Disability Claim Found Bananas: Federal Judge Rules Bonnet Macaque Not A Service Animal

180px-Arun_image19There is an interesting decision out of Springfield, Missouri where federal judge Richard Dorr has ruled that a Bonnet Macaque named Richard is not a “service animal” under the Americans with Disabilities Act and his owner Debby Rose is not disabled.

Rose claimed that she needed Richard to deal with agoraphobia and anxiety disorder. Notably, Rose claimed that Richard was registered as a service animal and was “surgically altered” for that purpose:

Plaintiff claims the monkey received at least some training prior to when she acquired him, and also claims he was surgically altered as part of this “training” to reduce his aggressive Case 6:08-cv-03292-RED Document 140 Filed 10/21/09 Page 3 of 17 tendencies. Though Plaintiff alleges he received some training, she offers no examples of training specifically related to her disability prior to when she acquired him. After Plaintiff acquired the monkey, she was the only person to train it. Plaintiff claims the monkey performs various tasks related to her disability such as “break[ing] the spell,” “break[ing] off the focus,” “crowd control,” “chang[ing] the mood,” “designat[ing] when [she] ha[s] a change in [her] heart rate or blood pressure,” and “keep[ing] control of what [she’s] doing.”3 Plaintiff’s physician stated that the primary task the monkey performs for Plaintiff is that it “sits with” her to comfort her.

Notably, the court acknowledges that the definition of a service animal is pretty vague:

ADA statutes and regulations discuss the benefit of access with a service animal in terms of “modif[ications]” to policies and procedures. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). While the regulation specifically addressing service animals discusses a “public accommodation” making the modification to ADA statutes and regulations discuss the benefit of access with a service animal in terms of “modif[ications]” to policies and procedures. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). . . .
Under the ADA, “service animal” means “any guide dog, Case 6:08-cv-03292-RED Document 140 Filed 10/21/09 Page 11 of 17 signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. There are no requirements as to the amount or type of training that a service animal must undergo, nor the type of work or assistance that a service animal must provide, but the animal be trained to perform tasks or do work for the benefit of a disabled individual. Access Now, Inc. v. Town of Jasper, Tenn., 268 F. Supp. 2d 973, 980 (E.D. Tenn. 2003).

However, the health department and Walmart said that she could not bring the animal into restaurants and other locations. Dorr agreed and said that Richard’s presence in food locations violated health codes.

Door ruled that “[t]he vast majority of these “tasks” involve nothing more than the monkey providing comfort. An animal that simply provides comfort or reassurance is equivalent to a household pet.”

He further noted that, while Rose claimed to have suffered from these conditions since the 1970s, she was married three times, had children and worked at a variety of jobs and was not diagnosed until 2006.

This, however, means that we will not see the case where an agoraphobic person with a monkey service animal is confronted by a person with a monkey phobia.

For the opinion, click DO1450041022

For the full story, click here.

7 thoughts on “Disability Claim Found Bananas: Federal Judge Rules Bonnet Macaque Not A Service Animal”

  1. If buying him a comfort or service animal could have mitigated the damage he did I would have done it and considered it a bargain 🙂

  2. The current Federal Statute finalized in 2008 does not have restrictive language that excludes monkeys or an animals work to exclude the types of work at issue:

    http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#Anchor-36104

    From the Statute:
    (I’ll just cut and paste because the the lack of enumeration on a clause by clause basis makes it difficult to provide a numerical citation that makes it easy to find the specific language.)

    Sec.36.104 Definitions.

    (1) The phrase physical or mental impairment means —

    (ii) Any mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities;

    (iii) The phrase physical or mental impairment includes, but is not limited to, such contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, specific learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism;

    Service animal means any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling awheelchair, or fetching dropped items.
    ++++++

    This plaintiff may not have a good case for appeal because of the sketchy medical history and non-specialist diagnosis of her condition as well as the self-training of the monkey, but that doesn’t mean that the premise, a service animal being used specifically as a comfort animal, is not appropriate.

    She also seemed to weaken her own case by claiming that she took “Richard”, the monkey with her almost everywhere because he- Richard- needed constant care. If I was advising her I’d have maybe asked her if she took Richard with her because SHE needed constant comfort and encouraged her to phrase her taking Richard to Wal-Mart in that context… 🙂

  3. Door ruled that … “[t]he vast majority of these “tasks” involve nothing more than the monkey providing comfort. An animal that simply provides comfort or reassurance is equivalent to a household pet.”

    I don’t agree with that ruling. For some mental/emotional disabilities comfort in the above context may be an entirely appropriate treatment method to improve mood, provide comfort and focus an individual outward.

    see comment #5
    http://www.dredf.org/DOJ_NPRM/service_animals.shtml

    homepage of organization doing the response to the proposed DOJ changes:

    http://www.dredf.org/DOJ_NPRM/

    Next posting for the remaining links

  4. I guess she just won’t have bubbles to blow without her monkey in tow.

    Exactly what constitutes a service dog anymore? This like a lot of other things is abused and over used. I have heard the give em an inch and they will take a mile.

Comments are closed.