Vet guilty of ‘disgraceful conduct’ is struck off

This article has 1 Comments

A VET who left a dying Springer Spaniel in a filthy and cramped cage has had his name removed from the register of veterinary surgeons.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) found Leslie Higgott, of Wallasey, near Liverpool, guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. Last week’s hearing concluded a case which started on April 29 and was adjourned on May 2.
At previous hearings the committee heard a number of charges regarding Mr Higgott’s in-patient treatment of the spaniel, Fliss, in June 2007: namely, that he had not carried out any or sufficient investigative procedures; had not sought any additional veterinary opinion; and, did not sufficiently observe or monitor the animal.
Further, that he did not provide an adequately-sized and clean cage/box for the dog’s hospitalisation at his surgery in Wallasey, and that by his remarks and behaviour he had failed to treat his client with respect, courtesy and consideration.
These charges were denied by Mr Higgott although he admitted that despite advice from the college he had failed to keep up to date with continuing professional development (CPD) and had kept no clinical notes for animals he had treated between April 2006 and August 2007.
The committee heard that Fliss, who had displayed symptoms of depression and vomiting, was diagnosed by Mr Higgott first as having gastritis, then as having liver problem and finally a kidney problem.
When symptoms persisted the owner returned the dog to Mr Higgott where it remained hospitalised for a period of 11 days until it was found dead by the owner who had to sift through boxes in a stuffy side-room to find her in a box – after Mr Higgott claimed she was asleep.
A post-mortem examination revealed that Fliss had a heart tumour.
The committee heard that during the period of hospitalisation the dog was kept in a travelling box and that owner Patricia Cook, who visited almost daily, repeatedly complained to Mr Higgott about the conditions in which her dog was being kept, with vomit, faeces and urine on the floor of the box.

Blood tests

Mrs Cook told the committee that Mr Higgott had dismissed these concerns. Mr Higgott maintained it was an unfortunate coincidence that the owner had visited at times when the dog was dirty.
The committee also heard that on several occasions the owner asked Mr Higgott if blood tests or x-rays would be useful but was told that these were not necessary as the dog was responding to treatment.
RCVS representatives visited Mr Higgott’s practice on several occasions between 2005 and 2007. They reported at the first hearing that, despite a move to new premises, inadequate standards of hygiene and cleanliness persisted at the practice and that regardless of advice Mr Higgott had failed to maintain clinical records or to undertake any CPD.
During one visit they saw the travelling box in which Mr Higgott had kept the spaniel; the committee heard veterinary evidence that while this might have been suitable for 24 hours it was wholly inadequate for longer periods of hospitalisation.
In April, the committee found the charges were proved and at the resumed hearing last week the committee considered letters and oral evidence in support of Mr Higgott and took into account the fact that there had been undoubted improvements in hygiene in the practice in recent times.
“However, it was concerned that Mr Higgott had undertaken only minimal CPD since April and that his treatment of Fliss was so inadequate that he would require ‘very considerable’ training over a substantial period of time before he could begin to attain the standards of diagnosis and treatment properly to be expected of a competent vet, and that it was unlikely that he would undertake such training,” said an RCVS spokesman after the hearing.
“The committee decided that Mr Higgott’s activities amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and agreed that the sanction should be the most severe that the committee can make – removal from the register. This renders Mr Higgott unable to practise as a vet in the UK.”