Thierfelder v. Wolfert
52 A.3d 1251
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Patients and physician were in a doctor-patient relationship; physician treated wife for depression and anxiety and prescribed antidepressants over several years.
- During treatment, wife believed physician had “cured” her and developed romantic feelings; the two began a sexual relationship that lasted about a year.
- Plaintiffs later sued for negligent and medical malpractice among other claims; defendants moved to dismiss preliminary objections, citing lack of medical negligence connection to sexual relationship.
- Superior Court initially dismissed, citing Long v. Ostroff distinctions; en banc reversal held there was a potential malpractice claim against a general practitioner who engaged in a sexual relationship with a patient.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review limited to duty, adopting a duty analysis under Althaus factors and ultimately remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general practitioner providing incidental mental health treatment owes a specialist’s duty | Thierfelder argues general practitioner should be held to higher mental health specialist standard | Wolfert argues no special duty applies to general practitioners | No per se mental-health-specialist duty; remand for preserved claims |
| Does Long v. Ostroff bar malpractice claim against a GP who has sex with a patient’s wife during treatment | Long should not bar claims where patient is the one treated | Long controls and distinguishes physician-patient from other cases | Held not to bar; remand for preserved issues (context indicates reconsideration of duty). |
| Should Pennsylvania adopt a heightened duty for GPs treating mental health issues when sex occurs | Transference and heightened duty should extend to GPs | No statutory or decisional basis to extend special duty to GPs | Declined to extend; kept duty within general practitioner standard; remanded for remaining claims |
| Did Althaus factors support creating a duty to refrain from sexual relations for GPs treating mental health | Factors support a duty to protect vulnerable patients | Factors do not support extending psychiatrist-like duty to GPs | Court declined to expand duty; remanded for other preserved claims |
| What is the proper posture of the case on remand regarding remaining claims | Preserved claims should proceed | Claims should be limited by the court’s interpretation | Remanded for consideration of any preserved non-malpractice claims and remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547 (Pa. 2000) (Five-factor Althaus duty test guidance for tort duty)
- Pistone, 555 Pa. 616 (Pa. 1999) (Malpractice/insurance context; transference discussion cited)
- Long v. Ostroff, 582 Pa. 700 (Pa. 2005) (Distinguishes GP-patient sex from therapist-patient duty; not controlling here)
- Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548 (Pa. 1959) (Standard of care for physicians; general duty duty of care)
- Toogood v. Owen J. Rogal, 573 Pa. 245 (Pa. 2003) (Duty and standard of care for physicians)
- Sharpe v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 573 Pa. 90 (Pa. 2003) (Althaus framework application significance)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Love, 459 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. 1990) (Transference-related malpractice considerations in therapy)