The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a charge against Nicholas Robert William Horniman MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Cinderford, Gloucestershire, that alleged he was guilty of pet insurance fraud, along with one of his clients, and of dishonestly altering clinical records.

The charge was that, between December 1 2008 and June 30 2014, in relation to Cassy, a Labrador retriever belonging to Jayne Bowkett, Mr Horniman:

• suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she take out an insurance policy for the dog using owner's details that were different from those used for its current insurance policy;
• dishonestly arranged for or allowed practice records for the dog in the name of Bowkett to be discontinued and separate records to be started in the name Griffiths;
• and, dishonestly maintained practice records for the dog as if she were different from the one for which previous practice records had been maintained.

The Committee heard that Cassy, who had previously been diagnosed with hip dysplasia, had been registered with Pets Barn Veterinary Group in Gloucestershire in May 2008 when Mr Horniman was the Principal and owner of the three-practice group. Cassy was treated at the Cinderford branch of the practice where she received regular prescriptions for her condition.

At some point in 2008/2009, Mrs Bowkett had relayed concerns to Mr Horniman that her current pet insurance policy needed to be renewed, that the renewed policy would not cover Cassy's existing hip problems and that she would be unable to pay for any future operations herself. It was alleged that, in response to Mrs Bowkett's concerns, Mr Horniman told her that they could take Cassy off the practice computer and put her back on under a different insurance policy in a different name.

Mrs Bowkett took out a policy with Petplan, beginning on 13 August 2009, using her father's details instead of her own. It was alleged that Mr Horniman then arranged for new practice records to be set up in the name 'Cassy Griffiths'. These new records were first used substantively in May 2010 when Cassy returned to the practice with hip problems, following which two separate records were maintained for the dog under 'Cassy Bowkett' and 'Cassy Griffiths'.

In August 2010 Dariusz Drozdz MRCVS, a vet who had treated Cassy several times, had been told by Mrs Bowkett that the dog had two separate records. He told the Disciplinary Committee that he queried this with Mr Horniman who suggested that it was a mistake and that they 'RIP' the name Cassy Bowkett. Mr Drozdz disagreed on this course of action but was told by Mr Horniman to 'leave it to me' and the records were then changed to say that Cassy Bowkett had died.

Mrs Bowkett alleged that, at some point in 2011, Mr Horniman explained to her that it would no longer be possible to claim for treatment for Cassy's hip dysplasia under the Petplan policy in her father's name. However, the policy remained active, and was transferred into Mrs Bowkett's name upon her father's death.

In July 2011 Cassy Griffiths was seen by Jennifer Jones MRCVS, a part-time locum vet at the Cinderford practice, who told the Committee that she was puzzled about why there were very few clinical records relating to the animal. A receptionist explained to her that there were two sets of records for the same dog and that Mr Horniman had instructed her to mark the original pet as having been euthanased and close its records and create a second new record for the dog. Ms Jones tendered her resignation shortly afterwards citing concerns that a pet had been 'reincarnated to ensure continued income from insurance claims'. In November 2011 Ms Jones submitted a formal complaint to the RCVS.

During the course of the hearing the Committee heard evidence from Mrs Bowkett, Mr Drozdz and Ms Jones, amongst others.

In giving evidence Mrs Bowkett admitted that she had knowingly engaged in fraud but maintained that at all times she had acted with the knowledge and on the advice of Mr Horniman. However, the Committee found that she was unable to remember any relevant material dates and was unclear about the chronology of events. It was suggested on several occasions that she was lying to the Committee, which she denied. However, the Committee believed that she took no responsibility for her own fraudulent actions but merely blamed Mr Horniman and that she had a strong motive to engage in the insurance fraud.

In regards to the evidence given by Mr Drozdz the Committee noted that he did not record his suspicions of possible fraud, that he continued to treat Cassy Griffiths after he raised his concerns, and that he appeared to have accepted Mr Horniman's assurance that he had dealt with the issue.

The Committee found that Ms Jones was correct in her suspicions that there was only one dog. However, it felt she offered no evidence to support her suspicion that this was part of Mr Horniman's 'scheme to maximise income for the practice' as she alleged in her witness statement.

The Committee also heard oral evidence from and on behalf of Mr Horniman who categorically denied suggesting to Mrs Bowkett that she commit insurance fraud and attempting to cover this up through the maintenance of two separate records. He maintained that it was not until Ms Jones voiced her concerns that he realised that Cassy Bowkett and Cassy Griffiths were the same dog.

The Committee voiced a number of concerns about Mr Horniman's actions and behaviour and, at times, found his evidence to be unsatisfactory. For example, the Committee found it difficult to understand why 'alarm bells' did not ring that he was dealing with only one dog when he prescribed medication for two almost identical dogs in May 2010 when only one was presented for examination. It also queried why, when he became aware that the insurance policy for Cassy Griffiths was fraudulent, practice records were not updated and no attempt was made to contact Petplan to inform them of this, as is clearly advised by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.

Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that, in his correspondence with the RCVS, he was less than transparent, candid and honest. The Committee considered this to be unacceptable behaviour from a professional in dealings with investigations undertaken by the regulatory body.

In making its judgment, the Committee had to make a decision on whose account it felt to be more reliable in regards to the first element of the charge.

Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to its conclusion ... the Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from Mrs Bowkett, who is an admitted fraudster, admits to acting dishonestly and to lying to Petplan. This is in contrast to the evidence from the Respondent, who is of good character, had an unblemished personal record over 23 years and is supported by impressive character references."

The Committee found the evidence of Mrs Bowkett to be "vague, lacking in clarity and inconsistent with the facts" and therefore rejected her evidence concerning the first element of the charge. In regards to the second element of the charge, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Horniman had arranged for or allowed the records to be changed as was alleged. In regards to the third element it found that, since it had already rejected the charge that Mr Horniman suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she embark upon insurance fraud, it was unlikely that Mr Horniman would have acted dishonestly in the manner alleged.

Noreen Burrows added: "In the light of the above findings, all charges against the Respondent are dismissed."

PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.