Estate’s Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Related to Decedent’s Suicide Dismissed for Lack of Allegations of Extreme and Outrageous Conduct
(April 2011) By Eric M. Leppo, Associate
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
James Respess, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Respess v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Insurance Company of America, et al.,
Case No.: ELH-10-2937 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, March 15, 2011) |
View pdf
In this recently issued opinion, authored by Judge Ellen
Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the
Court dismissed Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Specifically, the
Judge found that the allegations of the Complaint were “woefully deficient” in
their effort to allege extreme and outrageous conduct.
The decedent, Patricia Respess, was the unfortunate victim
of a physical and sexual assault while at her place of employment in 1987. As a
result of this incident she suffered from a variety of psychiatric conditions,
including post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), major depressive disorder,
conversion disorder, and disassociative identity disorder. She received
treatment from 1999 until her death in 2008 for these conditions, and the
Defendants (as the workers compensation insurance carriers) continued to approve
and pay her medical expenses pursuant to her workers’ compensation claim.
In January 2008, Mrs. Respess went to Sheppard Pratt
for in-patient treatment for depression and anxiety. She was committed until
April 25, 2008 when she was discharged to her home. Shortly before her
discharge, her husband asked Sheppard Pratt counselors to place her in a
step-down facility, in lieu of a discharge without supervision. Shortly
after Mrs. Respess’ return home, a visiting nurse observed her in poor
condition, and learned she was having suicidal thoughts.
The nurse believed that Mrs. Respess urgently needed
24-hour supervision. The nurse called the Defendants and advised them of
Mrs. Respess’ suicidal thoughts, and stated her belief that 24-hour
supervised care was needed. The Defendants did not authorize this treatment.
Mr. Respess also wrote a letter to Sheppard Pratt regarding his wife’s
deteriorating condition and requested she be placed back in a facility with
24-hour care. In early May, Mrs. Respess wrote a suicide note indicating she
did not have the “fight . . . to challenge the Defendants anymore.” She
overdosed on medication which led to coma. She died several days later.
Plaintiff alleged that the failure to provide 24-hour
supervised care to Mrs. Respess, was “intentional and/or reckless and in
deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that emotional distress
would result to Patricia Respess.” Respess at *6. The Defendant insurers
moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim. They argued that the Complaint lacked factual allegations of
“extreme and outrageous” conduct necessary to make out a claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Court noted that dismissal is mandated if the
complaint does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The Court then indicated that while intentional
infliction of emotional distress is a recognized cause of action in
Maryland, it is “rarely viable, and is to be used sparingly and only for
opprobrious behavior that includes truly outrageous conduct.” Snyder v.
Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 231 (4th Cir. 2009).
In reviewing the allegations in a light most favorable
to the Plaintiff, the Court still had to conclude that the allegations did
not come close to satisfying the high burden of “extreme and outrageous” or
beyond all possible bounds of decency. The Court noted that the Defendants
had long known of Mrs. Respess mental condition, and was aware of her almost
four (4) month in-patient stay at Sheppard Pratt. However, they played no
role in deciding to discharge her, and there was no allegation that their
purpose in denying the request for 24-hour supervision was to harass her
into committing suicide.
The Court noted that Defendants are not the health care
providers. Under the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn from them,
the decision not to provide supervised care based on the request of the
visiting nurse and a doctor who did not examine Mrs. Respess did not amount
to extreme and outrageous conduct.
Top
