Lindgren v. Moore
907 F.Supp. 1183 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Illinois law, a therapist does not owe a duty of care to a patient's non-patient family members for claims of malpractice or negligence. However, family members may state a claim for intentional torts, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of society, if they can allege the therapist's actions constituted a direct and intentional interference with the familial relationship.
Facts:
- In October 1990, Amy Lindgren began treatment for depression and bulimia with therapist Janet Moore.
- Janet Moore was not a licensed clinical psychologist in Illinois.
- During treatment, Moore used methods including hypnosis and recommended the book 'The Courage to Heal,' which deals with recovering memories of abuse.
- As a result of the therapy, Amy Lindgren began to have 'flashbacks' of being sexually abused by her father, Richard Lindgren.
- Amy's father, brother Mark Lindgren, and sister Laura Lindgren, deny that any such abuse ever occurred.
- Prior to the therapy, the Lindgren family members all maintained close and enjoyable relationships with Amy.
- The therapy and resulting accusations led to the permanent estrangement of Amy from her family.
- Amy Lindgren is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 1994, Richard, Mark, and Laura Lindgren (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against therapist Janet Moore and her supervisor, Dr. James Cassens (defendants), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged multiple counts, including malpractice, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of society, and public nuisance.
- In February 1995, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do non-patient family members have standing under Illinois law to sue a patient's therapist for malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of society, when the therapist's treatment allegedly induces false memories of abuse in the patient, thereby destroying the family relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Coar, District Judge
No as to malpractice and negligence; Yes as to intentional torts. A therapist's professional duty is owed exclusively to the patient, not to the patient's family members, so family members cannot bring claims for malpractice or negligence. However, family members can bring claims for intentional torts like intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of society if the therapist's actions are alleged to be a direct and intentional interference with the family relationship. The court reasoned that a physician's primary duty must be to the patient, free from the fear of litigation by third parties who may disagree with a course of treatment. This policy concern bars negligence-based claims. In contrast, the law does not protect a therapist from claims alleging they intentionally and directly harmed the family unit. Alleging a therapist 'falsely convinced' a patient of abuse is sufficient to state a claim for 'extreme and outrageous' conduct needed for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Furthermore, the court predicted the Illinois Supreme Court would recognize a cause of action for loss of society based on direct, intentional interference with the parent-child relationship, distinguishing it from cases involving indirect, negligent harm.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction in the emerging area of 'recovered memory' litigation by separating claims based on negligence from those based on intentional torts. The court's holding protects the sanctity of the therapist-patient relationship from third-party negligence claims, affirming that a therapist's primary duty is to the patient. However, it opens a pathway for family members to seek redress for intentional, direct interference with familial relationships, preventing therapists from using the shield of professional duty to escape liability for allegedly malicious conduct. This bifurcated approach provides a framework for future courts to balance the protection of professional medical judgment against the need to remedy intentional harm inflicted upon family units.
Unlock the full brief for Lindgren v. Moore