Negligent vet wins stay, fine reduction

Tuesday, March 28, 2000 | 10:43 a.m.

A Henderson veterinarian found responsible for the death of a dog in his care has won a stay of a two-month suspension levied by the Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medicine.

District Judge Michael Cherry also ruled Monday that veterinarian Bradley Gilman must post a $5,000 bond to keep his practice open. The judge also ruled that Gilman must remain subject to three-years' probation and random inspections of his Green Valley Animal Hospital, as previously ordered by the state veterinary board.

The board ruled that Gilman was incompetent and grossly negligent in the death of Gardner, a beagle-mix owned by Fred and Hope Slensky of Henderson.

Gilman was suspended for two months and ordered to pay $18,000 for hearing and investigation costs. Gilman took the matter to court to not only win the stay of the penalties but also to try to clear his name. The $5,000 bond would be applied to the fine if Gillman loses his challenge.

The $5,000 bond will go toward the veterinary board's levy should Gilman lose a judicial review that could take place in late summer or early autumn.

"I want him (Gilman) to still be able to work," Cherry said.

According to veterinary board records, on Oct. 23, 1998, the Slenskys brought Gardner to Gilman for routine shots and an exam and, three hours later, got back a sick dog. The pet was taken to another animal hospital where it died that night. It later was learned that an unlicensed technician working for Gilman dropped the dog on his head while taking X-rays.

The ruling against Gilman was the second incompetency finding against the veterinarian. The first was in June 1995 for record keeping and surgery record violations.

Because Gilman is challenging the veterinary board in this case, the court's findings could have a profound effect on how this board and other state boards conduct future disciplinary hearings.

Adam Levine, Gilman's attorney, argued that the state veterinary board should not serve as judges because they benefit from the levies they issue.

Deputy Attorney General Louis Ling, the veterinary board's counsel, argued that the recouped costs go to the general fund, not the board, and that the board has to apply for the money, which it does not always get.

Ling also argued the fine was not based on the value of the dog -- the Slenskys purchased Gardner for $30 -- but rather for the protection of the public.