Pal the Pug Is Back in Spirit as Suit Goes to Trial

People may still disagree over what killed Pal the pug, but this much is certain: The spirit of the Encino dog that died two years ago lives on and on--this time haunting a lawsuit by a veterinarian against the city of Los Angeles.

Dr. Melvyn Richkind, the first veterinarian to examine the tan and black pug after its owner found it with much of its skin torn off, alleges that officials from the Department of Animal Regulation not only defamed him but also illegally searched his Northridge office and blacklisted him.

Richkind’s lawyer, Richard Wynne, has drawn parallels between the travails of his client to that of President Clinton, and said he plans to ask for $2 million to $3 million in damages for civil rights violations.

City officials said they had done nothing wrong and called the lawsuit frivolous.

“The whole thing is just outrageous,” said Lt. Richard Felosky, one of two Department of Animal Regulation officials named as defendants in the lawsuit. “What [the plaintiff] is doing, it’s obviously for money.”

Trial is set to begin today in San Fernando Superior Court.

Richkind said he wants justice and redress for what he described as “ridiculous” conduct by city officials. “They attempted to destroy my whole professional career,” he said. “This isn’t about a dog, it’s about abuse of power.”

‘They’re Trying to Put Me Out of Business’

It all began when Richkind and Animal Regulation disagreed over the cause of the pooch’s death in April 1997. Richkind concluded that a person or persons had skinned Pal with a knife. But Animal Regulation officials proclaimed that a coyote was responsible.

Richkind said Animal Regulation officials obtained a search warrant, “stomped” through his medical office, tore out a pipe from the ceiling, dumped papers all over the floor and then purposely took things that would hurt his practice, such as his telephone and surgery logs. According to Richkind, Animal Regulation officials then reported him to the state Veterinary Medical Board and dropped him from a lucrative city voucher program for spaying and neutering pets.

“I was blackballed,” Richkind said. “They’re trying to put me out of business.”

But city officials told a different story.

A search was justified because Richkind had refused to turn over Pal’s medical records that might have cleared up whether a crime had been committed, said Deputy City Atty. George Lowry, representing city officials. “The Animal Regulation officers had a duty and a right to do such a search,” he said.

As for damaging Richkind’s office, “that’s all bull,” Felosky said. During the search, Animal Regulation officials did not locate Pal’s medical records but “found all kinds of unsanitary conditions, medication that had expired in the ‘80s . . . hypodermic needles used as pushpins on a bulletin board,” Lowry said.

Findings of Raid Reported to Board

Largely based on those discoveries, the chief veterinarian of Animal Regulation reported Richkind to the state board.

In December, the board charged that Richkind failed to provide animal medical records, that his clinic contained numerous sanitary violations, and that expired medication was found there, said Teena Arneson, enforcement program manager for the state board. An administrative hearing on the case is pending.

Richkind confirmed that expired medication had been found and that “one or two might have passed my eye” but said he doesn’t know how most of it got into his office. He also disputes the notion that his medical office was unclean. “If I ran a dirty, unsanitary clinic, I’d be out of business,” he said.

As for the syringes, “If they’re not used needles, what difference does it make?” Wynne said. The important thing, he said, is that “the whole search was improper. That’s entirely a vindictive act.”

Veterinarian’s Says City Defamed Him

Richkind also contends that Animal Regulation officials defamed him by publicly questioning his medical competency after he declared Pal’s killer to be human.

“They continued to present to the public the fact that I didn’t know what I was talking about,” Richkind said.

Furthermore, Wynne said, in two Animal Regulation news releases “there [were] certain strong insinuations that Dr. Richkind was obstructing justice.”

Lowry called those allegations “absurd.”

“There was no defamation made,” he said. “If you differ with him, you’re injuring his reputation? That’s absurd on its face.” And, if Richkind had evidence of a felony and intentionally refused to turn it over to authorities, that would be obstruction of justice, Lowry said. “That would be the perfect defense to defamation--that the statement made was true.”

Richkind believes that Animal Regulation officials “came at” him because they couldn’t stand to be told that they were wrong.

“They wanted the pug to be attacked by a coyote, and I disagreed,” Richkind said.

*

’ They attempted to destroy my whole professional career. This isn’t about a dog, it’s about abuse of power.’

Dr. Melvyn Richkind