More news about Springfield MO woman with monkey: Therapy or service animal status is main point in question

I’ve previously written here about
Debby Rose,
The Springfield, Missouri woman with a real monkey of a problem.

Rose has agoraphobia and a panic disorder and travels with a monkey at her side, which she claims is a service animal. She made national news headlines last year when the local health department sent 1,000 letters to local businesses, instructing them that her monkey is considered a therapy animal, and not a service animal as Rose has contended, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Director of Health said that by that definition, businesses and establishments governed by the ADA do not have to admit Rose with her monkey named Richard. He stated that the monkey’s presence would violate food and health codes. Rose argued that point in a well-publicized effort, but I’d not heard any more on this matter until recently.

There’s been some news lately on Rose’s on-going battle with the Springfield-Grene County Health Department.

She is challenging the health department’s assertion in court. Just this week,
Rose filed a civil suit
against not only the health department, but also Wal-Mart and Cox Health, where she attempted to attend nursing school

She contends that the letters sent out by the health department stopped her from going to public places, but also denied her from getting an education.

Many businesses quit letting Rose and Richard in after the health department sent out the letters to ban the monkey because of food and health codes.

Rose says she was stopped before she could go into the Wal-Mart on Kansas Expressway.

Rose says, “A manager walked in with the letter in his hand laughing saying you’re not getting in here.”

Rose says she and Richard can’t go anywhere that serves food including her daughter’s soccer game, Wal-Mart and even nursing school at Cox Health.

One of the biggest sticking points that the health department cites is the lack of training for the monkey. Even though Rose asserts that Richard is registered as an assistance animal with three different organizations, and is even a required restriction for her driver’s license, she has not convinced the health director of any formal training process that her animal assistant has undergone.

I’m just wondering about that little matter of that driver’s license restriction, wherein Rose says she was told by the state licensing agency that she could not drive without her “service animal due to her disability.” If that is found as a credible and valid point, will that validate Rose’s case?

This matter again brings to light the important legal difference between a therapy animal and assistance animal under the ADA. It also illustrates the reason why colleges and universities need to be proactive in developing a service animal policy.

University of Rochester case seeking to redefine term "Service Animal"

I have previously written here about how important it is for colleges and universities to act proactively and have a service animal policy in place. This policy should note the characteristics that differentiate a service animal from a therapy animal. The reason for posting about this today are some recent news articles and internet postings I’ve come across. I’ll discuss one of these on this post and write more very shortly.

A University of Rochester student filed a lawsuit on Oct. 1 to
have her Labrador retriever live with her in her dorm
and also Accompany her on campus. She has supplied some medical documentation as well as also supporting documents from dog trainers, but the university has denied her request, stating that she is neither disabled nor her dog a service animal. The comment by the UR Dean implies that they feel her dog is a pet and not a service animal.

In the article linked above, you might note two of the very credible sources the reporter sought out for their perspectives on this matter. First, there is
Jane Jarrow,
a name widely recognized and respected in disability service circles. Secondly, the reporter also sought input from the president of
Guide Dog Users Inc.,
an affiliate organization of the
American Council of the Blind,
one of the two major national blind consumer organizations. Both Jane Jarrow and GDUI are established and credible resources about service dogs and where they fall in under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

One other source cited in the article raises an issue of its own. You will notice the Psychiatric Service Dog Society (PSD) is presented as a respected and established organization. I’ll hand it to the organization. I’ve not heard of them prior to this article, but when checking out
the PSD web site,
the organization certainly appears legit. Additionally, the PSD Board of Directors is impressive and well credentialed. While we may not have heard of this group previously, I’ve got a feeling that we’ll be seeing a lot more from them in the future as well as people fighting to have accessibility with their psychiatric service dog.

Getting back to the original case, because I have no knowledge of the student’s claims or the documentation presented, I will not take a stand on this matter. However, her case serves to illustrate the need once again to have these important policies in place before facing these kinds of situations.