Three vets suspended for one month by RCVS disciplinary committee

Three vets have been suspended from practice for one month by the RCVS over the dishonest submission of mobility score assessments in cows.

A disciplinary committee found Rebecca Inman, Alexander McKinstry and Andrew Rutherford had each committed serious professional misconduct, which it said risked undermining a scheme intended to promote animal welfare.

The case related to assessments carried out during September and October 2019, when the three were in practice at Farm Gate Veterinary Services in Lancaster and Kendal respectively.

Milk suppliers

Reports published following the hearing, which took place from June 14 to 20, said the assessments took place as part of three farms’ participation in a dedicated pool of milk suppliers to the supermarket chain Sainsbury’s.

Mr McKinstry and Dr Rutherford each admitted writing and uploading, or arranging the writing and uploading, of letters indicating Dr Inman had conducted mobility assessments they had done.

Dr Inman admitted allowing Dr Rutherford to create and upload letters to the system.

Undermined trust

Although Dr Inman had the required and active Register of Mobility Scorers accreditation at the time of the incidents, Mr McKinstry and Dr Rutherford did not.

The committee found all three had undermined positions of trust, matters that were aggravated in the cases of Mr McKinstry and Dr Rutherford through their positions as practice directors. Mr McKinstry also failed to inform Dr Inman of his action.

In mitigation, there was found to be no risk of harm or personal financial gain. All three had also been “open and frank” in their dealings with the RCVS, and had previously unblemished career records.

Disgraceful conduct

The committee rejected arguments from representatives of Dr Inman, Mr McKinstry and Dr Rutherford that reprimands were the appropriate punishment, but also concluded a longer period of suspension, or removal from the register, would have been “a disproportionate and indeed a punitive outcome”.

Chairman Paul Morris said: “The committee concluded that a period of suspension was sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.

“It had a sufficient deterrent effect upon others in the profession and was sufficient to mark that the disgraceful conduct was unacceptable.”