A judge in Missouri has agreed with a ruling handed down by an Arizona judge back in February: There is no such thing as a "helper monkey" -- at least in the eyes of the law.
A woman in Missouri sued several defendants, including Wal-Mart, for not allowing her to bring her pet monkey with her when she visited their businesses.
The woman claims she is agoraphobic and the monkey helps her deal with anxiety when she goes to public places.
The judge called BS on that one and said the "helper monkey" was nothing more than a household pet and not covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
This ruling comes after an Arizona woman named Kristy Pruett tried to convince a judge that she needed her monkey to help her with her diabetes.
New Times did a feature on Pruett, check it out here.
She said the monkey was used to assist in administering her diabetes treatment.
The judge found that a bit unlikely.
"[H]aving the Chimpanzee in her home to retrieve and administer emergency assistance to Pruett is not only unnecessary, it likely is inadequate," the judge ruled.
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Support Our Journalism
All this monkey business has led to proposed restrictions to the Americans With Disabilities Act that would exclude animals that offer nothing more than "emotional support."
Some of those animals included in the proposed restrictions are reptiles, rabbits, farm animals, amphibians, ferrets and rodents -- oh, not to mention snakes like the five-foot boa constrictor that an epileptic man named Daniel Green wears around his neck because he claims it alerts him to seizures.