Vet suspended over false examination and vaccination claims

A vet has been suspended from practice for six months after a disciplinary panel concluded he had falsely claimed to have examined and vaccinated a cat and dog.

An RCVS committee heard Stavros Paschalidis’ contract had been terminated following the incident and concluded his actions did amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

But it also decided a longer suspension or permanent removal from the register would be disproportionate because no complaints had been made against him since.

Confrontation

The case stemmed from the treatment of two patients, a Bengal cat named Simba and a beagle dog named Beluga, at the Westside Veterinary Clinic in Battersea in October 2021.

The committee was told that two members of staff had seen Mr Paschalidis record he had examined and vaccinated the animals when he had not done so. One said she had seen him pour a vaccine down the sink.

They also gave evidence stating he had admitted wrongdoing when confronted, something which Mr Paschalidis, who had been working as a locum at the time, denied. He was dismissed and the issue was reported to the college.

Mr Paschalidis admitted one of the allegations against him, that he had made entries in Simba’s clinical records indicating he had carried out an examination when that was not the case.

Six other points, alleging he failed to properly examine or vaccinate both animals, made inaccurate entries into Beluga’s clinical records and told a veterinary nurse he had vaccinated Simba when that wasn’t the case, were found to be proved and both dishonest and misleading.

A further charge, which accused Mr Paschalidis of falsely making clinical notes indicating he had vaccinated Simba, was found not proved.

Isolated incident

Mr Paschalidis’ representative said the incident was “single and isolated” and had taken place only two years after his graduation.

No other concerns had been raised about his conduct since the incident and the committee said there was no evidence that either animal had been harmed.

The panel said the insight Mr Paschalidis had shown, together with his honest and appropriate conduct since the incident, meant it was satisfied he did not pose a risk to animals or the public and removal from the register was an inappropriate sanction.

But it concluded that his actions were sufficiently serious to warrant a period of suspension, though a longer ban “would not serve a useful purpose”.

It also argued that a reprimand was inappropriate as well as his conduct went to “the heart of a veterinary surgeon’s practice”.