According to attorney Paul Boudloche, the ruling, which is the first of its kind, is worrisome. Boudloche said "This has a significant impact, economic impact, particularly for veterinarians who may end up having to practice defensive medicine, increasing the cost for everybody taking their pets to a vet."

　

But animal welfare legal expert Ian Robertson states: "The business of veterinary medicine derives substantial benefit from the emotional attachment that people have with their pets -- why else, for example, would an owner pay thousands of dollars for medical care and surgery, for an animal that might have cost them just a few hundred dollars to buy?". According to Robertson, many lawyers are of the view that because veterinary business derives financial benefit from the emotional attachment that owners have for their animals, then it is more than reasonable for veterinarians, or other animal service providers, to be accountable in law for emotional damages as part of any overall damages assessment.

　

Although compensation doesn't bring back the animal that has died (as was the case in the Texas proceedings), accountability for "getting it wrong" has benefits which include encouragement of animal services providers to constantly update their policies and procedures so that avoidable risks are responsibly identified and minimised. As to concerns about increased costs, Robertson says that costs are "part and parcel" of properly looking after animals. Robertson says "Veterinarians are usually good-hearted individuals who want the best for the patients and owners in their care, but just like other businesses, accidents sometimes happen" - and adds "that's what insurance is for".