Veterinarian tries to clear his name in death of dog

Thursday, April 26, 2001 | 10:35 a.m.

At one time, Fred and Hope Selensky said, they believed the only issues in their case were their dead dog, Gardner, and the veterinarian whom the state found incompetent and grossly negligent in the animal's demise.

In District Court Wednesday during an appeal by veterinarian Bradley Gilman, the Henderson couple learned more is at stake. They witnessed the Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medicine, along with its hearing and investigative practices, put on trial as well.

District Judge Mark Gibbons listened to two hours of legal arguments by Gilman's attorney, Adam Levine, and Deputy Nevada Attorney General Fred Olmstead. He must now determine if Gilman was given a fair hearing last year in the 1998 death of Gardner, a beagle mix, at Gilman's Green Valley Animal Hospital.

The case is significant, because, if Gilman wins and it holds up on appeal, the state may have to reevaluate its hearing procedures against its licensees. Levine contends his client and other veterinarians are subject to fines from a board that has a vested interest and bias to issue such penalties to fund itself.

Gibbons, who owns four dogs, said because of the likelihood that the losing side will appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court, he will take about 10 days to reach his decision and issue it in writing.

"He got a fair hearing before the veterinary board," Fred Slensky, who attended the hearing with his wife and daughter Ashley, said outside the courtroom. "He's really digging now."

Olmstead said one issue that should be given a lot of weight is that Gardner "walked in at 3 p.m. and had to be carried out at 5 p.m." The board learned that during the examination, Gardner allegedly was dropped on his head by an unlicensed technician under Gilman's supervision.

Levine says, however, that his client, who has long opposed the veterinary board mandate to license technicians who X-ray animals, "got the book thrown at him because they were very angry with Dr. Gilman for challenging them (the veterinary board). There should have been no sanctions, because there was no evidence to support the eventual conviction."

The board suspended Gilman for two months and ordered him to pay $18,000 for hearing and investigation costs. Gilman last March won a stay of the penalty from another district judge.

Gilman has maintained he did nothing wrong in treating Gardner. He decided to go to court to clear his name in the wake of publicity about the incident.

Levine on Wednesday accused the board of making "an end run" around the state law, noting that his client was not "fined" because fine money by law would have had to go to the state's general fund and the board would have had to apply for it. By charging "costs," the board got the money directly, Levine said.

Also, Levine said, the board's findings of fact did not prove Gilman or anyone else killed the dog.

The findings were that unlicensed technicians were taking X-rays and that Gilman did not supervise his workers properly.

Levine said Gilman was instead charged by the attorney general's office with incompetence and negligence, and he chose to have a hearing. Levine said one board member showed bias by saying that Gilman was looking for trouble by not settling the matter with the board.

Olmstead argued that the board is not biased and that it is perhaps the only cost-effective means by which members of the public can seek justice against a veterinarian they believe wronged them. The Slenskys, for example, declined to file a civil suit over the death of their dog, whom they got from a pound for about $30.

"It would render the board useless if people had to first go to court and sue the veterinarian," Olmstead said, noting that a post-mortem exam on a dog would cost about $400. "You might as well throw the board away."

According to veterinary board records, on Oct. 23, 1998, the Slenskys brought Gardner to Gilman for routine shots and an exam and got back a sick dog. The pet was taken to another animal hospital, where it died that night.

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