The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Gloucestershire veterinary surgeon Adele Lewis for failing to pass on information about a horse’s clinical history to a potential buyer during a pre-purchase examination.

Ms Lewis, the sole principal of the Cotswold Equine Clinic in Lechlade, Gloucestershire, carried out the examination of a pony called Luke on 13 February 2014. Luke was owned by Mrs Booth who was a long-established client of Ms Lewis, both at her previous practice, Bourton Vale, and at her current practice. The examination was carried out on behalf of the prospective purchaser, Mrs Grieve.

Upon examination Ms Lewis certified that, in her opinion, Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase.

Following the purchase of Luke, Mrs Grieve attempted to obtain insurance for Luke and found out from a pet insurance company that a claim had been made by Mrs Booth in September 2013. She subsequently found out that, following concerns expressed by Mrs Booth and her trainer about Luke’s movement and their wanting an expert opinion, Ms Lewis had referred him to Dr Kold, a Specialist in Equine Orthopaedics, in September 2013. Dr Kold had diagnosed Luke with lameness and had given him intra-articular medication. Luke had also had a follow-up appointment with Dr Kold about four weeks later in October 2013.  

The Disciplinary Committee hearing commenced on Tuesday 13 October 2015. At the outset, Ms Lewis admitted several parts of the charges (charge A and charge B) against her. In regards to charge A, she admitted that she had failed to inform Mrs Grieve that, when she examined Luke on 24 September 2013, his then owner Mrs Booth had complained firstly that Luke was “not tracking up and going forward” and, secondly, that he had improved significantly when put on a Phenylbutazone trial. She also admitted that she had referred him to Dr Kold for a poor performance investigation and that she ought to have informed Mrs Grieve of these matters.

In regards to charge B, she admitted that she completed a Certificate of Veterinary Examination in which she had declared that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase and allowed the vendor’s declaration to include assertions that there had been no previous lameness and no intra-articular medication given in the last 12 months. Ms Lewis admitted that she ought to have known that her declaration that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase was incorrect.

However, Ms Lewis denied being aware that Dr Kold had diagnosed lameness, administered an intra-articular corticosteroid to Luke and examined and noted a problem with his breathing, including upper airway disease and possible lower airway disease. Furthermore, she denied dishonesty in regards to both the charges against her and in relation to vendor declarations made on the Certificate of Veterinary Examination regarding previous lameness and intra-articular medication.

During the course of the hearing, Ms Lewis told the Committee that she had not received the reports about the two consultations by Dr Kold (despite their having been sent to her by letter and, with respect to the second report, also by email) and that she was therefore unaware of his findings when she carried out the pre-purchase examination. She also stated that she had not been informed of these by Mrs Booth. During her evidence, Ms Lewis also admitted having entered inaccurate information on a veterinary report to assist with an insurance claim.

The Committee did not find Ms Lewis to be an impressive witness citing the fact that her “explanations as to her practice showed a worrying absence of probity in the completion of veterinary reports for the purposes of insurance claims, and an absence of any effective practice management, consistent with acceptable practice.”

However, the Committee felt it did not have the evidence to conclude that Ms Lewis had acted dishonestly during the pre-purchase examination. It cited the fact that her actions, when informed by the purchaser Mrs Grieve of Dr Kold’s examination, did not appear to be those of someone trying to cover their tracks.

In regards to charge A, the Committee also found that the “apparently chaotic manner in which Ms Lewis ran her practice, and her own opinion that the pony was sound, would appear to have led her to wrongly disregard these matters from disclosure.”

In making its decision on her conduct and sanction, the Committee said that Ms Lewis’ failure to fully communicate to Mrs Grieve all the relevant information about Luke’s veterinary history fell far short of the conduct expected from a veterinary surgeon. It also cited the utmost importance of a complete and accurate certification process, as made clear in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Twelve Principles of Certification.  

Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said:  “The Committee continues to emphasise the importance of maintaining the integrity of veterinary certification in any aspect of practice. Mrs Grieve told this Committee that if she had been fully informed about Luke’s veterinary history she would not have purchased the pony. It is clear from the evidence that it affected Mrs Grieve’s ability to insure the pony. Ms Lewis has accepted that the information about Luke’s veterinary history, not having been disclosed, was capable of affecting the risk of purchase. The public are entitled to rely upon veterinary surgeons providing complete and accurate information, when certificates and reports are prepared.”

In mitigation, the Committee paid regard to Ms Lewis’ inexperience at running her own practice and found no issue with her competence or clinical ability as a veterinary surgeon. It concluded that she had acted out of character and that there was no financial motivation for her actions. It also found it “highly relevant that the facts admitted and found proved related to a single pre-purchase examination.”

It also noted that Ms Lewis has now put in place a practice management system and has shown insight into her actions, by taking active steps to better comply with her obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. She had also made early admissions of guilt and made a full apology to both Mrs Grieve and the RCVS both at the outset of the hearing, and in her evidence.

Chitra Karve added: “Having had the opportunity of observing her demeanour at this hearing, the Committee believes that it is unlikely that she will repeat her conduct.... The Committee has concluded that an appropriate and proportionate response in this case is to reprimand Ms Lewis.”

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