Service dog scam

   This is a horrific story, but one that makes you think about the consequences of contract law and the law of sales.

The basic premise to this story is that a Mark Rinkel, who was 13 at the time, raised enough money to buy a service dog for his little brother James.  James suffers from Type 1 Diabetes, which is highly dangerous for children and can easily result in death.

This dog was designed to detect dangerous drops in James’ blood sugar levels  and was supposed to make some sort of commotion to alert others.

Mark had raised $17,000 for this dog.  He used $6,000 to buy the dog from a company called Heaven Scent Paws, and then donated the rest of the money to the company as a way to subsidize dogs for others.  So far, so good, right?

The issue arises because Mark and his family allege that the dog (Jedi) was not, in essence, fit for purpose.  Jedi did not detect the blood sugar drop and was frightened of strangers to the point of allegedly biting some.  This is a major issue for service dogs.  They are supposed to be trained to not get spooked easily and to deal well with others.  This is part of the reason they are allowed everywhere.   Apparently they are not the only ones who are unhappy with the company, as the Missouri Attorney General has filed a lawsuit following 28 complaints.

The company responds by saying

"A core group of about 10 families who are unhappy with Heaven Scent Paws never followed through on their contractual relationship with the company, including the follow-up care and training at home," Bandre said. "These are people who expected to get home with the dog who alerted 100 percent of the time right away, and frankly, that defies logic after a one-week class in Missouri."

The Rinkel family took this dog to seven experts who unanimously testified that the dog was unfit to be a service dog.

What appears to be at the core of this issue is a few issues.  One, whether this would qualify as the sale of goods or services.  For the most part, that distinction is irrelevant as there is still a certain amount of implied warranty in the sense that simply by selling something the vendor is warranting a certain level of fitness for purpose.  I believe this is where the case will turn.  The Company appears to be arguing that the onus is on the family to continue the training to eventually receive a proper service dog.  The family is stating that the company misrepresented themselves by suggesting their dogs were already ready.

I believe it is more complicated than that and that service dogs and health services should be held to a higher standard than other vendors.  Basically, since lives depend on these animals, there should be a higher guarantee of fitness for purpose.  Now we have to see if the courts agree.

[Source: Denver Post]