Profession grapples with evolving pet status

The human-animal bond has been an important driver to the success of companion animal practice, but it can have a down side. Changing the status of animals from chattel to companions could change the amount of damages awarded by courts for emotional suffering. Conventional courts generally prohibit large awards that accompany malpractice, wrongful injury or death litigation because, as a rule, a pet is worth no more than its "fair market value." Any change in their legal standing would cause insurance premiums to skyrocket, experts say.

Tampa, Fla.- As veterinary officials stymie a Colorado bill granting pet owners up to $100,000 for loss of companionship claims, nationwide debate concerning the legal status of pets brews. One by one, America's courts are considering emotional distress and wrongful death lawsuits as pet owners and trial lawyers attempt to raise the value of pets to more than property - a move promising to alter how the country practices and pays for veterinary care.

Tracking the cases is attorney and consultant Dr. Jim Wilson, who on Feb. 22 spoke to veterinary stakeholders in Tampa, Fla., for a seminar sponsored by the Hillsborough County Veterinary Medical Association. Leaders from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and California and Florida veterinary medical associations were among those in attendance and voicing concern.

Dr. Wilson

The stance conventional courts generally take prohibits large awards that accompany malpractice and wrongful injury litigation because, as a rule, a pet is worth no more than its "fair market value" at death, less than $50 for a typical companion animal. Any change in their legal standing would cause insurance premiums to skyrocket, experts predict.

Reaching the top

The multi-faceted movement now sits center stage among the profession's leadership. Traditionally mum on such issues, the AVMA likely will be asked by its Animal Welfare Committee to take a stand on compensatory damages as well as owner versus guardianship issues. The group's Executive Board expects to consider the committee's resolutions next month.

"We're headed toward a change in the legal status of pets and therefore higher malpractice costs," says Dr. Arthur Tennyson, AVMA assistant executive vice president. "Do we want to bring this into veterinary medicine?"

Key moments in animal status evolution

Veterinary medicine doesn't have a choice, considering practitioners advocate deeming pets as family members, Wilson says.

"We cannot extol the value and uniqueness of the human-animal bond and encourage pet owners to go to greater and more expensive lengths to protect the quality of life of their animal companions, and then expect the law to continue to treat animals as inanimate property," Wilson argues. "The Colorado legislation has really brought the issue to the forefront. People are now thinking animals have value they can sue for. The media, the public – they love this stuff."

Whether it's fighting the redefinition of pet owners to pet guardians or working to cap malpractice awards, the profession must meet these animal welfare issues head on or face the consequences, says Ralph Johnson, Colorado Veterinary Medical Association's executive director.

Dr. Arthur Tennyson, AVMA assistant executive vice president, spoke out Feb. 22 at a seminar concerning an animal welfare movement likely to drastically change the practice of veterinary medicine. Practitioners in attendance, including speaker Dr. Jim Wilson, attacked AVMA for not doing more to guide public opinion and state veterinary groups actively opposing welfare-related lawsuits and legislation.

"If we don't do something, pets will be considered for lawsuits with high malpractice awards, that would force veterinarians to practice defensive, more expansive medicine, driving up costs," Johnson says. "Where does that put people who are currently marginally able to pay for veterinary services?"

Push to ignore

But veterinarians like Robert Greenwald of Venice, Fla., feel the profession should lay low, abandoning plans to back laws fixing caps on rewards.

Table 1

"That'll just get us into trouble, admitting to the courts that pets are worth more," he says. "They have a hard time suing us now, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Isn't that what they say?"