Gurdeep Deol, a veterinarian, found himself in a legal battle with the California Veterinary Medical Board (Board) after his license was revoked following an administrative hearing. The Board cited negligence, incompetence, and unprofessional conduct in its decision. Deol challenged this in court, seeking to overturn the Board’s ruling. The trial court sided with the Board on the negligence and incompetence charges but agreed with Deol that the “unprofessional conduct” charge was unfounded. Both parties then appealed, leading to a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision regarding “unprofessional conduct,” clarifying that it isn’t solely limited to substance abuse.
The Case Background
The case stems from an incident in April 2018, when Zoe, an eight-year-old Cocker Spaniel, was brought to Deol’s clinic for a routine check-up and vaccinations. Deol administered the vaccines despite discovering Zoe had a fever of 103.4 degrees Fahrenheit. He allegedly did not inform Zoe’s owners about the fever or the potential risks of vaccinating a dog in that condition. Zoe’s health rapidly declined, and despite a return visit, she died within 24 hours. Subsequent blood work revealed life-threatening drops in vital markers, which Deol reportedly did not fully communicate to the owners or recommend blood transfusions for.
Zoe’s owners filed a complaint with the Board, prompting an investigation. Dr. Beth Parvin reviewed the case and concluded that Deol had deviated from the standard of care by failing to adequately communicate Zoe’s condition and by not referring her to a specialist.
The Board’s Disciplinary Action
In November 2022, the Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against Deol, alleging negligence for administering vaccines while Zoe was febrile and for his subsequent treatment. They also cited incompetence for his failure to recognize the severity of Zoe’s condition and unprofessional conduct for not informing the owners about her prognosis. The Board also pointed to a prior disciplinary action against Deol for a similar incident involving another animal.
The Administrative Hearing and Trial Court Decision
An administrative hearing was held in November 2023. Dr. James Howard, an expert witness, testified that Deol violated the standard of care by vaccinating a febrile animal and by failing to offer a blood transfusion. The administrative law judge found clear and convincing evidence of negligence, incompetence, and unprofessional conduct, recommending the revocation of Deol’s license. The Board adopted this decision in January 2024.
Deol then filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the trial court, arguing that the Board’s decision was unwarranted and an abuse of discretion. He also argued, for the first time, that the “unprofessional conduct” charge could only be based on evidence of substance abuse. The trial court agreed with Deol on this last point, overturning the Board’s decision on the unprofessional conduct charge, but upheld the findings of negligence and incompetence.
The Appeals Court Ruling on “Unprofessional Conduct”
The central issue on appeal was the interpretation of Business and Professions Code section 4883(g), which defines “unprofessional conduct.” The Board argued that the trial court erred in interpreting this section as solely related to substance abuse. The Appeals Court agreed with the Board.
The court acknowledged that while section 4883(g) includes examples related to drug use and alcohol abuse, it also uses the phrase “includes, but is not limited to,” suggesting a broader scope. The court emphasized that “unprofessional conduct” generally refers to actions that violate the ethical standards of the profession or are unbecoming of a member in good standing.
To further clarify the Legislature’s intent, the court reviewed the legislative history of section 4883. The legislative history indicated the law was intended to strengthen the Board’s ability to regulate veterinary practices, and the amendment was intended to allow disciplinary action for conduct more closely related to issues involved in the practice of veterinary medicine and specifically the care and treatment of animals.
Based on the language of the statute, its legislative history, and the protective purpose of the law (protecting the public and animals), the Appeals Court concluded that section 4883(g) allows the Board to discipline veterinarians for conduct beyond just substance abuse.
Deol’s Arguments Rejected
Deol also argued that the expert testimony presented at the hearing was insufficient to establish a recognized standard of care and that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly prove negligence or incompetence.
The Appeals Court rejected these arguments, finding that Dr. Howard’s testimony, based on his extensive experience and knowledge, adequately established the standard of care. The court also found that Howard’s testimony, combined with other evidence, constituted clear and convincing evidence of Deol’s negligence and incompetence in his treatment of Zoe.
The Outcome
The Appeals Court reversed the trial court’s decision regarding the “unprofessional conduct” charge and instructed the trial court to deny Deol’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate in its entirety, thus reinstating the Board’s original revocation of Deol’s license.