Courts

High Court halves ‘unduly severe’ suspension of vet over care of dog

Vet William McCartney operated on left leg rather than right, based on his judgment, without communicating this to owner

The dog’s owner was not informed that the other leg was going to be operated on before the surgery. Photograph: iStock

Aodhan O'Faolain
Thu Jun 6 2024 - 19:00

The High Court has halved an “unduly severe” two-month suspension imposed on a veterinarian over care provided to a golden retriever called Alfie.

Mr Justice Mícheál P O’Higgins said the justice of the case was met by cutting the vet’s practise suspension to one month.

The matter arose after vet William McCartney operated on the dog’s left leg rather than the right, as originally planned.

In August 2020 Mr McCartney, who owns a practice called North Dublin Animal Hospital, was due to operate on Alfie’s right hind leg. After assessing the animal, he decided it was in the dog’s best interests that the left leg would be operated on first and the right leg would be done at a later date.

READ MORE

However, the dog’s owner was not informed of this before the surgery, and Mr McCartney was called away after the operation due to a serious family medical emergency. When the owner collected the dog, she believed the surgery had been performed on the wrong leg.

In his judgment, Mr Justice O’Higgins said the vet did not make arrangements for a colleague to meet the owner and did not ring her to explain the change.

The owner sought explanations from the surgery’s receptionist and an assistant but they could not explain what happened. She wanted to speak to the vet but he was not there.

The owner said she and her children, who accompanied her at the surgery, were traumatised over what happened as she thought the wrong leg had been operated on.

The vet said he fully understood the owner’s concerns, the judge noted.

Later that evening the vet spoke to the owner and, as a goodwill gesture to diffuse the situation, offered not to charge for this operation or the later right leg surgery. The owner rejected the offer and arranged for another vet to operate on Alfie’s right leg. The judge noted this surgery went well.

The owner made a complaint to the Veterinary Council of Ireland, the body which regulates the profession in Ireland. The complaint went before the council’s Fitness to Practise Committee.

The vet accepted making mistakes but denied his actions amounted to professional misconduct.

The council ultimately made certain findings against Mr McCartney, including that he had failed to inform the owner that he had decided to operate on the left leg in advance and had failed to obtain the owner’s consent for the surgery on the left leg. It did not find against him on the most serious allegations: that he operated on the wrong leg and did not admit the error.

It decided to impose a two-month suspension from practise.

He appealed against the sanction to the High Court alleging this was grossly disproportionate. In his proceedings against the council, he claimed there was a failure to taken into account that he had shown insight into what occurred, that Alfie was not harmed and that left-leg surgery was required.

The council opposed the appeal and submitted the misconduct found against the vet was “of a serious nature” and that he had “complete disregard for the central and crucial role” an owner has in their animal’s care.

The finding of misconduct was not appealed.

Ruling on the matter, Mr Justice O’Higgins said Mr McCartney was an experienced vet and a recognised specialist in small animal surgery. However, the judge said, it was hard to understand why he did not speak to the owner or brief a colleague before operating on Alfie’s left leg.

The judge said that when all factors were considered, the level of the vet’s offending was “no higher than the mid range”.

Given the lack of aggravating factors and the abundance of mitigating factors, the judge said the original suspension period was unduly severe. He reduced it to a month. The judge said he did not think it was in the parties’ interests to remit the matter back to the council for further deliberation.

LATEST STORIES