McAlpin v. Sokolay
1992 WL 75656, 596 So. 2d 1266 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conduct may be sufficiently extreme and outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress when a defendant in a position of actual or apparent authority, such as a medical doctor, verbally abuses a plaintiff known to be in a vulnerable state.
Facts:
- Patricia McAlpin suffered from a medical condition called 'achalasia' that caused difficulty swallowing, which she feared could be cancer.
- Her physician referred her to Flagler Hospital for diagnostic x-rays.
- After changing into a hospital gown, McAlpin entered the x-ray facility, which was under the direction of Dr. Marc P. Sokolay.
- Dr. Sokolay began to verbally assault McAlpin in a loud and abusive tone, accusing her of owing money to a personal friend of his in a dispute unrelated to any medical billing.
- Dr. Sokolay refused to perform the x-ray and threatened to have security personnel physically remove her from the hospital.
- As a result of the confrontation, McAlpin's throat constricted, she became violently nauseous, and began sobbing.
- She fled the room in a panic, wearing only the hospital gown, and ran through the hospital halls until a nurse found and assisted her.
- For the remainder of the day, McAlpin experienced continuous vomiting and a recurrence of her severe medical symptoms.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia and B.J. McAlpin filed a lawsuit against Dr. Marc P. Sokolay and Flagler Hospital in a Florida trial court.
- The McAlpins filed a second amended complaint alleging, among other things, intentional infliction of emotional distress against Dr. Sokolay.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, ruling that the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of outrageousness required by law.
- The McAlpins (Appellants) appealed the dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
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 doctor's loud, verbal assault of a vulnerable patient about an unrelated personal debt, which causes the patient severe physical and emotional distress, constitute conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Goshorn, C.J.
Yes. A doctor's verbal assault on a vulnerable patient can constitute conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court found that the allegations, if proven, could lead a jury to determine Dr. Sokolay's conduct was reckless and utterly outrageous. The court emphasized the special relationship between a doctor and a patient, which gives the doctor a position of authority and power over the patient's interests. This power dynamic makes outrageousness 'more likely to be found.' Given that Dr. Sokolay knew McAlpin was in physical and emotional distress, his conduct of verbally abusing and threatening her in the x-ray room met the threshold test for conduct that an average member of the community would exclaim is 'Outrageous!'
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'outrageousness' standard for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress within the context of a professional relationship. It establishes that the defendant's position of power and the plaintiff's known vulnerability are critical factors in the analysis. The decision lowers the barrier for plaintiffs in similar situations to survive a motion to dismiss, signaling that courts will hold professionals in positions of trust to a higher standard of conduct and that abuse of that trust can give rise to tort liability.
