Homer v. Long

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Torts

TortsNegligenceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFraudNegligent MisrepresentationAlienation of AffectionsCriminal Conversationtherapist-patient sexual relationship

Facts

After Mrs. Homer attempted suicide, Mr. Homer selected Dr. Long to evaluate and help treat her, and Dr. Long persuaded him to keep her at Howard County Hospital rather than transfer her to Walter Reed. Mr. Homer provided Dr. Long with sensitive personal information about the marriage, and he alleged that during Dr. Long's treatment of Mrs. Homer, Dr. Long used that information to seduce her and become sexually intimate with her. Mr. Homer claimed that Dr. Long manipulated Mrs. Homer, discouraged family access, and fostered her dependence on him, after which the marriage deteriorated and divorce proceedings followed. Mr. Homer sought tort damages for his emotional and financial losses arising from these events.

Issue

Whether a husband may maintain negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims against his wife's psychiatrist based on the psychiatrist's alleged sexual relationship with the wife and resulting breakup of the marriage. More specifically, the court considered whether these claims were cognizable or instead barred as repackaged abolished actions for criminal conversation and alienation of affections.

Rule

Except in limited special circumstances, a therapist's professional duty runs to the patient and not to the patient's spouse, even when the spouse retained the therapist and pays the fees. A plaintiff may not evade the abolition of criminal conversation and alienation of affections by recasting claims for injuries arising from adultery or marital breakup as negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or other torts. For intentional infliction of emotional distress based on conduct directed at a third person, liability generally requires that the immediate family plaintiff be present when the conduct occurs.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, Nora Keene arranged and paid for psychiatric treatment for her husband, Eli, after a mental health crisis left him unable to manage his own care. During treatment, the psychiatrist began a sexual relationship with Eli and the marriage soon collapsed. Nora sues the psychiatrist for negligence, seeking damages for emotional suffering and losses she incurred in the later divorce.

How should the court rule on Nora's negligence claim?

Explanation. The negligence claim should fail. Under the majority opinion, absent limited special circumstances, a therapist's professional duty runs to the patient rather than the patient's spouse, even when the spouse retained the therapist and paid the fees. The court also looked to the nature of the damages sought; when the claimed emotional and financial injuries stem from adultery, divorce, or the breakup of the marriage, the claim is barred as a repackaged amatory action. (Derived from Homer v. Long (n.d.).)