Vet suspended in falsified lab test result case

A Reading-based vet has been suspended from the RCVS register for 18 months after being found guilty of dishonesty relating to a falsified laboratory test result.

Maximilian Wood faced three charges at a three-day RCVS disciplinary committee hearing, all relating to allegations of misconduct in autumn 2023 around a lab test for an alpaca while he was employed at a south Oxfordshire practice.

The charges alleged Mr Wood had misleadingly told an alpaca’s owner on the telephone that an animal had tested positive for Johne’s disease when no such test took place; that he misleadingly sent an emailed letter to the owner about the positive result; and that he misleadingly and dishonestly created a false test result report in the name of a vet colleague before sending it to another vet colleague by email.

The charges also covered him telling the alpaca’s owner he had given her another patient’s result by mistake and the result had actually been negative – when there had been no test; misleadingly and dishonestly emailing the laboratory claiming a practice administrative staff member had written the false report; telling the managing partner of his then employer on three occasions he was investigating the false report; and sending an email to a vet colleague blaming another practice colleague for manufacturing the false report.

Admission

Mr Wood admitted the facts of all the allegations against him, and having found them proven the DC found the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct – which Mr Wood also admitted.

The DC felt aggravating factors in Mr Wood’s conduct included lack of honesty, probity and integrity; premeditation; breach of client trust; abuse of professional position; sustained and repeated conduct over a period of time; and that the conduct contravened RCVS advice.

In mitigation, the DC considered positive testimonials from former colleagues and farmers; that he had engaged in some remediation to avoid reporting the behaviour; and he had shown insight into his misconduct.

‘Serious’

Neil Slater, chairing the committee, said: “The committee recognised that the serious repeated dishonesty, which was to conceal wrongdoing, made the respondent’s misconduct particularly serious.

“The committee considers that suspension is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to satisfy public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.

“The committee therefore imposes a suspension of 18 months on the respondent. In determining this length, the committee considered that this was the least period necessary in order to meet the significant public interest considerations in this case.”