Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Physical Therapy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veterinary Medical Board opposes AB 1458 on animal physical therapy, citing enforcement and scope concerns
Summary
The board voted to oppose AB 1458, a bill that would authorize licensed human physical therapists meeting specific training requirements to provide animal physical therapy with certain supervision or referral structures; staff warned the bill creates enforcement gaps and leaves responsibility with the Physical Therapy Board rather than the VMB.
The California Veterinary Medical Board voted to oppose Assembly Bill 1458 after hearing staff analysis and extensive public comment from stakeholder groups on both sides.
AB 1458 would amend the Physical Therapy Practice Act to authorize licensed physical therapists who meet specified education, training and experience requirements to provide animal physical therapy. The bill would require notification to the Physical Therapy Board, allow services under two supervisory/referral frameworks (direct supervision at a registered veterinary premises or by referral with an active practice agreement), and impose licensing and disciplinary provisions that the bill says would make the physical therapist solely liable for delegated animal physical therapy tasks.
Board staff raised logistical and enforcement concerns: the bill does not require either the Physical Therapy Board or the Veterinary Medical Board to license or register animal‑practicing physical therapists, making proactive verification and enforcement difficult. Staff said the statutory language would convert many unlicensed practice complaints into matters primarily handled by the Physical Therapy Board and could leave the Veterinary Medical Board without authority to discipline or register those providers even though the services are provided to animals. Members also flagged unclear requirements for animal facility standards and for how the boards would exchange disciplinary information.
Speakers from the Animal Physical Therapy Coalition and individual physical therapists urged the board to support AB 1458, saying Colorado and other states use similar frameworks to expand access while preserving veterinary oversight. The California Veterinary Medical Association and several veterinarians opposed the bill, arguing it intrudes on the practice of veterinary medicine and raises public‑safety and zoonosis concerns.
After public comment and board discussion, a motion to oppose AB 1458 carried on a roll call vote. Staff will convey the board’s concerns to the author’s office and legislative staff if requested.
Ending: The board opposed AB 1458 based on enforceability and scope-of-practice concerns but noted willingness from some stakeholders to continue working on clarifying amendments.
