Pets are entitled to telemedicine appointments with their veterinarians just like humans. That’s according to a group of veterinarians and pet owners who have sued the state in federal court in an attempt to permanently permit remote medical appointments for animals even after the pandemic ends.
“We think it's pretty straightforward,” said Bruce Wagman, attorney for the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). “The veterinarians are trying to speak. The veterinarian medical board is targeting their speech by preventing them from speaking and there’s no question that telemedicine is the way everybody is speaking.”
The San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals filed their lawsuit, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, against Jessica Sieferman in her official capacity as executive officer of the California Veterinary Medical Board on May 3 in the Eastern District of California.
“We want a declaratory judgment that states the restriction on telemedicine for pets is illegal and that it’s a violation of the First Amendment,” Wagman told the Southern California Record.
During the pandemic, one small aspect of California Code Regulation Title 16 § 2032.1 was waived, which permitted remote visits for new medical conditions for pet patients who had a pre-existing veterinarian relationship. The current 60-day telemedicine waiver, issued by the California Veterinary Medical Board through the Department of Consumer Affairs, was renewed on April 30 and is expected to expire on June 30. Plaintiffs want remote visits to be allowed permanently even for new pet patients and those who may have developed medical conditions that were previously non-existent.
“The medical board has indicated that they don't intend to continue extending these waivers beyond the ‘state of emergency' and no one knows when that date is,” said Brandy Kuentzel, in-house general counsel for the San Francisco Society SPCA. “It’s unusual and difficult for planning purposes to wait for the last day to find out if the waiver will be renewed.”
States that allow telemedicine for pets include Michigan, Oklahoma, and Virginia, according to media reports.
“For this case, it is 100% from the San Francisco SPCA perspective about trying to build this community safety net to serve as many animals and people as possible and telemedicine, we believe, is a remedy for expanding the quality of veterinary care throughout our state and to the extent that we are unable to do so then some people and pets will suffer,” Kuentzel told the Southern California Record.
A Banfield Pet Hospital study found in 2020 that some 75 million American pets may not have access to care from a veterinarian by 2030 due to a growing shortage of veterinarians.
“This case is about pets and people,” said Wagman who cares for eight dogs of his own. “We’re trying to help them both and prevent them from suffering. The Veterinary Medical Board is forcing that suffering by maintaining this archaic and restrictive regime.”
The complaint, signed by Latham & Watkins Attorney Robert J. Ellison, alleges the following counts of constitutional violations.
Violations of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
“Pet owners and veterinarians are restricted in a few ways and the most important way is that a new client, somebody who's never spoken to a veterinarian about their pet, cannot call the veterinarian for advice or an opinion over the phone or zoom if they have never seen the veterinarian in-person and it’s a violation of the First Amendment the fact that they cannot have that call,” Wagman said.
Violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“The problem here is that if you're a human medical doctor for a six-month-old baby who can't speak, that baby's mom can call up the doctor and get telemedicine advice over the phone,” Wagman noted. “But, if you're the mom of a six month old dog or even a 6 year old dog, you can't and while there's obviously a difference between the patients, that's an equal protection violation.”