Respess v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America, 770 F. Supp. 2d 751

Patricia Respess suffered long‑standing psychiatric illness after a 1987 assault and received workers’ compensation benefits for treatment.
In 2008 Respess was discharged from Sheppard Pratt, with concerns about supervision and outpatient care after discharge.
A home health nurse and a treating physician urged 24‑hour supervised care, which the insurers refused to authorize.
Respess overdosed on May 5, 2008, slipped into a coma, and died on May 9, 2008; James Respess sued the insurers for IIED, gross negligence, and wrongful death.
Plaintiffs rely on an exception to the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity for intentional torts; defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court grants the motion to dismiss, without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can IIED be stated against insurers here?	Insurers’ deliberate denial of 24‑hour care is extreme and outrageous and proximately caused distress.	denial was not intended to cause suicide and does not meet extreme/outrageous standard; insurers are not health care providers.	No viable IIED claim; allegations fail to meet extreme/outrageous standard.
Does the conduct constitute gross negligence?	Defendants’ gross and reckless denial of supervision caused distress leading to death.	No gross negligence; actions do not show willful/wanton disregard; exclusivity applies.	No viable gross negligence claim; exclusivity applies.
Is the wrongful death claim viable given workers’ compensation exclusivity?	Wrongful death may lie where there is a compensable employer/insurer tort outside the Act.	Exclusive remedy under the Act bars wrongful death claims arising from the same conduct.	Wrongful death claim barred by exclusivity; remedies under the Act apply.

Young v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 303 Md. 182, 492 A.2d 1270 (Md. 1985) (suicide discussion; exclusivity and tort recovery boundaries)
Gallagher v. Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 303 Md. 201, 492 A.2d 1280 (Md. 1985) (insurer exclusivity limited; not all insurer conduct is barred)
Abrams v. City of Rockville, 88 Md.App. 588, 596 A.2d 116 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991) (intentional infliction requires extreme/outrageous conduct)
Tatum v. Gigliotti, 80 Md.App. 559, 565 A.2d 354 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989) (gross negligence standard and reasonableness in emergencies)
McCoy v. Hatmaker, 135 Md.App. 693, 763 A.2d 1233 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) (emergency care standards and not equating error with gross negligence)
Foor v. Juvenile Services Admin., 78 Md.App. 151, 552 A.2d 947 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress require specificity)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Imbraguglio, 346 Md. 573, 697 A.2d 885 (Md. 1997) (workers’ compensation self-insurer limits; not shielded from all torts)
Flood v. Merchants Mutual Ins. Co., 230 Md. 373, 187 A.2d 320 (Md. 1963) (insurer liability limits under exclusivity for some negligent acts)
Benjamin v. Union Carbide Corp. / Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Benjamin, 162 Md.App. 173, 873 A.2d 463 (Md. 2005) (wrongful death act interpretation and compensability timing)