A two-month suspension imposed on a vet has been halved by a High Court judge who found the original sanction over care provided to a golden retriever called Alfie to be "unduly severe".
Mr Justice Michael P O'Higgins said the justice of the case, which arose after vet William McCartney operated on the dog's left leg and not the right leg as had been originally planned, was met by "halving" the vet's suspension from practising to a period of one month.
In August 2020, Mr McCartney, who owns a practice called North Dublin Animal Hospital which employs 18 people including four vets, was due to operate on Alfie's right hind leg.
Following his assessment of Alfie, the vet decided it was in the dog's best interests that the left leg be operated on first and the right leg be done at a later date.
However, this information was not given to the dog's owner before surgery occurred, who when she collected the dog believed that surgery had been performed on the wrong leg.
Following the operation, Mr McCartney was called away from his surgery due to a serious family medical emergency, before Alfie's owner picked up the dog.
The judge said in his judgement that the vet did not make arrangements with a colleague to meet with the owner, nor did the vet ring the owner, to explain what happened.
The owner, who was accompanied to the surgery by two of her children, was not told about the change.
The fact the dog's left, and not his right leg, was bandaged was noticed by one of the owner's children.
The owner looked for explanations from the surgery's receptionist, and from an assistant, who had gone through the post-operative procedures with her over what happened to Alfie.
They could not explain what had happened. The owner also wanted to speak with the vet, but he was not there.
The owner said she and her children 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 offered, as a goodwill gesture to defuse the situation, not to charge for the operation nor the surgery Alfie required on his right leg.
The owner rejected that offer, and made arrangements with another vet to operate on Alfie's right leg, which the judge noted went well for the dog.
As a result of what occurred, 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 that 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 the most serious allegations, that the vet had performed the surgery on the wrong leg, and did not admit the error had occurred.
It ultimately decided to impose a 2-month suspension from practise on the vet.
He appealed against the sanction to the High Court, in proceedings against the council, on the grounds that it was grossly disproportionate.
He claimed the council failed to take into account that the vet had shown insight into what happened, that Alfie was not harmed and did require surgery on his left leg.
The Council opposed the appeal, and submitted that 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 is an experienced vet and a recognised specialist in small animal surgery.
However, the judge said that it was hard to understand why the vet did not speak to the owner before operating on Alfie's left leg, nor brief a colleague on the matter.
The judge said that when all factors in the overall context of case 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 added that the original period of suspension was unduly severe, and 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.
