ARTHUR G. NEWMYER v. THE SIDWELL FRIENDS SCHOOL and JAMES F. HUNTINGTON, 128 A.3d 1023

Background

Parents Arthur Newmyer and Tara Mehrbach separated; their daughter D. (age 5) attended Sidwell Friends Lower School while Dr. James Huntington, a licensed psychologist, worked as a Middle School counselor. Mehrbach and Huntington began a romantic relationship after a January 2010 playdate.
Huntington made informal observations about D.'s advanced abilities and left a non‑urgent voicemail to the Lower School resource teacher suggesting assessment/stimulation; he did not treat D. and both he and Mehrbach denied any therapist‑patient relationship.
Newmyer learned of the relationship, pressured Sidwell (threatening publicity/litigation), subpoenaed Huntington’s school emails during divorce proceedings, and supplied Sidwell with an attorney memorandum and explicit emails. Sidwell later terminated Huntington after reviewing the emails.
Newmyer filed suit alleging malpractice, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of himself and D.; Huntington counterclaimed for tortious interference (Sidwell, Wake Kendall, Rathbone) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Both parties moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted both.
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Newmyer’s claims (no duty/physician‑patient relationship; no outrageous conduct) but reversed summary judgment for Huntington on tortious interference (Sidwell and Wake Kendall) and on Huntington’s IIED claim for publicizing the complaint, remanding those claims. The court affirmed dismissal as to Rathbone and other claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Newmyer)	Defendant's Argument (Huntington/Newmyer for counterclaims)	Held
Whether Huntington owed a duty / physician‑patient relationship to D. (malpractice, negligent infliction)	Huntington formed an implied psychologist‑patient relationship by observing/evaluating D., recommending assessment, and advising the mother.	No express or implied relationship; interactions were informal, social, and non‑treatment; voicemail to resource teacher was informational, not a treatment decision.	No duty; no physician‑patient relationship or professional duty—summary judgment for defendants on Newmyer’s negligence claims affirmed.
Whether Huntington/Sidwell committed outrageous conduct (IIED) by Huntington dating D.'s mother while advising about D.	Dating the mother while (allegedly) counseling D. was extreme, foreseeable harm to child/father; Sidwell failed to act.	No counseling relationship to D.; conduct was private and not beyond community bounds.	Not extreme/outrageous as a matter of law—summary judgment for Huntington/Sidwell on Newmyer’s IIED claim affirmed.
Whether Sidwell negligently supervised Huntington	Sidwell knew or should have known of dangerous/incompetent behavior and failed to act, causing harm.	Sidwell promptly investigated, found no policy violation until review of emails; acted when policy misuse became apparent.	No genuine issue of negligent supervision; summary judgment for Sidwell on that claim affirmed.
Whether Newmyer tortiously interfered with Huntington’s business (Sidwell, Wake Kendall, Rathbone) and committed IIED by publicizing the complaint (counterclaims)	(Counterclaim) Newmyer knowingly and intentionally induced termination/leave by threatening publicity, sending memorandum/emails, contacting third parties, and publicizing sexually explicit complaint; publication caused severe emotional distress.	Newmyer contends his communications were privileged or truthful and that employers had independent reasons (policy violations, Board inquiry) unrelated to his actions.	Reversed in part: triable issues exist as to tortious interference with Sidwell and Wake Kendall and as to IIED for publicizing the complaint; Rathbone claim and some other counterclaims affirmed against Huntington.

Key Cases Cited

Steele v. Salb, 93 A.3d 1277 (D.C. 2014) (summary judgment de novo review standard)
Franco v. District of Columbia, 39 A.3d 890 (D.C. 2012) (summary judgment standard under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56)
Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic, 22 A.3d 789 (D.C. 2011) (duty analysis for negligent infliction of emotional distress)
Woldeamanuel v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 703 A.2d 1243 (D.C. 1997) (elements for professional malpractice)
Gilbert v. Miodovnik, 990 A.2d 983 (D.C. 2010) (physician‑patient relationship discussion)
McCracken v. Walls‑Faufman, 717 A.2d 346 (D.C. 1998) (duty analysis for psychologists)
Dehn v. Edgecombe, 865 A.2d 603 (Md. 2005) (when implied physician‑patient relationship arises)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden shifting)
Sorrells v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros., Miller & Rhoads, Inc., 565 A.2d 285 (D.C. 1989) (tortious interference and Restatement approach)
Onyeoziri v. Spivok, 44 A.3d 279 (D.C. 2012) (elements and Restatement factors for tortious interference)
Havilah Real Prop. Servs., LLC v. VLK, LLC, 108 A.3d 334 (D.C. 2015) (motive as key consideration in interference claims)
Tulin v. District of Columbia, 994 A.2d 788 (D.C. 2010) (elements for IIED)
Drejza v. Vaccaro, 650 A.2d 1308 (D.C. 1994) (outrageousness standard for IIED)
Mazanderan v. McGranery, 490 A.2d 180 (D.C. 1985) (absolute privilege for statements incidental to judicial proceedings)