Pet-property challenges put veterinary liability in focus

CURRENT BRIEF VERSION: A recent Veterinary Breakroom episode from Clinician’s Brief spotlighted two court decisions that, while not veterinary malpractice cases, could still affect the profession by testing the long-standing legal treatment of pets as property. One was DeBlase v. Hill, a June 17, 2025, New York trial-court ruling in Brooklyn that allowed a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim to move forward after a woman watched a driver kill a leashed family dog while she herself was in the “zone of danger.” In that narrow fact pattern, the court said a companion animal could be treated as “immediate family” for purposes of that claim, while also stressing that the ruling was limited and not aimed at veterinary care. The Breakroom discussion also pointed to a separate Michigan case involving a veterinarian convicted after taking a dog from an unhoused man because the vet believed the animal was being neglected—an example of how legal ownership, animal welfare concerns, and a veterinarian’s moral instincts can collide even outside malpractice law. (aglaw.psu.edu)

Why it matters: Veterinary groups are still treating the New York case as a warning sign. The New York State Veterinary Medical Society said expanding non-economic damages could erode the property framework around pets and eventually increase malpractice exposure, insurance costs, and barriers to care. AVMA took a similar position, arguing that broader emotion-based damages could raise the cost of veterinary medicine without improving outcomes for animals. The Michigan case raised a different but related concern discussed in the episode: veterinarians can find themselves caught between what feels ethically right for the patient and what the law recognizes about ownership and client rights. Industry coverage has also noted that the New York ruling is under appeal, which means the legal boundaries here are still unsettled. (nysvms.org)

What to watch: Watch the appeal in New York, and whether other courts or lawmakers try to expand narrow pet-related emotional distress rulings into broader claims involving veterinary services. It’s also worth watching for cases that test how far veterinarians can go when they believe an animal is being neglected but legal ownership is clear. (dvm360.com)