Tennessee House Bill HB1694

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/26
• Refer: 1/22/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Refer: 3/17/26
• Refer: 3/23/26
• Chaptered: 4/28/26
• Passed: 4/28/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 14, Part 2; Title 44, Chapter 17; Title 63, Chapter 12 and Title 68, Chapter 140, relative to emergency services for specially trained animals.

Summary

HB1694, titled the Tennessee K-9 Emergency Medical Care and Transport Act, authorizes emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to transport and provide emergency care to an injured canine first responder when the dog is hurt in the line of duty. The bill defines a canine first responder as a specially trained or training dog used by law enforcement, railroad police, or military personnel for police, patrol, detection, or search-and-rescue work. EMS personnel may take the dog to a veterinary facility only if no human patient needs immediate transport or care at that time, and they may provide emergency care at the scene or during transport. The bill also creates legal protections for EMS personnel acting under these circumstances. It states that EMS workers are not required to be licensed under the veterinary chapter for this limited activity, and that they are not engaging in the unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine when providing the authorized transport or emergency care. In addition, EMS personnel acting in good faith are granted immunity from civil and criminal liability for harm caused to the injured canine first responder, and they are also protected from discipline by the Tennessee emergency medical services board and the board of veterinary examiners for the covered conduct.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 63 and 68, and it also references Title 39 and Title 44 in the caption. Its practical effect is to carve out a narrow exception to veterinary licensing and practice rules for EMS personnel responding to injured working dogs, while also limiting potential board discipline and liability exposure. It creates a new statutory framework for the transport and emergency treatment of specially trained service dogs used in official duties, without changing the general rules governing veterinary medicine outside that context.

Sentiment

The available vote history shows unanimous support in committee, with the House Health Subcommittee, House Health Committee, and House Government Operations Committee all recommending passage with no dissenting votes. That pattern suggests broad agreement that the bill addresses a specific public-safety need and provides a reasonable legal safeguard for responders. No committee transcript is available here, but the recorded votes indicate the bill was not controversial at the committee stage.

Contention

The main policy issue appears to be the boundary between emergency medical services and veterinary practice. The bill resolves that concern by limiting EMS authority to situations involving injured canine first responders and by expressly stating that the authorized conduct is not the unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine. Another possible point of concern is liability: the bill grants immunity for good-faith care and even for refusing to transport or treat the animal, which may raise questions about the scope of protection, but no recorded opposition appears in the available committee votes.