An Act to amend and reenact § 51.5-40.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to definition of three-unit service dog team.
HB1336 amends Virginia’s disability law definitions in § 51.5-40.1 to add a new term, “three-unit service dog team.” The bill defines that term as a team made up of a trained service dog, a person with a disability, and an adult handler who has been trained to handle the dog; the adult handler may be the parent of the person with a disability. The rest of the section continues to define related terms such as service dog, hearing dog, mobility-impaired person, and person with a disability.
The practical effect of the bill is to recognize a service-dog arrangement in which a trained adult handler assists a disabled person and the dog as a single team under Virginia law. Because the bill is limited to definitions, it does not itself create new enforcement procedures or benefits, but it can affect how disability-related rights, accommodations, training, and access issues are interpreted in other parts of the Code of Virginia that rely on these definitions.
By amending § 51.5-40.1, the bill updates the statutory definitions used throughout Virginia’s disability rights chapter. The new definition may influence how state agencies, courts, schools, businesses, and other entities understand and apply rules involving service dogs and disability accommodations, especially in situations involving a trained adult handler accompanying a person with a disability. It does not appear to change substantive rights directly, but it clarifies the legal status of this specific service-dog team structure.
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or opposition in the provided materials. The bill was enacted and approved as Chapter 778, which suggests it moved through the process without visible controversy in the record provided. Overall, the legislative outcome indicates support for clarifying and modernizing disability-related definitions.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. Because there are no transcripts or votes, it is not possible to identify whether lawmakers discussed issues such as who may serve as the adult handler, whether parents should be included, or how the new definition might interact with existing service-animal access rules. The bill’s narrow definitional scope also suggests any disagreement, if present, would likely have centered on the implications of formally recognizing a three-person service dog team rather than on broader disability policy.