Who Ruled the Dogs Out? Review Panel Finds Pet Care Is Not “Treatment or Care”

In Brief

• Section 3.24 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) only permits a claimant to recover expenses which constitute treatment or care.
• Section 1.4 of MAIA defines what constitutes “treatment and care“.
• Section 1.4 of MAIA provides separate definitions of “attendant care services” and “rehabilitation” which are two subsets of “treatment and care“.
• Pet care, as a general concept, does not constitute an “attendant care service” because “domestic services” does not extend to the care of pets.
• Pet care, again as a general concept, does not constitute “rehabilitation” because caring for pets is not part of a process which enables a claimant to maximise their independent living or their full participation in all aspects of life.
• A claimant may not, therefore, recover the cost of looking after pets as a “treatment and care” expense.

Facts

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in Irani v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 832 on 7 November 2025.

The Claimant was injured in a motor accident on 5 April 2022. He subsequently claimed the cost of dog walking and washing from the Insurer. The Claimant argued that the costs of caring for his dogs was a treatment expense and, therefore, a statutory benefit payable pursuant to s 3.24 of MAIA.

A PIC Member subsequently conducted a Miscellaneous Assessment and concluded that “emotional or therapy animals fall within the definition of `rehabilitation’ and are, therefore, a form of treatment within the meaning of s 1.4 of the Act“.

Once that determination was made, a reasonable and necessary dispute proceeded to a Medical Assessor for assessment. The Medical Assessor concluded that the cost of caring for the dogs was not reasonable and necessary because the dogs in question where not therapy animals or trained therapy dogs.

The Claimant successfully sought referral to the Review Panel.

The Review Panel’s Reasons

What was the Scope of the Dispute?

The medical dispute before the Review Panel was limited to the Insurer’s liability for dog walking and dog washing services for the following reasons:

• A “medical dispute” means a dispute between a claimant and an insurer about a “medical assessment matter” (Mandoukos v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2024] NSWCA 71).
• The notice of decision made by the Insurer was limited to its liability for ongoing dog walking and dog washing services.
• The Claimant had only sought an internal review of the Insurer’s decision regarding those services.

Given that the dispute between the parties was limited to the Insurer’s liability for dog walking and dog washing services, the broader dispute regarding whether the presence of pets constitutes treatment (or care) was not part of the medical dispute before the Review Panel.

Did the Claimant’s psychological injury cause a need for dog walking and washing services?

Based on the medical evidence, the Review Panel concluded that:

• The Claimant’s psychological injury did not prevent the Claimant from washing his dogs.
• The Claimants psychological injury did not prevent the Claimant from walking his dogs, even though that meant leaving the grounds of his home, given that there was evidence that the Claimant was able to leave home for other purposes.

It followed that neither the need for dog walking nor dog washing services was related to any injuries the Claimant sustained in the accident.

Is Dog Washing or Dog Walking a Treatment Expense?

Having determined the medical dispute between the parties, the Medical Review Panel added that pet care, as a general concept, does not fall within the definition of “treatment and care” in s 1.4 of the MAIA.

The Review Panel gave the following reasons:

• Neither dog washing nor dog walking are rehabilitation because they are not part of a process which enables the Claimant to attain and maintain the maximum level of independent living.
• Neither dog washing nor dog walking are an attendant care service because they do not constitute personal assistance, nursing or home maintenance or domestic services.
• Neither dog washing nor dog walking constitute “domestic services” – being a sub-set of “attendant care services” – given the decision in Geaghan v D’Aubert [2002] NSWCA 260, where the Court of Appeal held that domestic care does not extend to the care of domestic pets. The Review Panel recognised that the decision in Geaghan concerned a claimed for damages but observed that it provided guidance to the Panel as to the scope of the term “domestic services“.

Are the Dogs Themselves a Treatment or Care?

As noted above, the Review Panel concluded that the medical dispute between the parties was limited to dog walking and dog washing because only the request for dog washing and dog walking were the subject of the Insurer’s decision and only the request for dog washing and dog walking proceeded to internal review.

The Review Panel considered, nonetheless, whether the dogs themselves were a form of treatment or care.

The Review Panel concluded they were not, for the following reasons:

• Dogs (or, presumably, other pets) are not “attendant care services” because they do not constitute services that aim to provide assistance to the Claimant with everyday tasks and are not personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance or domestic services.
• Dogs (and other pets) are not “rehabilitation” because they do not enable the Claimant (or attempt to enable the Claimant) to attain and maintain the maximum level of independent living, and full physical, mental, social and vocational ability and the full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life.
• Dogs (and other pets) do not fall within any of the other types of treatment and care listed in the definition.

In coming to this conclusion, the Review Panel noted that:

• There was no evidence that the Claimant’s dogs played any role beyond enjoyment and companionship.
• The dogs did not improve the Claimant’s psychological state in a manner consistent with their presence being treatment.
• The dogs were not trained therapy dogs and did not serve any therapeutic function.
• The dogs did not assist the Claimant to live independently or to participate in all aspects of life.
• The role the dogs had after the accident was no different from the role the dogs had before the accident.

The Review Panel’s Certificate

For the above reasons, the Review Panel certified that:

• For the purpose of s 3.24 of MAIA, the claimed dog washing and dog walking expenses are not “treatment and care“.
• The claimed dog washing and dog walking expenses do not relate to the psychological injury caused by the motor accident.

Why This Case is Important 

The Review Panel in Irani determined that:

• Pet care services – such as dog walking and dog washing – are not “treatment and care” primarily on the basis that “domestic services” does not include pet care.
• Animals kept as ordinary pets are also, in themselves, not “treatment and care” because they fall within neither the definition of “rehabilitation” nor the definition of “attendant care services“.

Somewhat serendipitously, similar issues were argued before the Supreme Court as recently as 5 November 2025.

In Chowdhury v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 167, the claimant alleged that her injuries prevented her from providing food and water to her cats and from cleaning their litter tray.

A PIC Member found that pet care can constitute an “attendant care service” because caring for a pet is a domestic service of an everyday nature.

The PIC Member was well aware that the Court of Appeal had held in Geaghan that a claim for domestic gratuitous services, under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, did not extend to pet care. The Member stated, however, that Geaghan (and other related cases) concerned the award of lump sum damages in claims made under a previous motor accident compensation scheme and that “care must be taken in attempting to apply legal principles relevant to damages to a scheme of defined and prescribed benefits“.

The Insurer applied for judicial review of the Member’s decision in Chowdhury and the Hearing took place just last week.

It is not yet known when the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Chowdhury. It is, however, greatly anticipated because it is likely to provide guidance not only on whether pet care can be claimed as a treatment expense but may also provide guidance on when precedent decisions made in a damages claim under a prior scheme may be applied to the statutory benefits scheme in Part 3 of MAIA.

If you would like to discuss this case note, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with CTP Practice Group Leader Peter Hunt today.

Additional McCabes Resources

• MC PIC Decision of the Week
• MC MAIA Toolkit
• The Proper Lookout Podcast
• MC Ready Reckoner