22 March 2012
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) this week [19 March 2012] dismissed an application for restoration to the RCVS Register from Dr Janos Nemeth, who was struck off in 2009 for fraudulent registration.
This was Dr Nemeth’s second unsuccessful restoration application, and the Committee said it would hear no further application unless the Committee Chairman, advised by the Legal Assessor, considered it to have a reasonable prospect of success.
The burden remains on Dr Nemeth to satisfy this Committee that he is a fit and proper person, before his name can be restored to the Register.
At the original hearing [23 February 2009], Dr Nemeth, who had practised in the Wokingham area of Berkshire, was found to have dishonestly entered his name in the RCVS Register.
Although he held a veterinary science degree from the Szent István University in Budapest, he had included a forged document in his registration application.
He lodged an appeal with the Privy Council the following month, but did not pursue it; the appeal was dismissed in September 2009 and his name was removed from the Register.
Dr Nemeth was ordered to pay costs of £8,904.59, which remain outstanding.
In September 2010, he applied to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for restoration of his name to the RCVS Register, denying that he had produced a fraudulent document.
In refusing the application, the then-Committee told Dr Nemeth that it had no appellate jurisdiction and that the onus was on him to demonstrate that he was a fit and proper person, before his name could be restored. It advised him generally about a future application for restoration.
At this week’s restoration hearing, Dr Nemeth told the Committee that he did accept the original findings of the Committee but, at the same time, told them again that he was not party to the forgery.
He also said that he held a licence to practise from the Hungarian Veterinary Chamber, and had been employed since October 2011 as a veterinary surgeon in a small animal hospital in Budapest, where he carried out a wide range of work including surgery. He also said he had attended two CPD courses.
The Committee accepted this. However, it continued to be concerned about the absence of evidence.
Dr Nemeth had not produced evidence of CPD undertaken or provided letters of support from employers or colleagues, to give comfort to the assertion that he should be permitted to practise in the UK.
The Committee rejected Dr Nemeth’s argument that his licence to practise in Hungary meant he did not need to do this.
Speaking on the Committee’s behalf, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: “The Committee is disappointed by Dr Nemeth’s continuing lack of insight and is satisfied that he has paid insufficient attention to the guidance given at the previous restoration hearing.
"The burden remains on him to satisfy this Committee that he is a fit and proper person, before his name can be restored to the Register.”
The application was dismissed.