Brief Summary

A member of the public was interested in adopting an older cat from an SPCA and took the cat home for a trial period. The SPCA indicated the cat was healthy, although he did have some oily fur and dandruff. Once at home, the individual noted the cat was constantly hungry but didn’t eat much food. The SPCA indicated the cat was fine and no special diet was necessary. The individual then suspected mites after noticing dark matter in the cat’s ears. She was advised the cat’s ears had been recently cleaned and he didn’t have mites. Later, she noticed the cat was falling when he shook his head. The SPCA set up an appointment with the member at a veterinary hospital. 

The member assessed the cat and dispensed (among other things) prednisone although the cat displayed signs of diabetes. The cat was later euthanized due to diabetic ketoacidosis.

A subsequent medical records audit revealed the member significantly altered and rewrote many of his medical records, long after they were created and the events occurred. The revisions were not explained or documented.

Allegations of Professional Misconduct

• should not have prescribed or dispensed prednisone given the cat’s condition
• prescribed and dispensed prednisone in the absence of informed client consent
• failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession
• failed to make or retain the records required by the Regulation
• falsified a record regarding professional services
• an act or omission relevant to the practice of veterinary medicine that would be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional
• conduct unbecoming a veterinarian

Decision

The member was found guilty of the allegations of professional misconduct.

Penalty

• Reprimand
• The member’s licence is suspended for four months.
• Completion of a one-day assessment to evaluate the member’s baseline knowledge regarding the issues raised in this case, along with a follow-up assessment to evaluate how the member’s practice has changed as a result of the mentorship and course.
• Completion of a one-day mentorship regarding the issues that were raised in this case.
• Completion of a medical record-keeping course approved by the Registrar.
• Successful completion of an ethics course.
• Completion of up to four peer record reviews of up to 10 patients’ medical records for 24 months.
• The member must pay costs to the College of $5,000.

Panel's Reasoning

Penalty decision: The Panel accepted the admissions of professional misconduct set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts.  

The Panel felt the member’s decision to prescribe prednisone, given the cat’s condition, fell below the standards of practice of the profession. Further, the member did so without obtaining informed client consent which amounted to professional misconduct.  The Panel understands the member was dealing with a significant caseload and an incomplete history on the cat, however he should not have deviated from his professional obligations.  

The member’s decision to alter his medical records on the cat fell below the standards. This was conduct unbecoming of a veterinarian and would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.  It is a fundamental obligation for veterinarians to keep accurate and timely records regarding the treatment of an animal.  Failure to do so can result in mistakes, misdiagnosis, and potentially harm to the animal.  The member chose to ignore this basic responsibility.  

Penalty & Costs: The Panel understood it should not depart from a joint submission, unless it finds that the proposed order would bring this process into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest.  Having considered submissions, and the member’s prior history, the Panel was satisfied with the proposed order.

The Panel was satisfied the suspension and reprimand will serve as a deterrent for the member and as a general deterrent for others.  And the remedial terms were appropriate and addressed the concerns.

The Panel was troubled to learn the member had engaged in similar conduct in 2014 and 2019. Although it appears the remediation ordered in those cases has not succeeded, the Panel found the proposed penalty was appropriate.  The four-month suspension was consistent with many similar cases cited by the College and the remedial terms were in-line with prior decisions of this Committee.  

Given the member’s history, the Panel encourages the member to take this opportunity seriously. Should he be unsuccessful, future panels may make more punitive decisions.

Decision

Since 2024, decisions have been posted on the CanLII website, the Canadian Legal Information Institute. A complete copy of this decision is available on CanLII.