Roberts v. Salmi
866 N.W.2d 460
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parents Lale and Joan Roberts sued counselor Kathryn Salmi after Salmi allegedly used recovered-memory techniques on their daughter K, causing K to "remember" and accuse her parents of long‑past sexual abuse; investigators found no corroborating physical evidence and no charges were filed.
- Plaintiffs alleged Salmi negligently implanted or reinforced false memories via techniques such as hypnosis, age regression, and suggestive therapy, causing reputational, investigative, and familial harms.
- Salmi denied using recovered‑memory therapy or suggestive techniques and invoked therapist–patient privilege and lack of duty to third parties.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that under Michigan law a therapist owes no duty to third parties (the patient’s parents) harmed by treatment of a patient.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, holding as a matter of Michigan common law that mental‑health professionals owe a limited duty to a patient’s parents to avoid treatment that foreseeably causes false memories of sexual abuse.
- The court limited the duty: liability requires proof the therapist breached the standard of care in selecting/using techniques, caused false memories implicating the parents, and that those false memories caused the parents’ injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mental‑health professional owes a duty to third parties (patient's parents) harmed by therapy that creates false memories of sexual abuse | Roberts: Therapist owes duty to parents because they are the class most likely to be implicated and foreseeably harmed by recovered‑memory techniques | Salmi: No duty to third parties—therapist’s duty runs only to patient; imposing duty would chill therapy and is a policy decision for the Legislature | Court: Yes — recognize a limited common‑law duty to parents when therapist uses techniques that may implant false memories and foreseeably harm them |
| Scope/nature of the duty | Parents: Duty should prevent implantation of false memories; recoverable malpractice claim for harms caused | Salmi: Duty would be unworkable, force defensive therapy, and conflict with statutory schemes (e.g., mandatory reporting, privileges) | Court: Duty is limited — therapist must exercise reasonable professional judgment to minimize risk of creating false memories; plaintiffs must prove breach, causation, and damages |
| Whether the claim is barred as alienation of affections (MCL 600.2901) | Roberts: Claim is malpractice for their own injuries from therapist’s negligence, not intentional alienation | Salmi: Claim is effectively alienation of affection and thus abolished | Court: Not barred — pleaded as negligence/malpractice for plaintiffs’ own injuries, not an intentional alienation claim |
| Appropriateness of judicial creation of duty v. legislative action | Roberts: Courts may develop common law negligence duties where Legislature silent | Salmi/Dissent: Policy balancing and complex consequences should be left to Legislature | Court: Judicially appropriate—Legislature has not acted; common‑law development required; duty narrowly crafted to limit burdens |
Key Cases Cited
- Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich 425 (1977) (framework for recognizing duty — policy balancing and relationship/foreseeability factors)
- Hill v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 492 Mich 651 (2012) (duty analysis emphasizes relationship and foreseeability)
- Dyer v. Trachtman, 470 Mich 45 (2004) (professional may owe limited duty to non‑clients under certain circumstances)
- Trear v. Sills, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1341 (1999) (CA appellate refusal to impose duty on therapist to potential abuser; concerns about chilling therapy and defensive practice)
- Hungerford v. Jones, 143 N.H. 208 (1998) (recognizing foreseeability of harm to family members from false accusations and supporting limited third‑party remedies)
- Webb v. Neuroeducation, Inc. PC, 121 Wash. App. 336 (2004) (family relationship makes parents especially likely to be implicated; harms to parent–child bond are severe)