2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

[s]ubstantively, we believe that a patient does have a cause ofaction against either a psychiatrist or a general practitionerrendering psychological care, when during the course of treatmentthe physician has a sexual relationship with the patient that causesthe patient’s emotional or psychological symptoms to worsen.Id. at 364. More specifically, in explaining the viability of a cause of action for medicalmalpractice resulting in psychological harm under these circumstances, the court noted that:When a general practitioner is . . . rendering psychological care,just like a psychiatrist, that general practitioner owes a duty ofprofessional care to such patient. The physician’s actions coupledwith his or her awareness of the patient’s emotional issues(anxiety, depression and marital problems) carries with it aforeseeable and unreasonable risk of mental and/or emotional harmto the patient.. . .As such, it is very common that the patient is in a vulnerableposition and as a result puts a high degree of trust in her doctor. Insuch relationships where the players are on unequal playing fields,it is even more incumbent on our legal system to protect patientsfrom the malfeasance of medical professionals when they becomesexually involved with their trusting patients.Id. at 366. Accordingly, the Superior Court held that, based on the facts set forth in theComplaint, Plaintiff had established a prima facie cause of action for medical malpractice againstDefendant physician.It is also important to note that the court made a bright line distinction between thesituation in which a doctor rendering psychological or psychiatric care as opposed to medicalcare, such as treatment for arthritis. In this latter situation, the court suggested that a cause ofaction for medical malpractice resulting from consensual sexual relations with a patient wouldnot lie.However, on November 24, 2009, Defendant’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal wasgranted but Allocatur was limited to the following issue:Whether, for purposes of determining professional negligence, a general practitioner whoprovides mental health treatment to a patient is held to the same higher duty as aspecialist in psychiatry or psychology?In Gormley v. Edgar, 995 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2010), Plaintiff motorist appealed adiscovery order requiring her to produce emergency room records pertaining to mental healthissues, arguing that the records were protected under the Mental Health Procedures Act (50 P.S.§ 7101, et seq.), the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act (50 P.S. § 4101, et seq.) and thePennsylvania Alcohol and Drug Abuse Act (71 P.S. § 1690.101, et seq.), as well as the82