Gracey v. Eaker

747 So.2d 475

Donna GRACEY and Joseph Gracey, Appellants, v. Donald W. EAKER, Appellee.

No. 99-1075.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

December 30, 1999.

Nolan Carter and Karen R. Wasson, Orlando, for Appellant.

Griffith J. Winthrop III, Winter Park, for Appellee.

ANTOON, C.J.

Joseph and Donna Gracey appeal the final order entered by the trial court dismissing with prejudice their lawsuit against Dr. Donald Eaker. We affirm.

The Graceys filed suit against Dr. Donald Eaker seeking an award of damages for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of Dr. Eaker's negligence. The complaint explained that Dr. Eaker is a licensed psychotherapist and that he had administered psychotherapy treatment to the Graceys in connection with their marital difficulties. The complaint averred that, during their individual counseling sessions, Dr. Eaker

would inquire about, and each of the [Graceys] would disclose to him, very sensitive and personal information that neither had disclosed to the other spouse at any time during their relationship. [The Graceys] would disclose this information because they were led to believe, by [Dr. Eaker], that such information was necessary for treatment purposes.

The complaint further alleged that, despite the confidentiality of the disclosed information¹, Dr. Eaker revealed to each of "the [Graceys] individual, confidential information which the other spouse had told him in their private sessions." Upon such disclosure, the Graceys confronted each other regarding what they had learned and realized that Dr. Eaker had "embarked upon a plan of action or course of action designed to get the [Graceys] to divorce each other."

In attempting to allege a viable cause of action, the complaint averred that

as a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches by [Dr. Eaker], of his fiduciary duty of confidentiality owed to the [Graceys], individually, the [Graceys] have been forced to incur substantial expenses for psychology and psychotherapy services to attempt to correct and/or cure the mental damage caused by [Dr. Eaker's] actions.

With regard to the claim of damages, the complaint averred that the Graceys have individually

suffered great and severe mental anguish upon learning about discussions which the other spouse did not wish revealed, and which the other spouse would not have revealed, that they have sustained severe mental anguish upon learning of actions of the other spouse, of which they individually were not aware, and that disclosure has caused irreparable damage to any trust that they would have had for each other ... and that [Dr. Eaker's] actions have caused great mental anguish for the [Graceys] individually in their personal relationships with others due to their inability to trust the others in those personal relationships.

Dr. Eaker moved to dismiss the complaint, averring that the Graceys failed to assert a viable cause of action because the complaint alleged only emotional, and not any physical, injuries resulting from Dr. Eaker's alleged negligence. Upon review, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Dr. Eaker maintains that the trial court's dismissal order must be affirmed because Florida law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress without an accompanying physical injury. We are constrained to agree.

The Graceys' complaint sounded in negligence and sought recovery for purely emotional injuries. The trial court aptly recognized that dismissal of the complaint was warranted because the Florida courts do not recognize the negligent infliction of emotional distress as a free standing tort. See R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360, 365 (Fla.1995) (Kogan, J., concurring specially); see also Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hagan, 750 So.2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Instead, Florida courts have historically adhered to a requirement that some physical impact to a claimant must be alleged and demonstrated before the claimant can recover damages. This requirement has been referred to as the "impact rule." See Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048, 1049 (Fla.1995). While our supreme court has recognized a few exceptions to the impact rule,² none of which apply to the facts presented here, the court has...