The Supreme Court of Texas is deliberating a case that could redefine responsibilities surrounding service animals. The case, Maurice N. Leibman, M.D. v. Cleveratta Waldroup and James Waldroup, Individually and As Next Friends of R.W., a Minor (No. 23-0317), centers on a gynecologist’s letter supporting a patient’s Pit Bull as a therapy dog and its connection to a restaurant attack that left a child severely injured.
The incident occurred when the dog, wearing a "service dog" vest, attacked a child at a restaurant. The victim’s family initially sued the dog’s owner but also pursued claims against the physician, alleging negligence and aiding and abetting. The letter provided by the gynecologist had helped the dog’s owner avoid eviction by asserting the animal was needed for generalized anxiety disorder.
The Texas Supreme Court granted a petition for review on September 27, 2024, following a decision by the Houston [1st] Court of Appeals, which ruled the claim against the doctor was not a health care liability claim. The appellate court found that the letter was directed toward avoiding eviction rather than delivering health care and that no identifiable safety or medical standards were breached to invoke Chapter 74 (Medical Liability).
If the Texas Supreme Court sides with the child’s family, the decision could potentially discourage medical professionals from approving emotional support or therapy animals out of fear of liability.
The case highlights broader concerns about the lack of government licensing or certification for service animals at both federal and state levels. Under Texas law, service animals are defined as those specifically trained to assist individuals with disabilities, but emotional support animals do not meet this definition.
The court’s decision could have significant implications for the future of service animal designations and medical liability in Texas.
