Professional Negligence Law Reporter
You must be a Professional Negligence Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.
If you are a member of AAJ's Professional Negligence Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!
Join the Professional Negligence SectionAlready a subscriber? Log in
Former Therapist May Be Liable for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Loss of Consortium
January/February 2019Huddle v. Heindel, 2018 WL 5314868 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018).
A Georgia appellate court held that a therapist who had a sexual relationship with his former patient may be liable to the patient for breach of fiduciary duty and to her husband for his loss of consortium.
S. Clark Heindel provided counseling to Elizabeth Huddle, a married mother of two, from January 2010 to March 2012. In May 2014, the two began a sexual relationship. Huddle’s husband found out and filed a complaint with the state medical board.
In December 2015, Huddle and her husband sued Heindel for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
The defendant moved for summary judgment on the first three claims and for dismissal on the consortium claim. The trial court granted the motions. Affirming in part and reversing in part, the appellate court noted that a professional negligence action must be brought within two years after the injury resulting from the allegedly wrongful conduct. Moreover, the court said, physician-patient privity is required for a professional malpractice action. Here, the court concluded that the plaintiffs have not shown any medical or billing records showing that Heindel and Huddle had a psychologist-patient relationship after March 2012 and have not, therefore, provided specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue on this question. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the professional negligence claim. Turning to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court noted that Georgia has no specific limitations statute for such causes of action.
Citing case law, the court said that courts examine the alleged injury and conduct giving rise to the claim to determine the appropriate limitations period. In this case, the parties’ relationship began after May 2014, and the plaintiffs filed their claim in December 2015, within two years of the alleged breach. Consequently, the court held that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment on this claim.
The court also held that the loss of consortium claim could go forward. Citing case law, the court found that a loss of consortium claim is separate in nature, and the running of the limitations period on a spouse’s personal injury claim does not bar a derivative loss of consortium claim. Therefore, the husband’s claim for loss of consortium is not subject to dismissal here, the court held.
Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Jennifer Ivey Range, Roswell, Ga.; and AAJ members Lloyd W. Hoffspiegel and Alexander Hoffspiegel, both of Atlanta.