California hearing examines how nonveterinarians provide animal medical care, with sharp divisions on supervision and access

SACRAMENTO — The California Senate’s Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee held an informational hearing on animal medical care by allied practitioners, where state regulators, veterinarians and allied‑health providers outlined competing models for training, supervision and premises rules.

Chair Ashby opened the session saying the hearing was intended to “listen, learn, and understand the evolving model of animal medical care,” and speakers from Nevada, Kentucky and multiple California licensing boards described how other states regulate nonveterinarians who work on animals.

The Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) and allied‑health boards described a system in California that allows human‑trained chiropractors and physical therapists to treat animal patients under veterinary supervision, while allied providers and some certified chiropractors and physical therapists urged wider direct access for certified practitioners.

“The protection of the public shall be the highest priority for the board,” Jessica Seiferman, executive officer of the California Veterinary Medical Board, told senators, quoting the state’s business and professions code as a guide for regulators. Seiferman said California already permits chiropractors to perform musculoskeletal manipulation on animals and allows veterinary assistants — including physical therapists acting under a veterinarian’s direction — to provide rehabilitation when a veterinary client‑patient relationship (VCPR) is in place.

Kentucky and Nevada licensing officials described other approaches. Michelle Shane, executive director of the Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners, described Kentucky’s AAHP (Allied Animal Health Professional) framework, in which the veterinary board licenses and sets practice limits for specified allied roles and requires strict training, title protections and continuing education. Jennifer Pedego, executive director of the Nevada Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, said Nevada licenses animal chiropractors, animal physical therapists and equine dental providers under regulation and requires a veterinary‑client‑patient relationship and medical record exchange when allied providers treat animals.

Regulatory and enforcement questions dominated much of the discussion. California’s physical therapy and chiropractic boards told the committee they do not currently track which licensees treat animals. Jason Kiser, executive officer of the Physical Therapy Board of California, described PT licensure and certification requirements for human practice and said physical therapists who treat animals in California are treated as veterinary assistants and are subject to veterinary laws. Kristen Walker, executive officer of the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners, said animal chiropractic sits in a regulatory gray area because the chiropractic act is silent on animal care; the VMB’s regulation permits musculoskeletal manipulation on animals under direct veterinary supervision.

Providers and certification bodies described their training standards and certification exams. Representatives of the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association (AVCA/ABCA) said AVCA‑approved basic programs typically provide a minimum 210 hours of coursework and that AVCA certification requires passing written and practical exams and recertifying every three years with continuing education. The Canine Rehabilitation Institute (CRI), a widely used post‑graduate program for veterinarians, physical therapists and veterinary technicians, reported about 2,000 graduates and said 180 Californians have completed its credential (103 veterinarians, 46 physical therapists and 31 veterinary technicians).

Practitioners who testified said California’s current requirement that allied providers operate inside veterinary premises and under a VCPR limits access to care. Karen Atlas, a physical therapist and president of the Animal Physical Therapy Coalition, said California has roughly 9.4 million dogs and more than 200,000 horses but only a small number of clinicians providing broad access. Atlas urged lawmakers to allow veterinarians discretion to refer to trained PTs and to permit PTs to practice in alternative or mobile settings, arguing the change would expand access without reducing protections.

Some animal chiropractors and PTs described legal and licensing hurdles. Several chiropractors recounted difficulty finding veterinarians willing to provide the required on‑site supervision, higher costs for clients when visits require a supervising veterinarian, and enforcement actions they said were based on advertising or premises issues rather than patient harm. “Please say no to veterinary monopolies and regulatory capture,” Karen Atlas told the committee, urging more collaborative models.

Veterinarians and some veterinary rehabilitation specialists urged caution. Woodland Veterinary Hospital co‑owner Dr. Keith Roady and other veterinarians described four operational models already in use — veterinarians providing rehab themselves; contracted animal‑trained veterinarians working independently in a VCPR; registered veterinary technicians with additional rehabilitation certification working under indirect supervision; and human chiropractors or PTs working under direct veterinary supervision at a veterinary premise. Dr. Nicolette Bertolone, a veterinarian and canine rehabilitation therapist, described a case in which a dog’s muffled gagging noise revealed a life‑threatening gastric dilatation‑volvulus that required immediate veterinary intervention; she argued a veterinarian’s presence and primary diagnosis can be lifesaving.

Committee members and state board officials repeatedly raised enforcement and public‑safety questions: how consumers should file complaints; whether malpractice insurance covers nonveterinary providers; whether supervision should be direct (veterinarian physically on site) or indirect (communication and documented oversight without on‑site presence); and how to ensure that all providers treating animals meet baseline training and continuing‑education standards. Several licensees and board officials said that when problems occur in supervised settings, the veterinarian on site typically manages the emergency, which may mean harms are underreported to licensing boards.

No legislation was proposed or voted on during the hearing; the session was informational. Sponsors and several panelists said they plan follow‑up work to gather more data about other states’ regulatory models, complaint histories, insurance claims and measurable patient outcomes.

The committee heard more than two dozen speakers over the day, including state licensing officials, veterinarians from UC Davis and private practice, representatives of certification programs and dozens of licensed chiropractors, physical therapists and veterinary rehabilitation specialists who described clinical training, business obstacles and demand for services. Several panelists and public commenters urged legislators to craft narrowly written statutory language that would allow certified, insured practitioners to practice with clearer supervision rules; others urged retaining the VMB’s current requirements for premises and veterinary oversight.

The hearing ended with senators and board representatives agreeing to continue information‑sharing with counterparts in other states and national organizations to collect clearer data on outcomes, complaints and regulatory results before advancing policy changes.