Plaintiff’s claimed that the hospital violated the ADA by denying access to her service dog while she was a patient on multiple occasions. The District Court Judge determined that the treating clinicians decision to exclude the dog was based upon their clinical judgment that the presence of the dog would interfere with plaintiff’s behavioral health treatment. The facility established that the presence of the dog would create a fundamental alteration in plaintiff’s treatment by interfering and impeding with the treatment modalities provided by the facility. This fundamental alternation is a complete affirmative defense and Judgment was rendered in favor of the facility.
