Lincolnshire vet removed from register after multiple clinical failings

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a Lincolnshire-based veterinary surgeon be removed from the Register after multiple clinical failings.

The original hearing for Ms Emma Bowler MRCVS took place between Monday 21 and Friday 25 October 2024. The resumed hearing took place between Wednesday 26 February and Tuesday 4 March 2025. Both parts of the hearing took place at The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in London.

Despite being properly served with the Notice of Inquiry, Ms Bowler decided not to attend the hearing due to ill-health but was represented by a counsel and solicitors. The Committee did not find that Ms Bowler was medically unfit to attend on the basis of the medical evidence before it. The Committee also concluded that it was in the public interest and interests of Ms Bowler to proceed with the hearing in her absence so that it could be concluded in a timely manner. Ms Bowler’s counsel applied for parts of the hearing to be heard in private on health grounds, which was approved by the Committee. It was also determined that any parts in the Committee’s decision or hearing that referred to Ms Bowler’s health would be redacted.

There were four sets of charges against Ms Bowler. In summary, these were:

• Charge 1 - between 1 August 2018 and 31 March 2022, Ms Bowler failed to provide adequate care to animals in relation to surgery undertaken by her. This was in relation to 18 different animals.
• Charge 2 - in relation to surgery performed by Ms Bowler on 24 January and/or 12 February 2020 to a German Shepherd Cross Belgian Malinois, Ms Bowler failed to provide adequate care.
• Charge 3 - on 25 May 2021, when speaking to a client about surgery performed on their Jack Russell on 20 May 2021, Ms Bowler told the client that everything that had been written in the clinical records up to the point of the surgery referred to the right hind being the problem, when this was not the case and/or the veterinary surgeon who had seen the client about the x-rays prior to the surgery on 20 May 2021 had not placed any notes on the file at the time the Jack Russell came in for surgery, when this was not the case.
• Charge 4 - Ms Bowler’s conduct in relation to the third charge was dishonest, and/or misleading.

Please note that the above is a summary of the charges and there are sub-charges within each charge. Full charges can be found on our disciplinary hearings page.

From the outset of the hearing, Ms Bowler’s counsel made admissions to sub-charges 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, and 4b. The Committee therefore found those charges proved by admission. She also made some partial admissions in relations to a further 11 sub-charges.

At the hearing, the Committee received and heard a wide range of evidence in relation to all charges. This included both written and oral evidence from the College and written evidence from Ms Bowler, as well as evidence from clients and from an expert witness.

Having taken all evidence into account, as well as the RCVS Supporting Guidance, the Committee found all charges proved except for sub-charges 4a, 1t, and parts of 1j and 1n.

On deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively, the Committee took aggravating and mitigating factors into account.

Aggravating factors included:

• In respect of charges 1 and 2, several animals suffered unnecessary injury (these charges encompassed 18 animals).
• In respect of charge 2, Ms Bowler had acted recklessly in performing revision surgery and should have recognised that she was significantly beyond her surgical ability.
• In respect of charges 3 and 4, Ms Bowler’s conduct was aggravated by her lack of integrity.
• That, overall, the misconduct spanned approximately three years and eight months and involved repetition of egregious failings.

It was also noted that the charges encompassed multiple animals that were either caused injury or were at risk of injury.

Mitigating factors included:

• Ms Bowler had been working in an atmosphere that generated a highly pressurised working environment, which was somewhat unsupportive to her.
• Regarding clinical record keeping, Ms Bowler had less time available due to her heavy workload.
• Personal circumstances which exacerbated the pressures she faced at work.
• Ms Bowler had no previous disciplinary findings against her.
• She received positive character references.
• She had made partial admissions in her statement and response to the charges and had apologised to the owners in respect of charge 2 and acknowledged that she was inexperienced in performing total hip replacements.
• Ms Bowler has subsequently made substantial efforts to avoid repetition of some of the matters encompassed in the charges.

In making a decision on the sanction, the Committee first considered whether it should take 'no further action'. However, it decided that the seriousness of the misconduct meant that a sanction was necessary to meet the public interest.

When deciding on whether to issue a reprimand with or without a warning, the Committee once again decided that the misconduct was too serious to allow for this. It noted that the Disciplinary Sanctions Guidance stated that a sanction was only applicable where the misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum, however the Committee concluded that the matters were serious and did not fall at the lower end of the spectrum. It also decided that a reprimand and/or warning was not sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest.

It then went onto consider whether a sanction of 'suspension' was sufficient but noted that it did not have enough evidence to show that Ms Bowler had shown significant insight to continue to practise unrestricted in the future.

The Committee eventually concluded that Ms Bowler’s conduct was incompatible with remaining on the Register.

Neil Slater, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee decided that the broad range of Ms Bowler’s misconduct which had spanned three years and eight months and involving injury or risk of injury to 18 animals, was incompatible with remaining on the Register and the public interest required removal from the Register even when all of Ms Bowler’s mitigation was taken into account.

"The Committee decided that it did not have sufficient evidence overall on Ms Bowler’s insight, current competence and future risk to persuade it that the lesser sanction of suspension was appropriate in this case.

"Although Ms Bowler had shown some insight, the Committee decided that she would need to have provided detailed evidence about her current practice before it could decide that she no longer represented a risk to animals in the future.

"The Committee therefore concluded that ‘removal from the Register’ was the appropriate and proportionate sanction because there had been a serious departure from professional standards, a reckless disregard for professional standards, multiple cases involving harm or risk of harm to animals and because, in Ms Bowler’s absence, it had been difficult to unravel whether she had an attitudinal problem.

"These were all factors in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance that indicated that a sanction of removal was the appropriate sanction and, in the Committee’s decision, removal from the Register was the only sanction which would meet the public interest. It concluded that a lesser sanction would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process."

Ms Bowler has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

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.