As psychiatric assistance dogs become more widely recognised in legal, clinical and community settings, questions are emerging about whether their cost may be recoverable as part of a damages claim. We examine the distinction between support animals and assistance dogs, recent Queensland case law, and the evidence likely to be required to establish such expenses as reasonable, necessary and connected to rehabilitation.
A changing landscape
Legislation requiring personal injury insurers to fund reasonable medical treatment and rehabilitation deliberately avoids prescribing an exhaustive list of approved treatments. This allows new and emerging therapies to be considered where supported by appropriate medical evidence. Against a backdrop of growing acceptance of assistance and therapy dogs in legal, healthcare and community settings, the question arises: can a psychiatric assistance dog form part of an injured person’s reasonable treatment and rehabilitation needs?
Animals can provide comfort, routine and emotional support, particularly during periods of distress. As a society, we have also become increasingly accustomed to seeing support and therapy dogs in public settings, including on trains, in shopping centres and even in courts.
In October 2025, a yellow labrador named Leo was sworn in as an officer of the court at the Brisbane Federal Circuit and Family Court. Leo’s role is to support vulnerable witnesses while they give evidence. The initiative was undertaken by the Family Law Practitioners Association and the Queensland Law Society. Similar programs have been introduced in Melbourne, Sydney, Parramatta, Hobart and Adelaide, where trained support dogs assist vulnerable witnesses in the court system.
Some medico-legal practitioners have also introduced therapy dogs into assessments to help reduce claimants’ anxiety. Dr Lucas Murphy, a psychiatrist who provides medico-legal reports for insurers and Claimants alike, introduced Bonnie in October 2025 as Australia’s first independent medical examination therapy dog. Dr Murphy has considered Bonnie’s role in his assessments and, more broadly, the potential role of therapy dogs within the therapeutic relationship. We have even had the honour of meeting Bonnie at one of Dr Murphy’s presentations and giving her a scratch behind the ears.
Can a psychiatric assistance dog constitute rehabilitation?
Against that background, will personal injury insurers be required to accept whether a psychiatric assistance dog is appropriate as part of an injured person’s treatment or rehabilitation?
In Australia, WorkSafe Victoria has published an Assistance Dog Services Policy, which sets out guidelines for when an assistance animal may be funded and the requirements that must be met. The policy draws a clear distinction between an assistance dog, such as one used by a person who is vision or hearing impaired, and a service dog used by a person with a physical or neurological disability. WorkSafe Victoria will consider funding an assistance dog where the criteria are satisfied, but it does not presently fund service dogs. Notably, the policy does not reject service dogs because they are legally invalid. Rather, it states that they are not presently funded because the clinical evidence base is considered insufficient, particularly for PTSD and other psychological conditions.
Queensland has no equivalent published exclusion policy. In the absence of a policy expressly excluding psychiatric assistance dogs, a worker could potentially argue that:
- the dog constitutes rehabilitation;
- a treating psychiatrist considers it medically necessary;
- it improves functional capacity;
- it facilitates a return to work; and
- it reduces long-term treatment costs.
Queensland legislation does not restrict treatment to “conventional” modalities or expressly exclude assistance dogs. Where treating specialists provide evidence that a psychiatric assistance dog is a necessary component of rehabilitation, improves functional capacity and assists return to work, an insurer should assess the request on its merits including whether empirical evidence and peer review studies support the modality. Refusing a request solely because the treatment is unconventional, without considering the relevant evidence, may be inconsistent with the legislation’s rehabilitation objectives.
Assistance dog or support animal? What constitutes an assistance dog?
In Jackson v Ocean Blue Queensland Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QCAT 23, QCAT considered whether Muffin, a dog obtained by Mrs Jackson to assist with depression and anxiety, was an assistance dog rather than merely a therapy or support dog for the purposes of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Although Mrs Jackson’s request to keep Muffin in rented accommodation had been refused, the Tribunal held that a dog need not be trained by an accredited body to qualify as an assistance dog; the key question is whether it has been trained to perform tasks or behaviours that assist a person with disability. As Muffin had completed relevant training and was trained to respond to Mrs Jackson’s distress or anxiety by providing distraction and comfort, the Tribunal found Muffin fell within the definition of an assistance dog and awarded Mrs Jackson general damages for direct and indirect discrimination.
Damages claims and assistance dogs
In Tipping v Meas (by his litigation guardian Adcock) [2026] ACTCA 12, the Court overturned an allowance for pet ownership and personal training costs. The Plaintiff as an infant had suffered a permanent brain injury after a motor vehicle accident. The Court held that the claimed expenses were impractical and did not strictly constitute compensable medical needs. However, the Court accepted that such damages were legally possible in principle; the claim failed on the evidence because the Plaintiff lacked the practical capacity to care for the animal. Chief Justice McCallum observed that a Plaintiff with different circumstances may well succeed in claiming an assistance dog.
There are, however, limitations on claiming the cost of an assistance dog as future special damages. First, Courts are unlikely to accept that companionship alone justifies damages. Secondly, a “support animal” and an “assistance animal” occupy different legal positions. That distinction is likely to become increasingly important as Plaintiffs seek compensation for animal-related supports.
The cost question: future care and reasonableness
Estimating the cost of obtaining, training and maintaining an assistance dog may be difficult and expensive. Historically, the reasoning in Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563 encouraged Courts to balance therapeutic benefit against financial cost. More recently, Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34 altered the assessment of future care expenses. Stewart rejects the balancing exercise in Sharman and instead asks whether the expenditure is objectively reasonable in addressing the consequences of the injury.
Under the previous approach, the expense of an assistance dog may have been criticised as disproportionate. Following Stewart, the focus is more likely to be whether the evidence demonstrates that the expenditure is objectively reasonable (not just based on the subjective performance of the injured person) and directed to the consequences of the injury.
Where to from here?
The question of whether a personal injury insurer can be required to fund a psychiatric assistance dog as reasonable medical treatment therefore remains open and will be a fact-specific exercise, also with reference to medical studies. Recent developments in the law, disability support and community expectations may create a pathway for such claims to become more common. Ultimately, a well-supported application is likely to turn on the specific medical evidence and the test of the relevant legislation as to whether the expense is reasonable, necessary and connected to rehabilitation, rather than on any blanket rule excluding assistance dogs.
Written by Jemma Stutz, Associate
