Calif. Court: Pet Owners Can't Sue Vets For Emotional Damage

Dr. Kent McClure, general counsel for Animal Health Institute, said the case is important because, "if you had the same litigation drivers in pet healthcare as you have in human healthcare, there would be a substantial increase in costs across the board."

Specifically, he said, medical malpractice premiums would rise, "and you would be faced with the same defensive medicine practices that you see in human healthcare."

A panel of the court decided the case last Friday of McMahon v.Craig.

Philip Goldberg, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Washington, D.C., said the decision is important "because it thoroughly rejected all of the plaintiffs' arguments and is the first such published opinion in California."

His firm submitted an Amicus brief on behalf of California Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Health Institute, American Animal Hospital Association, American Kennel Club, Cat Fanciers' Association, American Pet Products Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council.

The plaintiff in the case, Gail McMahon, a resident of Orange County, Calif., sued Dr. Diane Craig and her veterinary practice for veterinary malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Ms. McMahon's dog, "Tootsie," a purebred Maltese, died after undergoing surgery.

Mr. Goldberg called the decision "a significant win for animal welfare as pets would lose out if owners were able to collect emotional harm damages."

He said if the decision had approved emotional damages the "cost of pet care would increase with this new liability, causing many owners to be unable or unwilling to provide their pets with necessary and proper medical treatment."

Mr. Goldberg noted in another case the Vermont Supreme Court had reached the same conclusion, and appellate courts in about 30 states have now rejected claims of emotional damage.

In its opinion, the California court said, "Extending emotional distress damages to owners of companion pets based on veterinary malpractice would have unknown consequences on both the cost and availability of veterinary care."

The court's main conclusion was that "a veterinarian's malpractice does not directly harm the owner in a manner creating liability for emotional distress."

At the same time, the court held, emotional distress damages for negligence are not available to Ms. McMahon "because she was neither a witness nor a direct victim of defendants' negligent acts."

The court also found that, "Regardless of how foreseeable a pet owner's emotional distress may be in losing a beloved animal, we discern no basis in policy or reason to impose a duty on a veterinarian to avoid causing emotional distress to the owner of the animal being treated, while not imposing such a duty on a doctor to the parents of a child receiving treatment."

The court also said that it recognized "the love and loyalty a dog provides creates a strong emotional bond between an owner and his or her dog.

"But given [that] California law does not allow parents to recover for the loss of companionship of their children, we are constrained not to allow a pet owner to recover for loss of companionship of a pet."

Dr. McClure said the decision is another victory for pet owners who depend on affordable care for their pet. He also explained that owners can already be fully compensated in these lawsuits.

"The current legal system already provides fair compensation to aggrieved pet owners. Owners can be fully compensated for their out-of-pocket expenses and for punitive damage awards where there is an intentional malicious act. These new damages are unnecessary to owners and harmful to pets."