Psychological Malpractice
Confidential RECOVERY – Psychological malpractice – Boundary violation – Sexual contact – Fear of therapy suffered by patient with multiple personality disorder.
Monmouth County
The female plaintiff in her 30s, who suffered from a multiple personality disorder and who was treated from 1983 to 1990 by the defendant psychologist, contended that the defendant engaged in several incidents in which he touched her private parts and the plaintiff’s expert contended that such a “boundary violation” constituted a deviation. The plaintiff, who indicated that she had blocked out the incidents for some time, contended that a few years later, in 1987, she had a flashback, recalled the incidents and confronted the defendant. The plaintiff maintained that she was induced to continuing therapy by the defendant’s promises that he would cease such behavior and himself seek therapy. The plaintiff also contended that she had become dependent upon the defendant and that he exploited this dependency. The plaintiff contended that several similar incidents occurred over the next few years. The plaintiff maintained that she has lost her trust in therapists and that although she has resumed therapy with a psychiatrist, she has suffered setbacks because of the continuing inability to trust.
The defendant argued on a pretrial motion that since the plaintiff became aware of the incidents almost five years before the filing of suit, the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations, notwithstanding that it was filed within two years of the cessation of treatment. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant’s inducement to continue therapy together with the false promise that the behavior would cease tolled the statute. The plaintiff also argued that her psychological dependency upon the defendant deprived her of the ability to cease the therapy and that such a factor should also toll the statute. The case settled for $300,000 before the court ruled on the defendant’s motion. The defendant’s insurance policy did not contain a clause limiting damages in sexual contact cases to an amount less than the policy limits. The insurance company was, however, defending the case with a reservation. It should be noted that the defendant had filed bankruptcy and that all claims for intentional tort had been voluntarily dismissed.
Reference
Plaintiff’s expert psychiatrists: Joan A. Turkus, M.D., from Va. and Pamela F. Moss, M.D. from Skillman NJ (subsequent treating and expert on damages). Plaintiff’s expert social worker: Mary Jo Albertis, MSW, from Shrewsbury, N.J.
Docket no. L-2986-92; Judge Louis Locasio, 9-96.
Frank S. Gaudio of The Law Office of Miller & Gaudio PC in Red Bank.
