Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Physical Therapy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California PT board hears competing proposals to regulate physical therapy for animals
Summary
The Physical Therapy Board of California heard multiple presentations and public comment on whether and how to authorize physical therapists to treat animals, including national FSBPT model regulations and clinician testimony urging a statutory fix; veterinarians’ groups urged maintaining direct veterinary supervision.
The Physical Therapy Board of California spent a large portion of its Dec. 12 meeting on whether and how licensed physical therapists should be authorized to provide physical therapy to animal patients.
Advocates, including the Animal Physical Therapy Coalition, the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) and clinicians who practice under other states’ rules urged the board to seek statutory clarity in the board’s 2026 sunset review so California law recognizes animal physical therapy as a specialty of physical therapy when specific education, veterinary diagnosis and veterinary medical clearance or referral are satisfied. "If California does not act, wait lists will remain long," Karen Atlas, president of the Animal Physical Therapy Coalition, said during her presentation, urging the board to recommend legislative changes that preserve veterinary authority for diagnosis while allowing PTs to treat animals within a defined competency framework.
FSBPT task‑force members described model regulations the federation published this year. Leslie Adrian, FSBPT director of professional standards, told the board that "there are exactly 7 states that have specific language for animal physical therapy," and reviewed variations across states: some place oversight in veterinary statutes (Nevada, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and others), while Colorado and Utah place animal physical therapy in the PT practice act with specific education and supervised clinical hours. Adrian said the federation’s model regulations recommend board‑approved educational competencies (commonly proposed at about 100 didactic hours plus supervised clinical experience) and a competency assessment before independent practice.
Clinicians with experience under other states’ frameworks said those approaches eased access. Dr. Jenny Moe, who practiced under Nevada’s veterinary‑board model, said Nevada’s pathway allowed her to open a practice, serve clients in clinic and mobile settings and expand access: "Nevada allowed me to practice safely, transparently, and collaboratively," she said. Colorado clinicians also described decades of practice under a model that starts with veterinary clearance.
Veterinary organizations and speakers urged caution. Grant Miller, director of regulatory affairs for the California Veterinary Medical Association, told the board that his coalition opposes expanding PT scope to animals "without a requirement of direct veterinarian supervision," arguing available certification programs vary in rigor and that veterinarians must be able to provide emergency drugs and interventions on site. Miller said many existing certification courses are self‑study with open‑book exams and called for stricter minimum standards and supervision.
Board members and presenters repeatedly framed the question as one of statutory clarity and public protection: who diagnoses and grants medical clearance (advocates say this should remain the veterinarian), what minimum training and supervised experience demonstrates competency, and which board should hold primary regulatory authority. Proponents pointed to the 2025 FSBPT model practice act change explicitly recognizing animal physical therapy as part of the practice of physical therapy when additional education is completed; opponents pointed to existing California statutes that limit veterinarians’ referral authority and to regulatory and emergency‑preparedness differences between veterinary premises and other practice settings.
No board action was taken at the meeting to change statutes or regulations. The presentations and public comments were offered as information for the board ahead of the PTBC’s 2026 sunset review and any future legislative proposals. Several presenters recommended that the board, if it chooses, use the sunset process to recommend statutory language that (a) allows veterinary diagnosis/medical clearance, (b) grants PTBC authority to register or recognize trained PTs who meet board‑approved competencies, and (c) establishes clear complaint pathways for consumers and veterinarians.
Next steps: the item will inform the board’s participation in the 2026 sunset review and any subsequent legislative engagement; no regulatory change was approved at this meeting.
