Dr. Claimed live fetus dead: suit for emotional distress dismissed.
THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY AF-FIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. The court held, inter alia, that because the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress did not apply to the facts in the case, it had no alternative but to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court cited the Restatement of Torts, which stated in pertinent part: One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm." The court also cited the leading Kentucky ease regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress, Craft v. Rice 671 S.W.2d 247 (Ky.1984), wherein the Court stated, inter alia, that: "The basis of the cause of action is intentional interference with the plaintiffs [sic] rights causing emotional distress, with or without personal injury in the traditional sense."
THE COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NOT A SCIN-TILLA OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THATTHERE WAS ANY INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL HARM BY DR. GEILE. Accordingly, since the sine qua non of Tanya's cause of action was the intentional infliction of emotional harm, and there was none, the court concluded that the Childers had no viable cause of action. Simply put, the court set forth the three requirements for a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm. First, The basis of the cause of action is intentional interference with the plaintiffs [sic] rights causing intentional infliction of emotional distress with or without personal injury in the traditional sense. Second, If there has been physical injury with pain to the body or mind, it is incidental to the emotional distress, rather than essential to the cause of action as is the case in an action for personal injury. Third, the plaintiff may have a cause of action for emotional distress from the intentional and unlawful interference with her rights, regardless of whether she suffers any bodily injury form such interference. The court concluded that clearly the conduct complained of must be extreme, or outrageous and intolerable. It must violate generally accepted standards of decency and morality. Many instances of criminal conduct would likely qualify, but any conduct that shocks the conscience could be unlawful as well because others have the right to be free of such conduct. While the intentional infliction of emotional distress could be pleaded alternatively, a litigant cannot prevail on both a negligence claim and an intentional infliction of harm! Childers v. Geile, -S.W3d-(6/21/2012) -KY
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Medical Law's Regan Report|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2012|
|Previous Article:||Did failure to diagnose pre-natal symptoms result in retardation?|
|Next Article:||Failure to give differential diagnosis & options was med/mal.|