Greer v. Medders
1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2364, 336 S.E.2d 328, 176 Ga. App. 408 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Abusive and insulting language directed by a physician towards a vulnerable, post-operative patient can constitute conduct sufficiently outrageous and egregious to state a claim for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- James Greer was in the hospital recovering from surgery on his heel.
- His attending physician went on vacation, and Dr. Lawrence Medders was arranged to provide care in the interim.
- After Dr. Medders failed to visit him for several days, Mr. Greer called the doctor's office to complain.
- Dr. Medders later entered Mr. Greer's hospital room in an agitated state.
- In the presence of Mr. Greer's wife, Lisa, and a nurse, Dr. Medders berated Mr. Greer, stating, "I don’t have to be in here every damn day checking on you... I don’t have to be your damn doctor."
- When Mrs. Greer interjected that he would no longer be their doctor, Dr. Medders told Mr. Greer, "If your smart ass wife would keep her mouth shut things wouldn’t be so bad."
- Following the incident, Mrs. Greer began crying and Mr. Greer experienced uncontrollable shaking that required psychiatric treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- James and Lisa Greer filed a lawsuit against Dr. Lawrence Medders in a trial court for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Dr. Medders filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the facts did not support the Greers' claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Medders.
- The Greers, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, with Dr. Medders as the appellee.
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 a physician's abusive and insulting language directed towards a post-operative patient and his wife in a hospital setting constitute conduct sufficiently outrageous and egregious to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Banke, Chief Judge
Yes. A physician's abusive and insulting language towards a post-operative patient can be sufficiently outrageous to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Georgia law recognizes this tort for conduct that is outrageous, egregious, or so insulting as to humiliate, embarrass, or frighten the plaintiff. While mere insults are typically not actionable, the context of the statements is critical. Here, the statements were made by a physician, who is in a position of authority, to a patient in a vulnerable, post-operative state in a hospital bed. Given this special relationship and the patient's vulnerability, a jury could reasonably find the physician's conduct to be outrageous. Therefore, it was improper for the trial court to decide as a matter of law that the conduct was insufficiently abusive, and summary judgment should not have been granted.
Analysis:
This case emphasizes the significance of context and the relationship between the parties in claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). It establishes that a defendant's position of authority (e.g., a doctor) over a particularly vulnerable plaintiff (e.g., a patient) can elevate conduct that might otherwise be considered mere insults to the level of legal outrageousness. The decision reinforces that whether conduct is outrageous is generally a question of fact for a jury, making it more difficult for defendants in positions of power to have such claims dismissed on summary judgment. This precedent strengthens the position of plaintiffs who suffer emotional harm from abuse by individuals they are dependent upon or who hold a special duty of care.
Unlock the full brief for Greer v. Medders