Thayer v. OrRico
2003 Ind. App. LEXIS 1414, 792 NE2d 919, 2003 WL 21802269 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A therapist-patient relationship may be implied, even in the absence of formal appointments or billing, if a person seeks professional advice from a therapist, and the therapist performs an affirmative act for that person's benefit, such as providing treatment recommendations.
Facts:
- Cathy Thayer was employed at the Lafayette Clinic, where Dr. Michael OrRico, a psychologist, was a co-owner.
- In 1990, Thayer began suffering from depression and was prescribed antidepressant medication by another doctor at the clinic.
- During her employment, Thayer regularly sought and received advice from OrRico about her children's school performance, her marital problems, and her sexual relationship with her husband.
- These discussions were informal; Thayer never made appointments, was never billed for services, and OrRico kept no records of their conversations.
- In January 1997, Thayer and OrRico began a sexual relationship that lasted for approximately one year.
- During their relationship, OrRico advised Thayer to discontinue her prescribed antidepressant medication and recommended she take herbal treatments for her headaches and depression, which he provided to her.
- In September 1997, Thayer resigned from her job at the Clinic, and OrRico ended their sexual relationship shortly thereafter.
Procedural Posture:
- Cathy Thayer and her husband filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice against Dr. Michael OrRico in the Tippecanoe Superior Court, a trial court.
- OrRico filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that no therapist-patient relationship existed between him and Thayer.
- The trial court granted OrRico's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that OrRico was merely counseling Thayer as a friend and employee.
- The Thayers filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.
- The Thayers, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with OrRico 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 genuine issue of material fact exist regarding the establishment of a therapist-patient relationship when a psychologist provides frequent, informal advice on personal matters to an employee and recommends a change in her medical treatment, despite the absence of formal appointments, billing, or record-keeping?
Opinions:
Majority - Mathias, J.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a therapist-patient relationship was established, precluding summary judgment. The court reasoned that, similar to physician-patient and attorney-client relationships, a therapist-patient relationship can be implied from the parties' conduct. The key inquiry is whether the therapist performed an affirmative act for the patient's benefit. Applying a newly established three-factor test, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that a professional relationship existed. Specifically, OrRico's act of advising Thayer to stop her prescribed medication and providing her with an alternative herbal treatment could be seen as an affirmative act of providing treatment, which goes beyond mere friendly advice. The informal nature of the interactions, such as the lack of billing or appointments, is not dispositive when weighed against evidence of actual treatment recommendations.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing a clear analytical framework in Indiana for determining the existence of an implied therapist-patient relationship. By analogizing to physician-patient and attorney-client standards, the court clarifies that professional duties can arise from conduct rather than formal agreements. This ruling lowers the barrier for malpractice claims in cases of informal counseling, placing a greater onus on therapists to explicitly define the boundaries of their interactions, particularly with employees or acquaintances. The case underscores that providing specific treatment advice can transform a friendly conversation into a professional relationship with attendant legal duties and potential liability.
