## Facts

- A patient alleged she received psychological treatment from Conrad Muehling from March 1979 to October 1980.
- During the course of treatment, the patient and Muehling engaged in a sexual relationship, alleged to have occurred within the therapist–patient context.
- The patient alleged Muehling held himself out as a registered psychologist and that she relied on that representation in seeking treatment.
- The complaint alleged professional negligence, including engaging in sexual relations with a patient and failing to recognize and properly manage “transference,” resulting in serious emotional distress.
- The plaintiff sought emotional-distress damages without alleging contemporaneous physical impact or physical injury.

## Issues

1. Whether limits on negligent infliction of emotional distress articulated for bystander claims (including a “zone of physical danger” and physical injury/illness requirement) bar a direct patient’s negligence claim against a psychotherapist seeking emotional-distress damages.
2. Whether the Illinois Psychologist Registration Act implicitly provides a private right of action for injuries caused by a person’s violation of the Act (including holding oneself out as a registered psychologist without proper registration).

## Decision

- The appellate court held that the bystander emotional-distress restrictions do not bar a direct patient’s professional negligence claims seeking emotional-distress damages from negligent psychotherapy.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the negligence counts seeking emotional damages.
- The appellate court vacated the dismissal of the statutory count based on the Psychologist Registration Act, holding the Act implicitly permits a private right of action.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Bystander-specific limitations on negligent infliction of emotional distress (including “zone of physical danger” and physical injury/illness requirements) do not control when the plaintiff is the direct victim of alleged professional malpractice.
- In psychotherapy, emotional injury is a foreseeable and central type of harm within the scope of the therapist–patient relationship; recovery is not conditioned on separate physical impact allegations.
- A regulatory licensing statute may imply a private right of action when it is intended to protect a class that includes the plaintiff, a civil remedy is consistent with the statute’s purpose, and private enforcement is needed to redress individual injuries.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a patient’s negligence claims for emotional-distress damages against her therapist to proceed without bystander-based Rickey pleading limits and recognized an implied private right of action under the Illinois Psychologist Registration Act, remanding for further proceedings.


Corgan v. Muehling, 167 Ill. App. 3d 1093, 522 N.E.2d 153 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)