25 May 2021
Cardiff-based veterinary surgeon Nicola Burrows removed from the RCVS register after falsifying insurance information for the treatment of her horse at the practice where she worked.
Vet Times
Job Title
Image © Chinnapong / Adobe Stock
A dishonest vet has been struck off after falsifying insurance information for the treatment of her horse at the practice where she worked.
Cardiff-based Nicola Burrows appeared before the disciplinary committee of the RCVS, which described her conduct in relation to a total of 11 charges as “deplorable”.
Charge 1 alleged that on or around 18 November 2017 she had allowed or caused her horse to be re-registered at the Cardiff equine practice where she worked under a different patient name, and had failed to consolidate and cross-reference this new record with the previous one.
Charge 2 alleged that between 1 November 2017 and 13 March 2018 Ms Burrows failed to make entries into the practice’s clinical records for her horse in terms of its history of epistaxis (nosebleeds) and the investigations into this condition.
Charges 3 to 9 relate to various telephone conversations and email exchanges Ms Burrows had with employees of insurance company NFU Mutual between 2 January and 14 June 2018 in which she failed to disclose the horse’s full clinical history, and knowingly gave false statements to the effect that the horse’s condition of epistaxis had started more recently than it actually had.
These charges also include asking an administrative colleague in the practice to – unknowingly – provide the insurance company with false information.
Charge 10 alleged that Ms Burrows asked a vet colleague to provide incorrect and/or dishonest information to the insurance company in relation to the date of an endoscopy that had been performed on her horse on or around November or December 2017.
The final charge (charge 11) alleged that, in regard to all previous charges, Ms Burrows had acted dishonestly.
Ms Burrows admitted to charges 2 to 9 at the start of proceedings, as well as charge 11 insofar as it related to these charges.
However, she denied allowing the creation of a new record for her horse under a different name for the purposes of concealing its clinical history, or that she had attempted to induce a colleague to provide false information about the treatment of her horse.
Having considered evidence in relation to charges one and 10, including from the colleague asked to provide misleading information, who the committee found was a truthful and reliable witness, the committee found these, as well as charge 11, proven.
The committee then considered whether the charges, both individually and cumulatively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so, the committee considered the premeditated nature of Ms Burrows’ conduct in setting up the second record for her horse with the intention of benefiting financially by providing false information. Likewise, the committee considered that Ms Burrows had abused her professional position by asking her colleague who was a practice administrator to, unknowingly, provide false information to the insurance company on her behalf and in attempting to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to lie on her behalf.
The committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of all 11 charges and stated that her conduct could be characterised as deplorable.
Having determined serious professional misconduct, the committee then went on to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Burrows. Ahead of the decision she made representations to the committee in which she acknowledged that she had let the profession down, multiple breaches of the code, and highlighted that her actions had prejudiced the delicate relationship between the public and the profession, and had tarnished the reputation of the profession.
She asked the committee for the opportunity for a second chance, saying she had started her own veterinary practice, and that honesty and integrity were now integral to her practice.
The committee also heard several character witnesses, as well as testimonials from both professional colleagues and clients attesting to her integrity and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon.
Ms Burrows’ counsel also highlighted that at the time of the misconduct she was young and relatively new to veterinary practice, and had been going through a difficult time, both professionally and personally.
Ultimately, however, the committee decided that removal from the register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
