Legal challenges test how courts view pets, and vets are watching

A new Veterinary Breakroom discussion from Clinician’s Brief is zeroing in on a question that has been simmering in animal law for years: are pets still just property in the eyes of the law, or is that framework starting to crack? The conversation was prompted by at least two recent cases with very different facts but a shared implication for veterinary medicine. One is a June 2025 New York trial-court ruling, DeBlase v. Hill, that let a plaintiff seek emotional distress damages after witnessing her leashed dog being killed by a driver. The other is a Michigan case in which veterinarian Amanda Hergenreder was convicted in September 2025 of misdemeanor larceny after she refused to return a dog to a man experiencing homelessness. In the Veterinary Breakroom episode, the hosts said they believed one case was under appeal and the other had effectively been put off indefinitely, underscoring that the legal story is still developing. (law.justia.com)

What links them is not the legal theory, but the pressure they put on long-standing assumptions about animals’ status. In most U.S. jurisdictions, companion animals are still treated as personal property for damages purposes, even as lawmakers and courts have carved out exceptions that recognize their special role in families. The New York court itself noted that state law has already moved in that direction in some contexts, including divorce disputes, where courts must consider the “best interest” of a companion animal when awarding possession. That kind of legal evolution doesn’t automatically create new malpractice exposure, but it does give advocates and judges more material to work with when they’re asked to expand remedies. The Veterinary Breakroom hosts framed both cases as part of a wider trend toward treating pets more like family members under the law—and warned that this could open the door to emotional-loss claims against veterinarians. (law.justia.com)

The New York ruling is especially important because it came after unusually broad amicus participation from veterinary and pet industry groups. According to the court, amici supporting the defendant included the New York State Veterinary Medical Society, AVMA, AAHA, the American Kennel Club, the Cat Fanciers’ Association, the Animal Health Institute, the American Pet Products Association, and others. Their core argument was that pets are not “immediate family” under existing tort law, and that allowing emotion-based damages tied to a pet’s death could drive up the cost of veterinary and pet services, reduce access to care, and deter practical spectrum-of-care approaches. The court ultimately framed its ruling as narrow, limiting it to a scenario in which the plaintiff was physically present, tethered to the dog, and also endangered by the driver’s conduct. In the Breakroom discussion, the hosts said that, to their knowledge, this was the first time a judge had allowed an emotional distress claim after a dog’s death, and they highlighted the court’s especially striking language that the dog could be treated as an “immediate family member” in that narrow context. (law.justia.com)

That narrowness matters. In DeBlase, the court did not say pets are generally equivalent to children or human family members. Instead, it focused on the plaintiff’s own exposure to danger and the specific circumstances of the dog being leashed to her at the time of the collision. The Veterinary Breakroom hosts emphasized the same point: if the dog had not been attached to the owner, or if the owner had not also been in physical danger, the ruling likely would not have applied. Even so, the decision drew attention because it created a path, however limited, for non-economic recovery tied to harm involving a companion animal. NYSVMS has since warned members that even narrow rulings can become stepping stones for broader claims, particularly in a legal environment where plaintiffs are already testing emotional distress and companionship theories in animal cases. The hosts also pointed to another New York lawsuit as evidence of that broader testing: a lawyer sued the IRS seeking to classify pets as legal dependents for tax purposes, arguing that pets are financially and emotionally dependent on their owners like children, disabled family members, or elderly relatives. Courts pushed back there, but the case still illustrates how often these arguments are now being made. (law.justia.com)

The Michigan case raises a different legal fault line: who gets to decide what happens to an animal when welfare concerns and pet parent rights collide? AP reported that Hergenreder took in an elderly pit bull mix tied to a truck, treated significant medical issues, and then refused to return the dog to Chris Hamilton, who said the dog was his longtime companion. Hergenreder argued she was acting under her ethical duties as a veterinarian, but prosecutors treated the matter as straightforward theft because the dog legally belonged to Hamilton. She was convicted in September 2025, and AP later reported she was sentenced to 10 days in jail in November 2025. The Veterinary Breakroom episode added more texture to why the case resonated so strongly in the profession: the hosts described it as a morally fraught situation involving an older dog, alleged neglect, substantial veterinary care provided at the clinician’s own clinic, and the fact that the original owner then lost the chance to spend the dog’s final period of life with the animal. (apnews.com)

For veterinary teams, that case is a sharp reminder that moral conviction and legal authority aren’t always aligned. AVMA policy encourages veterinarians to report suspected animal abuse or neglect and supports immunity protections for good-faith reporting, but that is very different from unilaterally withholding an animal from a pet parent outside formal legal channels. The Veterinary Breakroom hosts explicitly framed the case as one where morality, professional ethics, and the law may point in different directions. They tied it to recurring questions in practice: Is pet ownership a right or a privilege? When duties to the patient and duties to the client conflict, where should a veterinarian’s priorities lie? In other words, one trend expands recognition of the bond between people and pets, while the other reinforces that the pet parent’s legal rights remain central unless the state intervenes. (avma.org)

Why it matters: These cases land at a difficult moment for the profession. Veterinary medicine already faces client conflict, affordability pressures, and mental health strain, and any legal expansion of non-economic damages could amplify all three. Industry groups argue that larger awards would likely mean higher malpractice premiums, more defensive practice, and fewer lower-cost care options. That concern is not just theoretical; it was spelled out directly in the amicus briefing and in NYSVMS’s member update after the Brooklyn ruling. At the same time, public expectations are plainly shifting. Courts, lawmakers, and pet parents increasingly resist treating companion animals as interchangeable property, especially in emotionally charged cases. The Veterinary Breakroom hosts made the point plainly: these were not direct veterinary malpractice cases, but the rulings still raise concerns for the veterinary community because they could influence how future claims against veterinarians are framed. Veterinary professionals may find themselves working in the middle of that shift, where documentation, informed consent, chain-of-custody decisions, and use of animal welfare reporting pathways become even more important. (law.justia.com)

What to watch: The immediate question is whether DeBlase v. Hill is appealed or cited by other courts, and whether legislatures revisit non-economic damages bills in response. More broadly, watch for continued friction between welfare-based arguments and property-based legal rules, especially in malpractice, custody, neglect-related disputes, and even adjacent efforts to secure family-style legal treatment for pets in other settings, such as tax law. Even if the law changes slowly, the practical message for clinics is already here: assume closer scrutiny of how your team handles emotionally fraught cases, and make sure the legal pathway for any intervention is as solid as the medical rationale. (nysvms.org)