Figueiredo-Torres v. Nickel
1991 Md. LEXIS 23, 321 Md. 642, 584 A.2d 69 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The abolition of the amatory torts of criminal conversation and alienation of affections does not bar a patient from bringing claims for professional negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against a therapist whose conduct, such as engaging in a sexual relationship with the patient's spouse, constitutes a breach of the professional standard of care or is considered extreme and outrageous due to the special therapist-patient relationship.
Facts:
- In July 1985, Silvio Figueiredo-Torres and his wife sought marriage counseling from Herbert J. Nickel, a licensed psychologist, to preserve and improve their marital relationship.
- Torres attended both joint counseling sessions with his wife and individual therapy sessions with Nickel.
- During the course of the therapy, Nickel commenced a romantic and sexual relationship with Torres's wife.
- While engaged in this relationship, Nickel advised Torres in therapy to be distant from his wife, to not engage in intimate or sexual contact with her, and ultimately to separate from her.
- Nickel was aware from their therapeutic relationship that Torres was particularly susceptible to emotional distress.
- Nickel's relationship with Mrs. Torres ultimately led to the dissolution of the Torres' marriage.
- As a result of Nickel's conduct, Torres suffered numerous emotional and physical injuries, requiring hospitalization.
Procedural Posture:
- Silvio Figueiredo-Torres (Torres) filed a complaint against Herbert J. Nickel (Nickel) in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, a state trial court.
- The trial court granted Nickel's motion to dismiss the counts of gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 'outrage', and dismissed the negligence count with leave to amend.
- Torres filed an amended complaint alleging professional negligence.
- The trial court then granted Nickel's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
- Torres, as appellant, appealed the dismissal of the professional negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress counts to the Court of Special Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- Before the Court of Special Appeals ruled, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, issued a writ of certiorari to hear the appeal directly.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the abolition of the torts of criminal conversation and alienation of affections bar claims for professional negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist who engages in a sexual relationship with a patient's spouse while counseling the couple to improve their marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Chasanow, J.
No. The abolition of amatory torts does not preclude a recognized tort action, such as professional negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress, merely because the misconduct involves an improper liaison with the plaintiff's spouse. For the professional negligence claim, a psychologist-patient relationship existed that gave rise to a duty of care. A trier of fact could find that engaging in a sexual relationship with a patient's spouse while providing marriage counseling, and advising the patient to separate for self-serving reasons, is a breach of the professional standard of care that extends beyond the therapist's office. For the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the conduct's outrageousness arises from the context of the special psychologist-patient relationship. Nickel was not a stranger but Torres's therapist, who was in a unique position to influence Torres's emotional well-being and who allegedly abused that position, taking advantage of his patient's known vulnerabilities. This alleged conduct, including demeaning comments and the affair itself, is sufficient to be considered extreme and outrageous, and the alleged injuries are severe enough to sustain the claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the abolition of amatory torts does not provide a shield for professionals who engage in misconduct that also harms a patient's marriage. It establishes that the context of a special relationship, like that between a therapist and patient, is critical in evaluating whether conduct constitutes an independent tort such as malpractice or IIED. The ruling reinforces the high fiduciary duty owed by mental health professionals to their patients, holding that actions that undermine the therapeutic goals for the therapist's personal gain are actionable. This precedent makes it clear that courts will look beyond the simple fact of an affair and analyze the professional duties and power dynamics involved.
