point towards RCVS political objectives.