## Facts

- A husband and wife sought marital counseling from a licensed psychologist to preserve and improve their marriage.
- The psychologist conducted mostly joint sessions, plus individual sessions with the husband and apparently with the wife.
- The husband alleged the psychologist began a romantic and sexual relationship with the wife during treatment.
- The husband alleged the psychologist advised him to be distant from his wife, to avoid intimacy and sexual contact, and ultimately to separate.
- The husband alleged the psychologist exploited the therapeutic relationship despite knowing the husband was emotionally vulnerable.
- The husband claimed serious emotional and physical injuries, including depression, anxiety, obsessive thoughts, hospitalization for emotional distress, systemic hypertension, and loss of visual acuity in one eye.

## Issues

1. Whether a patient states a cognizable claim for professional negligence against a psychologist providing marital counseling when the psychologist allegedly had a sexual relationship with the patient’s spouse and gave advice undermining the marriage.
2. Whether the claim is barred as a prohibited “heart balm” action (alienation of affections or criminal conversation) because the alleged misconduct involved the breakdown of a marriage.
3. Whether causation and damages were sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the dismissal of the amended complaint and remanded.
- The court held the complaint stated a viable claim for professional negligence.
- The court held the claim was not barred as a disguised heart-balm action because its gravamen was malpractice arising from a psychologist–patient relationship and alleged breach of professional standards.
- The court held the pleaded injuries and causal allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage; factual disputes about causation and damages were for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A psychologist owes a patient a duty to exercise reasonable professional care consistent with accepted standards; breach causing injury can support malpractice liability.
- Courts evaluate the substance of the pleaded claim; the plaintiff’s label does not control whether a claim is barred as an abolished heart-balm tort.
- Abolition of alienation-of-affections-type claims does not immunize a professional from liability for misconduct that breaches professional duties and causes personal injury, even if the facts involve marital breakdown.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, allegations of professional duty, breach, proximate cause, and concrete emotional and physical injury are generally sufficient; causation and damages are typically factual matters.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a malpractice suit to proceed against a psychologist accused of exploiting a marital-counseling relationship by pursuing a sexual relationship with the patient’s spouse and providing counseling advice alleged to have harmed the patient, holding that the claim sounded in professional negligence rather than a barred heart-balm action.


Figueiredo-Torres v. Nickel, 584 A.2d 69 (Md. 1991)