Grzan v. Charter Hospital of Northwest Indiana
1998 Ind. App. LEXIS 2185, 702 NE2d 786 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for medical malpractice based on the mishandling of the transference phenomenon requires the existence of a formal therapist-patient relationship, which cannot be established with a healthcare worker who is not a licensed or certified psychotherapist and does not hold themselves out as one.
Facts:
- On March 6, 1992, Cherilynn Grzan, who was suicidal and depressed, voluntarily admitted herself to Charter Hospital for psychiatric treatment.
- Simon Greer was employed by Charter as a part-time 'mental health counselor,' working as needed. He was not a licensed or certified psychotherapist.
- Greer's duties included supervising patients and conducting one-on-one and group 'chat' sessions to discuss feelings, but he did not provide diagnoses or treatment plans.
- During Grzan's hospitalization, Greer initiated an emotional and sexual relationship with her, which included encounters in her room, the art room, and at his apartment when she had passes to leave the hospital.
- The relationship was a violation of Charter's written policy prohibiting employees from fraternizing with patients.
- Neither Grzan nor Greer informed hospital staff of their relationship, although another patient told a staff member and rumors circulated among the staff.
- After her discharge on April 14, Grzan moved into Greer’s apartment and continued the relationship.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 17, 1994, Cherilynn Grzan filed a complaint in a state trial court against Simon Greer and Charter Hospital.
- Greer filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- Charter Hospital also filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Charter on all claims.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Greer, dismissing Grzan’s malpractice claim but allowing her assault and battery claim to proceed.
- Grzan, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Charter and partial summary judgment in favor of Greer to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
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 sexual relationship between a psychiatric patient and an unlicensed, uncertified 'mental health counselor' constitute medical malpractice based on the mishandling of the transference phenomenon under Indiana law?
Opinions:
Majority - Darden, J.
No. A sexual relationship with an unlicensed mental health counselor does not constitute medical malpractice because a prerequisite for such a claim—a therapist-patient relationship—does not exist. The court reasoned that malpractice claims for mishandling transference are a narrow exception to the general rule that a sexual relationship is not a rendition of healthcare. This exception is premised on the existence of a formal therapist-patient relationship. Under Indiana law and precedent, a 'therapist' is a licensed or certified professional, such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or certified clinical social worker. The evidence showed Greer was not licensed or certified, had no formal training in psychotherapy or transference, and did not hold himself out as a therapist. Because no therapist-patient relationship existed, Greer's sexual conduct was not a rendition of professional healthcare services under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, and thus cannot form the basis of a malpractice claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the scope of medical malpractice liability for sexual misconduct by healthcare workers in Indiana. It establishes a bright-line rule that claims for mishandling the transference phenomenon are reserved for relationships with licensed or certified psychotherapists. The ruling protects lower-level, unlicensed mental health workers from being held to the same professional standard as licensed therapists. For future plaintiffs harmed by similar conduct from unlicensed staff, this precedent directs them away from malpractice claims and toward other legal theories, such as ordinary negligence or, more significantly, negligent supervision and retention against the employing hospital.
