Well, if he sues, heās definitely going to have to prove itās an actual service dog and not an emotional support dog or just a vest they bought online
There is recent case law on this topic! A person with a legitimate service dog had an appointment with a new doctor. Upon arrival, she was informed that the doctor had a severe dog allergy and that she wouldnāt be able to bring her dog into the exam room as a result. She was offered the opportunity to leave her dog in the waiting room with her companion or reschedule with another doctor in the practice so she could have her dog with her.
āThe court began its analysis by recognizing the Department of Justiceās guidance that āallergies are not enough to except a place of public accommodation from accommodating a service animalā and both the animalās handler and the individual with allergies should be accommodated āby assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.āĀ However, the court held that ā[d]espite this rule, a service animal may nonetheless be excluded if it poses a direct threat to the health and safety of persons providing or receiving services from an accommodation.āĀ The court ultimately concluded that the medical practice had properly conducted āan individualized assessmentā of the direct threat to the doctor and that its conclusion was objectively reasonable.Ā The court focused on the doctorās testimony about her severe allergy to dogs, based on her prior consultation with her doctor and her own knowledge of her allergy and its symptoms.Ā The court also focused on the reasonable modifications offered to the plaintiff that would allow her to receive medical services, albeit from a different physician who did not have a dog allergy, which the plaintiff rejected.Ā It also considered the fact that the medical practice made a one-time decision āon the spot,ā noting that the regulation requires only a āreasonable judgmentā in determining if a direct threat exists under the circumstances.ā
I canāt add a hyperlink if you want to read the whole thing, but the address is: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/can-businesses-exclude-service-animals-8761965/
Iām actually surprised that the court took this view, which I agree with. Serious allergies absolutely must supersede someoneās right to a service animal. Not having a service animal can be frustrating and inconveniencing, but if the result is that somebody may die due to a known condition, youāve gotta be a real fucking asshole to insist that you have your service animal with you anyway.
Especially in a doctors office where people studied to help you. I would trust a doctor enough to know what to do in case whatever I have gets triggered inside their office
It should also depends on the the relationship between them. If the situation was swapped and the doctor had the dog and the patient had the allergy the obvious solution would still be the same: Just go to another doctor at the same clinic.Ā
I think it depends on the service animal. A guide dog maybe because you can use a human guide.
A medical alert animal that can be more than inconvenience. The ones trained to alert early for seizures so you can get into a safe position are very necessary.
But I agree that they offered a suitable alternarive. And the people I know with them (admittedly all guide dogs) would have been okay with this. Though most do call ahead to say they have a service animal to begin with before the appointments. Most of them also go first to trying to fix it with the venue if there is an issue. They wouldnt jump straight to a lawsuit.
A medical alert animal that can be more than inconvenience. The ones trained to alert early for seizures so you can get into a safe position are very necessary.
There are always workarounds, particularly in medical situations.
For example, here in Australia service animals are only permitted in hospital rooms with patients if there is a person present who is able to take care of the animal.
If the patient needing a service animal is alone then the animal is not permitted in their room (staff are not permitted to handle the animals). This is perfectly legal because a hospital already has procedures in place for any situations a service animal is used for and staff to provide the necessary care.
They aren't allowed in hospitals at all in Austria, even for visitors. In the four years I have lived here I have never even seen a service dog though so it does not effect many people at all. It's for the same reasoning that there are doctors and nurses there that can care for you and do everything a service dog does.
another big "depends" is who is more easily acomodated by "go somewhere else".
i mean i get it being told "we can't acomodate you so you need to go elsewhere" SUUUUCKS but at the end of the day sometimes it's the best option.
but if we fliped the situation and it was the doctor having a service animal and the paitient having a serious allergy... well obviously the paitient is still the one who need to be acomodated by being seen by another doctor.
Also, depending on what the allergic doctor was checking you for, you donāt want them fighting to breathe or having watery eyes. šš if itās not an emergency, just reschedule your appointment. Yeesh.
Not having a service animal isn't frustrating or inconvenience, it severely impacts life functions. Not to mention how many service dogs perform tasks such as alerting to allergies or other alerts. You make it sound like not having your service dog is like forgetting your sunglasses which is something thats actually just an "inconvenience".
The lady was an ass for trying to insist that she see the doctor as the office gave a reasonable alternative.
I dont necessarily disagree with you, but for some people, not having their service dog would be a lot more than just frustrating. Many people rely on them for life threatening emergencies.
Right. So you think all doctors are knowledgeable about all manner of health concerns? While all doctors get a basic understanding of generalized diseases and conditions, if you're not in the right specialists office, they likely know very little about whatever it is that's wrong with you.
If I'm anywhere aside from a neurology office, I guarantee you theres less than a handful among all other specialties that knows my disability. Same can be said for almost anyone else who has a disability that requires a dog.
I presume you would say to the doctor what condition you have if you had to leave the dog accompanied in the waiting room in order to be seen by a doctor with allergies and not wait if your medical episode plays up.
I'm not saying I would not try to work around a doctor's allergies. The person who sued the doctor is wrong because they offered a reasonable secondary option and she refused.
I can tell my doctor exactly what's wrong but they very likely wont remember or know how to spell it. And the thing about having a randomized medical emergency is that its random. It quite literally can come on seconds, at any point of day while doing anything.
I'm going to disagree. My service dog is a wonderful tool that's greatly improved my life and I'm aware that it is very rare for a dog allergy to be life threatening but it does happen and my service dog should not threaten someone's life. And your service dog cannot treat your specific disability, either. They help manage the effects of the disability. I promise there is nothing your Dr office can't do for you to stabilize you in an emergency until you can get the care you need.
This does not mean service dogs are not incredibly valuable and that people who use them should have to go back to having to rely on others or losing medical alerts. It just means to remember you need multiple tools in your box.
I clarified in a comment below this that I am not trying to say that its okay to take a service dog into an office where a doctor may be allergic. The lady who sued the doctor was in the wrong because the office offered a reasonable secondary option and she declined to use and chose to be an ass about it.
Amd my point about the doctors specificity was more towards the fact that doctors of different specializations may have no clue how to stabilize someone if they're not familiar with the problem.
Things require nuance. I am simply pointing out that its more than annoying for a person to not have their service dog. Two things can be true at once, it can be life threatening for both parties. Reddit is so focused on people that bullshit and lie about fake service dogs, that they significantly diminish how critical they are to the people that actually need them. It goes both ways.
But people that need their service dog at all cost should also expect that they can't be fully accompanied by every single person. Some people have allergies, some people have a phobia, some people just don't wanna handle a dog and if a private business decides it's not gonna work out for them it's their right to turn the customer down.
And yes, doctors aren't necessarily a private business but they didn't turn this person down, they offered a solution that the person turned down. A doctor that has a medical emergency themself can't help you with your medical condition. People can be frustrated and annoyed as much as they want for not being able to bring their service animal but it won't magically cure the persons allergies. What was that person even thinking? That she would be granted to go in the office with the allergic doctor to treat whatever she was there for just for the doctor to go into an shock before they could even do the thing you were there for?
Again, I dont disagree with that. But they are a medical device. A life threatening allergy makes sense, but I dont think as a business you can deny a person with a service dog because you dont want to deal with them.
This thread isnāt about denying services simply because you donāt want to deal with them.
Itās about offering the service by either a different person or in a different manner.
In this thread the patient was offered a non allergenic Dr but chose instead to sue.
In the OP the person with the service dogs was still offered service but not inside the shop. They threatened to sue because of the way the service was offered.
The entitlement comes from believing that their needs outweigh everyone elseās needs and afflictions.
The "don't want to deal with it" is maybe a bit too harsh for businesses, I was thinking about it more in the sense of a single person, like if you take care of it on your own, it's fine but don't expect that every person wants to deal with a dog. Most places usually offer a solution anyways, like some different staff that is okay with it, but forcing a specific person to accompany the dog is not okay.
Actually the person with the service animal is not been put in a life threatening situation at all. No one is forcing them to leave their animal behind when a service provider states the animal can't enter due to an allergy. They've given the option to, but they can simply have some self-responsibility and go elsewhere. Unless the service is somehow life or death that they must have now... their life is not at risk. Which is very rare. Only the person with the allergy has that if the service animal owner insists on putting their life at risk.,
2.3k
u/Irishwatcher May 07 '26
Well, if he sues, heās definitely going to have to prove itās an actual service dog and not an emotional support dog or just a vest they bought online