9 Aug 2024
Although parts of the case connected to the care of an American bulldog that later died were proven, a disciplinary committee ruled they did not fall far below acceptable standards.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image © Jason Morrison / Freeimages.com
A Somerset-based vet has been cleared of serious professional misconduct over his treatment of a dog that subsequently died.
An RCVS disciplinary panel concluded that while Nikolay Kirilov Radev’s actions had fallen below expected standards, they did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
Although the case was heard over eight days in mid to late June, details have only been publicised now following what a college statement described as “human error”.
The hearing related to an American bulldog, named Brooke, that received treatment over several days prior to her death in September 2021.
Dr Radev admitted two aspects of the college’s case against him, including failing to aspirate her abdomen because of the risk of septic peritonitis after recognising the presence of free fluid.
A report of the hearing stated that procedure was only carried out after Brooke had been transferred to an out of hours practice for overnight care shortly before her death.
Lawyers for the college argued Dr Radev’s failure to aspirate had “amounted to negligence of a high degree”.
He also admitted only writing up his clinical notes of the case two months later, blaming “work pressures”, as part of a broader charge of failing to provide adequate or appropriate records.
But five other allegations, including failures to recognise both the fluid and the risk of septic peritonitis, and failing to provide a full medical history when referring Brooke to a different practice, were found not to be proven.
The committee also ruled it could not be sure that Dr Radev had repeatedly administered meloxicam to Brooke following recent intestinal surgery – an allegation he had denied, insisting he only gave it once.
It added that clinical records which had been submitted disproved a further allegation that Dr Radev had failed to refer to colonotomy surgery within the clinical records.
Although one witness to the hearing argued Dr Radev’s actions did amount to serious professional misconduct – particularly relating to his reported failure to act on another professional’s warning – his legal representative claimed several factors undermined the testimony of the clinician who said they had raised their concerns.
The committee concluded the accusations that were proven did not fall far below accepted standards on their own and it would be “wrong to combine them” in such a manner.
