Regulators ordered to pay veterinarian's legal fees

Seneca, Pa. — It's taken six years for Dr. James Nelson to win what he considers vindication against the regulatory board he claims marred his reputation.

The Pennsylvania Board of Veterinary Medicine (PBVM) agreed in late January to pay $10,000 in court-ordered legal fees to reimburse expenses Nelson incurred defending himself against a now-reversed public reprimand. At the same time, regulators are drafting new law to expand their jurisdiction to include "moral and unprofessional conduct" — a move designed to allow them to discipline Nelson-like cases.

The 57-year-old practitioner from Seneca, Pa., made headlines in 2001, when he told a client to "rot in hell" for complaining about him to PBVM. The regulatory board's response, which was overturned in 2004, demanded that the DVM complete continuing-education, write a letter of apology and attend anger-management sessions.

"The dog had been gasping for air for two days, and we begged the client to put it to sleep," Nelson recalls. "When the owner finally agreed, the dog could not lay down. During the euthanasia, the dog howled and struggled. She started screaming at me that I murdered her dog and wrote the board that I tortured it to death."

Nelson claims media coverage of the case caused him stress and embarrassment. "Anyone I ever knew or ever went to school with saw it. My practice has had no growth in the last three years," he contends.

While a Commonweath Court panel called Nelson's actions "inexcusably rude," the 2004 decision also chided the board for attempting to sanction the veterinarian's behavior via its authority to oversee professional competence, "which is not the same as professional conduct," the ruling states.

Expanded oversight

That distinction has driven PBVM to close the loophole that limits its say-so to competence.

To oversee professional conduct, officials authored Principle 3 of a draft regulation package. The goal: to shape the state's authority to punish licensees for what regulators deem "unprofessional or immoral" actions.

The draft lists scenarios such as false advertising, abusing animals.

It also includes "attempting to influence through coercion, undue pressure or intimidation, or attempting to induce an individual to file, not file or withdraw a complaint to the board" and "abusing a client, former client, colleague, associate or employee, including verbal abuse, harassment or intimidation."

Board members did not return repeated calls from DVM Newsmagazine seeking comment. Yet Catherine Ennis, deputy press secretary with the Pennsylvania Department of State, confirms that the language was authored in response to Nelson's case.

The regulation will "provide notice that this type of conduct (intimidating a witness) in not acceptable," Ennis says.

Legal perspective

Nelson's attorney April McClaine questions the board's power to promulgate a regulation that would alter the state's practice act, which is sanctioned by the Legislature.

Again, PBVM officials did not respond to DVM Newsmagazine's requests for comment.

Nelson wants to clear his name.

"This has put a real strain on my family," he says. "People just act funny around you. The damage has already been done. I'll always carry this reputation."