By Garret DeReus, December 26, 2024

The 2013 case of Tamara v. El Camino Hospital established important precedent regarding service animals in psychiatric facilities. The case arose when El Camino Hospital refused to allow Abigayil Tamara, a 70-year-old woman with a disability, to keep her service dog Inglis with her during a stay in the hospital’s psychiatric ward.

Background of the Case

Tamara relied on Inglis for mobility assistance and balance due to physical disabilities stemming from back surgeries. The dog was trained to help her walk, retrieve items, open doors, and perform other essential tasks. When Tamara required hospitalization in December 2011, El Camino placed her in their psychiatric ward to monitor medication changes, even though her immediate needs were physical rather than psychiatric.

The hospital enforced a blanket policy prohibiting service animals in their Behavioral Health Units. Despite an order from Tamara’s treating psychiatrist to admit the dog, hospital staff refused, citing various concerns but never conducting an individualized assessment of any risks.

The Court’s Analysis

The federal district court found several key failures in the hospital’s approach:

• The hospital relied on generalized speculation about potential risks rather than conducting an individualized assessment
• Staff failed to consider reasonable accommodations that could have mitigated any legitimate concerns
• The hospital could not demonstrate that allowing the service animal would fundamentally alter the nature of their services
• El Camino’s blanket prohibition violated ADA requirements for case-by-case evaluation

Legal Requirements Discussed

The court’s decision reinforced that healthcare may be obligated to:

• Conduct individualized assessments of each service animal request
• Base decisions on current medical knowledge and objective evidence
• Consider specific circumstances rather than applying blanket policies
• Evaluate whether reasonable modifications could mitigate any legitimate risks
• Document concrete evidence of any direct threats to health or safety

The Outcome

The court granted Tamara’s request for a preliminary injunction, requiring El Camino to:

• Stop automatically excluding service animals from its Behavioral Health Units
• Conduct individualized assessments in accordance with ADA requirements
• Evaluate whether specific service animals pose direct threats that cannot be reasonably accommodated
• Consider modifications that could allow safe service animal access

Impact on Healthcare Policy

This case provides context for how hospitals are obligation service animal accommodation, particularly in psychiatric settings. While facilities may still restrict service animals in truly sterile environments like operating rooms, they cannot maintain broad prohibitions in psychiatric units without individual assessment.

Separation from a service animal can constitute irreparable harm to individuals who rely on them for independence and mobility. Each day without their service animal can diminish both current functioning and future effectiveness of the service animal partnership.

Protecting Ones Rights

Individuals who use service animals should be alert to potential discrimination in healthcare settings. Consider consulting with a civil rights attorney if you encounter:

• Blanket policies prohibiting service animals in non-sterile areas
• Refusal to conduct an individualized assessment of your situation
• Demands for certification or documentation beyond the two questions set forth in the ADA
• Failure to consider reasonable accommodations for your service animal
• Separation from your service animal without clear medical necessity
• Harassment or differential treatment due to your service animal’s presence
• Requirements for special fees or deposits related to your service animal
• Automatic placement in isolation or restricted areas due to your service animal

Healthcare facilities must justify any service animal restrictions based on specific, documented risks that cannot be mitigated through reasonable accommodations. If a facility cannot articulate legitimate, individualized reasons for excluding a service animal, they may be violating federal and state civil rights laws.

Maintaining detailed records of any discriminatory incidents, including dates, times, locations, and names of involved personnel, can strengthen potential legal claims. Additionally, documenting any impact on medical care or independence due to separation from ones service animal may help establish damages.