87 A.D.3d 975
N.Y. App. Div.2011Background
- Plaintiff sought damages for medical malpractice alleging defendant’s sexual relationship with her breached the standard of care.
- Jury found defendant 75% at fault and plaintiff 25% at fault, and awarded $166,000 punitive damages.
- Evidence showed the relationship began during ongoing mental health treatment and affected trust with another therapist.
- Plaintiff disclosed the affair to her therapist but not that it involved the defendant due to the therapist’s friendship with him.
- Expert testimony concluded eroticized transference could occur, making a sexual relationship a departure from the standard of care.
- Dissent argues the relationship was extraneous to treatment and not actionable as medical malpractice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there medical malpractice as a matter of law? | Plaintiff asserts the sexual relationship breached the standard of care and caused harms. | Defendant contends the conduct was extraneous to treatment and not malpractice. | No; the court held the trial supported malpractice finding and punitive damages were proper. |
| Does a sexual relationship between a mental health provider and patient constitute malpractice if not part of treatment? | Sexual relationship interferes with treatment and constitutes malpractice. | Sexual conduct not part of treatment cannot be medical malpractice. | Yes for plaintiff; the majority found it constitutes departure from standard of care even if not part of treatment. |
| Was the punitive-damages award justified? | Prolonged departure from standard of care shows egregious conduct deserving punitive damages. | Punitive damages were unwarranted or unsupported by evidence. | Yes; evidence showed gross indifference and reprehensible conduct supporting punitive damages. |
| Was midtrial evidentiary preclusion properly denied? | Certain special damages should have been precluded. | Preclusion was timely and proper. | No; Supreme Court properly denied the motion as untimely. |
| Did the court properly handle comparative fault between parties? | Jury’s fault apportionment should stand with defendant at fault. | Fault allocation or liability should be reconsidered. | The judgment on liability stood; the court affirmed the jury’s apportionment and overall verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. Kurk, 224 AD2d 582 (1996) (malpractice requires treatment-related conduct)
- Capwell v Muslim, 80 AD3d 722 (2011) (weight of credible evidence supports verdict)
- Morales v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 71 AD3d 648 (2010) (expert testimony supports departure from standard of care)
- Noto v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 160 AD2d 656 (1990) (sexual liaison not actionable as malpractice when not part of treatment)
- Weiner v Lenox Hill Hosp., 88 NY2d 784 (1996) (not every act toward a patient is medical malpractice)
- Bleiler v Bodnar, 65 NY2d 65 (1985) (inquiry in malpractice; need for treatment-related conduct)
- Scott v Uljanov, 74 NY2d 673 (1989) (med mal requires conduct related to diagnosis and treatment)
- Fragosa v Haider, 17 AD3d 526 (2005) (assault not converted to medical malpractice)