Helen Huang
Special Counsel
CTP Insurance, Insurance
Walkies! When are Dog Walking Services Treatment & Care?
2 June, 2025
In Brief
- Dog walking services constitutes an “attendant care services” within the meaning of section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) because dog walking is a domestic service of an everyday nature.
Facts
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in Forrest v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 206 on 30 May 2025.
The Claimant sustained injuries to his cervical spine, left shoulder, left arm, left hand and developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as result of a motor accident on 25 February 2020.
The Claimant requested the Insurer fund dog walking services.
Initially, the Insurer funded some dog walking services on a without prejudice basis.
However, after 3 September 2024, the Insurer declined to fund any further services because the request for dog walking was not considered treatment or care or attendant care services.
The Member’s Determination
The Member agreed that dog walking services are a form of treatment and care because they are a “domestic service” and, therefore, an “attendant care service” within the meaning of section 1.4 of MAIA.
The Member formed this view because:
- Dog walking services do not represent “personal assistance, nursing or home maintenance“ because “personal assistance” could cover things such as help with bathing, dressing and haircare and “home maintenance” could cover spot painting, minor home repairs, lawn and garden care and the like.
- A dog, however, is a part of the Claimant’s “household” and caring for a dog – including taking a dog for a walk – is an inherent part of a dog owner’s daily routine.
In doing so:
- The Member distinguished two Court of Appeal decisions which addressed the definition of “domestic services”. The Claimant’s circumstances did not involve the care of multiple animals for a hobby or for a small business, such as the case with the dogs and horses in the decision of Geaghan v D’Aubert [2002] NSWCA 260; (2002) 36 MVR 542 and/or the future care of 20 horses in Makaroff v Nepean Blue Mountains Hospital Health District [2019] NSWSC715.
- The Member affirmed that the word “everyday” used in the definition of attendant care is not restricted to tasks that are done everyday and therefore everyday tasks are tasks that are usual, mundane, normal or ordinary; BLI v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2024] NSWPIC 436.
- The Member accepted that dog walking does not need to be a domestic task that the Claimant was doing before the accident. The task may be something his wife or his family members may have done but because the wife and other family members now have no time to walk the dogs because they are busy with the other domestic tasks they are doing for the Claimant.
Any outstanding dispute regarding whether the dog walking services are reasonable and necessary and related to the injuries sustained in the accident, is a medical assessment matter.
Any outstanding dispute regarding the cost of the dog walking services is a merit review matter.
Why This Case is Important
This decision in Forrest demonstrates that the concept of “domestic services” within the definition of “attendant care services” extends to the care of domestic pets such as dogs and cats.
Notably, the same Member provided similar reasons when finding that the care of cats is an “attendant care service”. Our case note can be found here.
If you have a query relating to any of the information in this case note, or would like to discuss a similar matter of your own, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with CTP Insurance Special Counsel Helen Huang today.
