Case study on meeting the requirements for a veterinary certificate
Published in the July 2015 issue of Vetboard Victoria's newsletter
The following case study provides an opportunity for general reflection. The case study is based on a complaint about an individual set of circumstances at a particular time. As veterinary knowledge and professional and community standards and expectations change over time, readers should not assume that the Vet Board would make the same decision when presented with a similar complaint.
Summary
The complainant entered into an agreement to purchase a male Rottweiler puppy from a registered breeder. One day prior to the complainant being sent the puppy, the breeder advised that the puppy was no longer available as it had been diagnosed with a severe over-bite. The complainant requested a veterinary certificate to confirm this. A veterinary certificate signed by Dr M was subsequently provided to the complainant.
The complainant alleged that Dr M did not actually see her puppy and falsified the documents for the breeder. The complainant made this claim because the veterinary certificate for the puppy did not record any identifying details such as the puppy’s age, sex, colour, or microchip number.
After a preliminary investigation, the matter was referred to an informal hearing into the professional conduct of Dr M. At the informal hearing, it was alleged that:
- Dr M issued a certificate which failed to clearly and accurately identify the animal that was the subject of the certificate, so that there could be no doubt to which animal the certificate applied.
- Dr M failed to provide the clinical records covering the certificate in question to the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria.
Dr M was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct, and the informal hearing panel determined that Dr M be reprimanded.
A reprimand is a formal notification in the strongest terms to a registered veterinary practitioner that they have acted in an unprofessional manner in their conduct as a veterinary practitioner. It signals that the registered veterinary practitioner has irrevocably jeopardised his or her standing in the profession and/or has jeopardised the standing of the profession as a whole in the eyes of the public. A record is permanently retained on the registered veterinary practitioner's record and can be referred to in any future hearing or action taken by the Board. In addition, it is recorded on any letter of professional standing sent to another veterinary registration authority, whether in Australia or overseas, where that authority requests such information.
Reasons for panel's decision
The informal hearing panel made its finding based upon the following reasons:
The complainant, who resides in New South Wales, informed the panel that they had purchased a Rottweiler puppy from a Victorian breeder. However they were contacted by the breeder the night before the puppy was to be sent and advised that the puppy was not going to be sent due to it suffering from a severe over-bite. The complainant requested that a veterinary certificate be provided to validate and confirm the puppy’s condition.
On receipt of the veterinary certificate, the complainant informed the Panel that she became concerned as it did not contain any details to confirm the puppy’s identity. The complainant further informed the panel that she then contacted Dr M in an attempt to clarify the identity of the puppy on the certificate; however, Dr M was unable to recall the details of the puppy examined.
Dr M confirmed examination of a male Rottweiler puppy, which had been brought in by the breeder as part of a litter of pups. Dr M informed the panel that the puppy who was the subject of the certificate had not been presented before and it was not clear which litter it belonged to. Dr M further stated that it was an oversight not to document that the pup was "male" on the certificate but they were busy and had other dogs to look at, at that time. Dr M advised that they didn’t believe the pup was vaccinated or microchipped; however, they remembered that the over-bite was ‘pretty substantial’ and was never going to correct.
On viewing the veterinary certificate, the Panel noted that Dr M had documented examination of a "Rottweiler pup", however, it did not find any other details which clearly and accurately identified the dog which was the subject of the certificate. Dr M advised the Panel that normally more information would be recorded on certificates however in this case it was an oversight.
With the information before it, the panel determined that the certificate written by Dr M was deficient, less than adequate and ambiguous as to which puppy it was referring to, and that Dr M had failed to fulfil the requirements of issuing a veterinary certificate as outlined in Veterinary Guideline 5.1.4 [VPRBV NOTE: Guideline 19 - Veterinary certificates contains current requirements for the content of veterinary certificates.]
The panel questioned Dr M in relation to the failure to supply clinical records to the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria. It was noted that Dr M was requested to do so on at least three occasions, as part of the investigation process. Dr M informed the panel that they didn’t realise they needed to, was confused as to what to send, thought the certificate was self-explanatory, and in hindsight should have sent the Board the requested information.
The panel acknowledged that Dr M did provide the panel with a copy of the clinical records on the day of the hearing; however, the importance of compliance with the Board in any future requests was reiterated to Dr M. In these circumstances, the panel determined that Dr M’s failure to provide the Board with the information requested constituted unprofessional conduct.
Relevant guidelines