Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 ('Chisel'), 2 ('Gypsy') and 3 ('Remus'))

[2004] NSWADT 208

Set aside by Appeal: Orders 1 and 2 of the Tribunal made on 22 September 2004 are set aside.

CITATION:	Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 ('Chisel'), 2 ('Gypsy') and 3 ('Remus')) [2004] NSWADT 208
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee RESPONDENT Ronald George Lloyd
FILE NUMBER:	40004 of 1998; 40005 of 1998; 40015 of 1998
HEARING DATES:	01/06/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	23/06/2004
DATE OF DECISION:	22/09/2004
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); McGilvray G - Non Judicial Member; Clark F - Non Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Veterinary Surgeons Act - veterinary surgeon - misconduct in a professional respect
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Disciplinary Order
LEGISLATION CITED:	Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986
CASES CITED:	Burton v Anderson (NSWCA CA 40030/92 28 October 1994)
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT M Wade, solicitor RESPONDENT G Stanton, barrister
ORDERS:	The Veterinary Disciplinary Panel orders pursuant to s 32 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 that: - As to the findings of guilt of professional misconduct: 1. Dr Ronald George Lloyd be suspended from practice for 9 months commencing on a date specified by the Veterinary Surgeons Board, being a date not later than 1 January 2005; 2. The following conditions to be imposed on Dr Lloyd’s registration as a veterinary surgeon: (i) That he only be permitted to practise as an employee of a veterinary surgeon approved by the Board in a practice where there is at least two veterinary surgeons (other than Dr Lloyd) practising on a full-time basis. (The employer if full-time may be counted for this purpose.) This condition is to remain in force for not less than 15 months after his return to practice. (ii) That he only be permitted to return to practice as a sole practitioner if the Veterinary Surgeons Board so approves after having had regard to such matters as it thinks fit, including a report from the approved employing veterinary surgeon. (iii) That he be required to undertake continuing professional education in programs designated by the Board of ten days per annum over the period of his suspension and the period of supervised employment; - As to the finding of guilt of unacceptable professional conduct: 3. Dr Lloyd be reprimanded; - and further orders that: 4. Dr Lloyd pay the costs of the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee as agreed. As required by the Act, the Registrar of the Tribunal is to advise the Registrar of the Board of these orders within 21 days of the date of their publication.

Dr Lloyd was given an opportunity to respond to these comments by Dr Driver. He did so by way of the statement filed 23 June 2004. The submission was that Dr Driver’s comments should be seen as no more than ones going to what in a doctor might be called his or her ‘bedside manner’. We do not think that this is all that is being suggested by Dr Driver. As we interpreted Dr Driver’s comments, he was seeking to explain, in a diplomatic way, the way in which personal attributes can manifest themselves in the performance of professional work and, importantly, in professional outcomes.

64 His solicitor’s submissions drew attention to comments made by Dr Driver in the course of giving evidence in the Chisel case on 24 March 1999. On that occasion Dr Driver gave evidence in regard to his role as mentor under the orders made in 1994 (ts 467 ff). We have reviewed that evidence.

65 Dr Driver said that Dr Lloyd did work at prices less than other veterinarians would charge. He acknowledged that did not mean that the service offered could therefore fall below accepted standards of competence. Dr Lloyd’s solicitor drew attention to Dr Driver’s observations to support the view that there was a value to society in retaining the services of a low-cost veterinarian. In support of the view that Dr Lloyd had dealt with the problems identified by the findings, the submission also noted Dr Driver’s evidence then that Dr Lloyd was at that time in the course of upgrading his record system, to make it fully computerised. In further questioning from the Panel on that occasion Dr Driver said of Dr Lloyd: ‘I don’t think he is very good at conflict resolution’, a view consistent with remarks Dr Driver made in these proceedings.

66 One of the themes of Dr Lloyd’s defence in all of the inquiries was that he was a veterinarian working in a lower income socio-economic area, and that affected the treatment options that he offered. We have in the course of the various decisions already delivered indicated our dissatisfaction with this as a basis for justifying treatment that is not based on adequate examination or the consideration of alternative diagnoses. We have also expressed our concerns that such a blanket view of owners’ means may impact on the offering of a range of possible diagnoses or a range of treatment options.

67 We consider that a severe order is required for the protection of the public. While the findings in this case might not, in isolation, justify consideration of deregistration, when put in the context of his entire disciplinary record they do. We have decided not to go that far.

68 However we do consider that a significant period of suspension should be imposed and strict controls should be placed on his re-entry to practice. We do not think that Dr Lloyd should be permitted to practise alone for some time to come. We have had regard to the submission that the course we propose is ‘tantamount’ to deregistration. It does not go that far. While it may be difficult for a practitioner of Dr Lloyd’s age (in his 50s) to obtain employment, the community’s interest in competent practice is the interest which disciplinary orders seek to uphold. In our view it is essential that Dr Lloyd be required on resumption from suspension to work in a relevant collegiate environment, and in that way acquaint himself more closely with current standards of practice.

69 In our view the appropriate course is to order that Dr Lloyd be suspended from practice for 9 months commencing on a date specified by the Veterinary Surgeons Board, being not later than 1 January 2005.

70 After serving the period of suspension, Dr Lloyd is not to be permitted to return to practice as a sole practitioner until he has spent a significant period working as an employed veterinary surgeon. At the end of that period the Board is to make a decision as to whether this condition on his registration should be lifted. Dr Lloyd should be required to work for at least 15 months in a practice where there is at least two other practitioners, and the Board should then decide whether it is appropriate for him to resume sole practice, if that is his wish. He should also be required to undertake continuing professional education in programs designated by the Board of ten days per annum over the period of his suspension and the period of supervised employment.

71 In our view the minimum length of the period of supervised employment should be 15 months.

72 He should be permitted to return to practise as a sole practitioner after that time if the Veterinary Surgeons Board so approves after having had regard to such matters as it thinks fit, including a report from the approved employing veterinary surgeon.

73 This is a separate matter, and relates to Dr Lloyd’s action in threatening to report a complainant, who had not paid his fee, as a defaulter with a credit reference bureau. As to this matter a reprimand is a sufficient sanction.

74 The parties in their submissions indicated that there was agreement as to the costs to be paid by Dr Lloyd. The Tribunal’s order will be to that effect.

The Veterinary Disciplinary Panel orders pursuant to s 32 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 that:

- As to the findings of guilt of professional misconduct:

1. Dr Ronald George Lloyd be suspended from practice for 9 months commencing on a date specified by the Veterinary Surgeons Board, being a date not later than 1 January 2005.

2. The following conditions to be imposed on Dr Lloyd’s registration as a veterinary surgeon:

(i) That he only be permitted to practise as an employee of a veterinary surgeon approved by the Board in a practice where there is at least two veterinary surgeons (other than Dr Lloyd) practising on a full-time basis. (The employer if full-time may be counted for this purpose.) This condition is to remain in force for not less than 15 months after his return to practice.

(ii) That he only be permitted to return to practice as a sole practitioner if the Veterinary Surgeons Board so approves after having had regard to such matters as it thinks fit, including a report from the approved employing veterinary surgeon.

(iii) That he be required to undertake continuing professional education in programs designated by the Board of ten days per annum over the period of his suspension and the period of supervised employment.

- As to the finding of guilt of unacceptable professional conduct:

3. Dr Lloyd be reprimanded.

- and further orders that:

4. Dr Lloyd pay the costs of the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee as agreed.

As required by the Act, the Registrar of the Tribunal is to advise the Registrar of the Board of these orders within 21 days of the date of their publication.