Reading-based veterinary surgeon suspended from register for dishonesty with client and colleagues

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a Reading-based veterinary surgeon be suspended from the Register for 18 months after he was found guilty of dishonesty in relation to a falsified laboratory test result.

Maximilian Wood MRCVS appeared before the Committee from Monday 12 to Wednesday 14 May with three charges against him, all relating to allegations of misconduct in the autumn of 2023 in relation to a laboratory test for an alpaca and while he was employed at a South Oxfordshire veterinary practice.

The charges alleged that:

• On 1 September 2023, Mr Wood had misleadingly told the alpaca’s owner on the telephone that the animal had tested positive for Johne’s disease when no such test had taken place;
• On or around 10 and 11 September 2023, Mr Wood had misleadingly sent a letter by email to the owner to say that the test had a positive result when there had been no such test;
• On or around 24 September 2023, he had misleadingly and dishonestly created a false test result report in the name of a veterinary surgeon colleague and sent this false report to another veterinary colleague by email;
• On or around 2 or 3 October 2023, he misleadingly and dishonestly told the alpaca’s owner that he had given her another patient’s result by mistake, and that the test result was actually negative, when there had been no test results at all for the animal;
• On or around 11 October 2023, he had misleadingly and dishonestly emailed the laboratory saying that a member of his practice’s administrative staff had written the false report;
• In November 2023, Mr Wood had misleadingly told the managing partner of his then employer on three occasions that he was investigating the false report in order to find out who sent it; and
• On 29 November 2023, he sent a misleading and dishonest email to a veterinary surgeon colleague falsely indicating that a member of the practice’s staff had manufactured the false report, when that was not the case.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Wood admitted the facts of all the allegations against him.

Having found the facts proven, the Committee found that the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, something which Mr Wood himself also admitted.

“The Committee considered that this was a particularly difficult case to reconcile, as, on the one hand the misconduct was so serious whereas on the other hand, the respondent had demonstrated significant insight; the risk of repetition was low; the evidence of his professional achievements was strong and the testimonials from client farmers and professional colleagues were impressive.”

In coming to this conclusion, the Committee considered some of the aggravating factors in Mr Wood’s conduct, including: the lack of honesty, probity and integrity; the fact the conduct was premeditated; that it involved a breach of the client’s trust; the abuse of his professional position; the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time; and that his conduct contravened advice given by the RCVS.

The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Mr Wood and, in doing so, considered a number of mitigating factors, including positive testimonials from professional former colleagues and client farmers. The Committee found that Mr Wood had engaged in some remediation in order to avoid repeating the dishonest behaviour, and had also, in his correspondence with the RCVS and responses to the Committee during the hearing, shown significant insight into his misconduct.

Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee recognised that the serious repeated dishonesty, which was to conceal wrongdoing, made the respondent’s misconduct particularly serious.

“It therefore gave consideration as to whether his conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon and whether removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

“The Committee considered that this was a particularly difficult case to reconcile, as, on the one hand the misconduct was so serious whereas on the other hand, the respondent had demonstrated significant insight; the risk of repetition was low; the evidence of his professional achievements was strong and the testimonials from client farmers and professional colleagues were impressive.”

He added: “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.”

Please note: this news story is intended to be a summary of the hearing to aid in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The Committee's full decision can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.