An act to add Sections 2631 and 4828.5 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts.
AB 1458 would create a new framework in California law allowing licensed physical therapists to provide “animal physical therapy” to animal patients, so long as they meet specified education, training, experience, and notification requirements. The bill defines animal physical therapy as physical therapy performed on an animal and limits it to physical therapists who have held an active California license for at least one year, completed animal-focused coursework and clinical training, accumulated supervised experience, and notified the Physical Therapy Board of their practice. It also contemplates continuing education requirements and requires the treatment location to comply with local zoning and animal-facility rules.
The bill sets out two lawful practice models. A physical therapist may work under direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian at a registered veterinary premises, or may provide therapy by referral from a veterinarian if the therapist has an active written practice agreement and gives the animal owner written notice that the therapist is licensed only to provide animal physical therapy. The bill expressly preserves the veterinarian-patient-client relationship requirement, bars the physical therapist from practicing veterinary medicine, and allows physical therapy aides to assist only within existing aide rules. It also assigns liability for delegated tasks to the physical therapist, shields veterinarians from liability for the therapy provided by the physical therapist or supervised aides, and requires the Physical Therapy Board to notify the Veterinary Medical Board of discipline or restrictions involving therapists who practice animal physical therapy.
AB 1458 would amend the Business and Professions Code by adding new provisions to both the Physical Therapy Practice Act and the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. It would expand the scope of regulated physical therapy practice to include animal patients under tightly defined conditions, while also creating new supervision, referral, disclosure, recordkeeping, and discipline-related rules for both boards. Because violations of the underlying practice acts are misdemeanors, the bill also creates a state-mandated local program, though it states that no reimbursement is required. The bill would not authorize unlicensed persons to practice animal physical therapy, and it would not expand veterinary medicine authority beyond the existing veterinarian role in supervision and referral.
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or formal opposition in the materials provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a professional-regulation bill intended to open a limited new service area for qualified physical therapists while preserving veterinary oversight. The inclusion of detailed training, supervision, and liability provisions suggests an effort to address licensing and public-safety concerns rather than a broad deregulation approach.
The main points of contention are likely to be scope-of-practice boundaries and professional liability. The bill carefully limits physical therapists to animal physical therapy and repeatedly states that it does not authorize veterinary medicine, which indicates sensitivity to possible objections from veterinary regulators or practitioners about encroachment on veterinary practice. Another likely issue is supervision: the bill allows both direct-supervision and referral-based models, but requires a written practice agreement, owner notification, and board oversight, reflecting concern about ensuring adequate veterinary involvement. Liability allocation is also notable, because the bill makes the physical therapist solely liable for delegated tasks while expressly insulating veterinarians from liability for the therapy performed under their orders.