Peter Hunt
Principal
CTP Insurance, Insurance
What’s Up, Pussy Cat? Is Pet Care a Treatment Expense?
12 May, 2025
In Brief
- Pet care can constitute an “attendant care service” within the meaning of section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) because caring for a pet is a domestic service of an everyday nature.
- Care of animals kept as a hobby or as part of a commercial operation, however, may fall into a different category.
Facts
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in Chowdhury v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 167 on 9 May 2025.
The Claimant was involved in a motor accident on 11 November 2024. He sustained a fractured right ankle and a left wrist injury.
The Claimant subsequently sought to recover the cost of caring for his three cats as a treatment expense within the statutory benefits regime in Part 3.4 of MAIA. The care included feeding the cats, changing the litter tray and filling the cats’ water bowl.
The Insurer declined to meet the cost of the Claimant’s pet care on the grounds that that kind of care did not fall within the definition of “treatment and care” in s 1.4 of MAIA
Following an unsuccessful application for internal review, the Claimant lodged a dispute in the Commission.
Relevant Definitions
Section 3.24 of the MAIA states, in general terms, that an injured person is entitled to statutory benefits for treatment and care provided to the injured person, provided the treatment and care is reasonable and necessary and related to the injuries sustained in the motor accident.
Section 1.4 of MAIA provides a definition of “treatment and care“, which includes an exhaustive list of eleven types of treatment and care. One of those items is “attendant care services“.
Section 1.4 of MAIA defines “attendant care services” as “services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks, and includes (for example) personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance and domestic services“.
The Member’s Decision
The Member found that care of the Claimant’s three cats fell within the definition of “attendant care services” and, therefore, within the definition of “treatment and care“, for the following reasons:
- Providing food and water to a cat is “an everyday task“.
- Emptying a litter box is not necessary, literally, every day, but is an “everyday task” in the sense that it is ordinary or commonplace.
- An item is an “attendant care service” if it can be characterised as one of the four examples of “attendant care service” in the definition: namely, “personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance [or] domestic services“.
- Given that the Claimant’s cats where part of his household at the time of his accident, care of those cats can be characterised as a “domestic service“.
- As such, the pet care services sought by the Claimant are services which aim to assist him with domestic services of an everyday nature and are, therefore, “attendant care services“.
Any outstanding dispute regarding whether the pet care 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 pet care services is a merit review matter.
Why This Case is Important
The decision in Chowdhury clarifies that pet care can constitute an “attendant care service” and, therefore, “treatment and care” within the meaning of s 1.4 of MAIA.
We suggest, however, that there is a distinction between pets which are part of the Claimant’s household and animals which are kept as a hoppy or as part of a commercial operation.
For example, a dog breeder may be able to recover the cost of caring for a dog which lives in their house and/or sleeps in their bed. Whether they can recover the cost of caring for dogs which are kept in an external kennel for the purpose of exhibiting at dog shows and/or breeding another generation of show dogs (some of which might be offered for sale) is another matter. We submit that animals kept for a hobby or as a part of a commercial operation are not – depending on the facts – part of the Claimant’s household and their care is not a domestic service.
The inability to care for animals which are maintained as a hobby may have some relevance to a claim for non-economic loss. The cost of caring for animals which are part of a commercial operation may be relevant to a claim for economic loss.
If you would like to discuss this case note, please don’t hesitate to get in touch withCTP Insurance Principal Peter Hunt today.
