422 P.3d 863
Utah2018Background
- Rocio Smith was accused by her ex-husband and his new wife of sexually abusing their children; the ex filed to terminate her parental rights.
- The children’s therapist, Kayelyn Robinson, treated the children after being informed of the abuse allegations and allegedly relied improperly on the parents’ information.
- Smith alleges Robinson blurred roles—acting as both treating therapist and forensic evaluator—advocated against Smith, violated a court order to cease contact, and accessed/provided protected records to parties and counsel.
- As a result, Smith lost visitation for years and claims reputational, financial, and emotional harms; she sued Robinson for malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Robinson moved to dismiss under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed the malpractice claim concluding no duty existed for a treating therapist who testifies, and dismissed the emotional-distress claim for failure to allege required harm.
- The Supreme Court resolves duty questions in a companion case (Mower v. Baird) and remands Smith’s malpractice claim for proceedings consistent with Mower.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a treating therapist owes a duty of reasonable care to a nonpatient parent when treating the parent’s child for alleged sexual abuse | Smith: Robinson owed a duty arising from her treatment-related conduct that allegedly produced false allegations/memories and caused harm | Robinson: No duty exists to an opposing party based on therapist conduct or testimony; at least no duty for testifying witnesses | Court: Following Mower, a treating therapist owes a duty to refrain from affirmative acts that recklessly violate the standard of care and give rise to false memories/false allegations; remanded for proceedings consistent with Mower |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 243 P.3d 1275 (Utah 2010) (pleadings: facts alleged in complaint taken as true on motion to dismiss)
- Brown v. Div. of Water Rights of Dep’t of Nat. Res., 228 P.3d 747 (Utah 2010) (same rule for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Weber ex rel. Weber v. Springville City, 725 P.2d 1360 (Utah 1986) (existence of duty is a question of law)
- St. Benedict’s Dev. Co. v. St. Benedict’s Hosp., 811 P.2d 194 (Utah 1991) (questions of law reviewed for correctness)
- B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (factors courts consider in defining categorical duties and policy considerations)