London-based vet suspended for eight months for dishonesty and practising without insurance

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the RCVS Registrar suspend a London-based veterinary surgeon from the Register for eight months, after it found he failed to take adequate steps when emergency attention was required, he acted dishonestly and had no professional indemnity insurance in place.

Dr Isaco De Armas Jimenez appeared before the Disciplinary Committee from Monday 11 to Thursday 14 August 2025 at the RCVS offices in Hardwick Street, in respect of four charges against him.

In summary, these were:

1)    On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, in relation to a cat, he a) failed to obtain informed consent to sedate/anaesthetise the cat and/or did so without the owner’s consent (admitted), b) failed to take adequate steps when the cat required emergency attention (admitted), and c) failed to provide adequate details to the owner following the cat’s death (admitted).

2)    On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, he a) failed to record adequate clinical record details of the cat’s sedation/anaesthetic (admitted), b) recorded when the cat became cyanotic, that i) a tube had been passed in order to intubate (proved not to have occured) and ii) chest compressions had been given when this was not the case (not proved that it did not happen), and c) failed to make adequate clinical records in relation to differential diagnoses and proposed treatment plan (not proved).

3)    That his conduct in relation to charge 2(a) and/or 2(b) was a) dishonest and/or b) misleading. (Admitted his conduct was both dishonest and misleading in relation to 2(a), and the Committee found proved that his conduct was dishonest and/or misleading in relation to 2(b)(i)).

4)    Between 22 April 2022 and 23 April 2022, he failed to have any professional indemnity insurance in place (admitted).

As referenced in the listed charges above, from the outset, Dr De Armas Jimenez admitted most of the charges again him. The Committee then determined the facts of the remaining charges after taking into account all documentary and oral evidence from witnesses and Dr De Armas Jimenez, as well as an expert witness. Having considered all the evidence, it determined which elements of the charges were found proved and not proved.

It then went on to consider whether the admitted and proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively. Having considered admissions and submissions, it found that Dr De Armas Jimenez’s actions had breached a number of sections of the RCVS Code of Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that Dr De Armas Jimenez had caused actual harm to the animal. It did not find dishonesty or breach of trust as an aggravating factor as both of these were part of the charges already found proven.

In terms of mitigating factors it noted that:

• Dr De Armas Jimenez had no previous disciplinary history.
• At the time of this incident, he had been working for eight years as a veterinary surgeon in the UK without complaint.
• He had made admissions regarding most of the charges.
• He had made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition by no longer working night shifts or locuming.
• The incident related to one animal.

The Committee also noted that Dr De Armas Jimenez had shown appreciable insight and remorse, and took into account positive character references.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Whilst the misconduct in this case involved breaches of the RCVS Code, caused serious harm to both the cat and the client, and involved dishonesty which was concealed, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension could take account of the seriousness of these matters and meet the wider public interest."

He added: "In deciding on this period of suspension, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors and the mitigation Dr De Armas Jimenez had put before it. It was not persuaded that a shorter period of suspension would properly reflect the seriousness of the proven misconduct. It concluded that this period of suspension had a deterrent effect and sent a signal as to how serious the Committee had found the misconduct to be. It also took into account Dr De Armas Jimenez’s remorse and insight.

"However, in order that the wider public interest was upheld and to reflect the Committee’s view regarding the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the Committee determined that the proportionate sanction and period of suspension should be a suspension order of eight months."

Please note, this news story is intended to be a summary of the hearing to assist in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The full details can be found on our disciplinary hearings page.