State Court Reinstates Sanctions Against Vet

A state appeals court has reinstated penalties and fines against a veterinarian who was accused of negligence and unprofessional conduct at his pet clinic in Ventura, attorneys said Tuesday.

The court last week granted an appeal filed by the state Veterinary Medical Board, which had sought to restore sanctions imposed in 1996 against Thomas James Bulgin, owner of All Cats Clinic at 4587 Telephone Road.

Bulgin was found to have improperly cared for some cats between 1991 and 1993, records show. In one case, a cat died when Bulgin failed to detect that it had ingested poison.

The state board ordered Bulgin’s license suspended for eight months, placed him on five years’ probation and ordered supervision by a board-approved vet, 60 hours of continuing education, a written exam, 25 hours of schooling annually for five years and $11,378 in costs and fines.

Bulgin twice appealed the penalty to a Superior Court judge. In one appeal, the sanctions were dramatically reduced, and in the second appeal a judge ordered the state veterinary board to dismiss all proceedings against Bulgin and award him attorney’s fees.

“By ordering the board to dismiss the proceeding altogether, however, the trial court improperly interfered with the board’s penalty discretion by effectively immunizing Bulgin from any discipline whatsoever,” according to the ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Bulgin’s attorney said Tuesday that she will ask the appeals court to again review the case and its ruling. A formal appeal must be filed by mid-August. The sanctions have been stayed pending appeals.

“The penalty was totally disproportionate to the findings that were made,” Ventura attorney Wendy Lascher said. She called the cat cases “minor incidents” and the sanctions “totally outrageous.”

Susan Geranen, executive officer of the state board, said Tuesday the last two years had been frustrating because the board believes its actions in 1996 were fair considering the evidence.

“The board certainly would be pleased that its decision was upheld,” she said. “The board does not act arbitrarily,” as it was accused of doing during one of Bulgin’s appeals, she said.