## Facts

- Donna and Joseph Gracey sought counseling for marital difficulties from Dr. Donald W. Eaker, a licensed psychotherapist, who provided individual sessions to each spouse.
- In separate sessions, each spouse disclosed highly sensitive personal information not previously shared with the other, allegedly because Eaker indicated the disclosures were necessary for treatment.
- The Graceys alleged Eaker intentionally disclosed to each spouse confidential information learned from the other during individual sessions.
- The Graceys claimed the disclosures caused severe emotional distress and damaged their marriage.
- The complaint relied on a statutory duty of confidentiality imposed on licensed mental health professionals by Florida Statutes § 491.0147.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s impact rule bars recovery of emotional distress damages when the claimed injury results from a psychotherapist’s breach of a statutory duty of confidentiality within a statutorily created confidential relationship.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida answered the rephrased certified question in the negative and held the impact rule inapplicable to the case’s alleged facts.
- The court quashed the district court’s decision affirming dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court limited its holding to allegations involving a psychotherapist’s breach of a statutory duty of confidentiality in a statutorily created confidential relationship.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s impact rule generally requires a physical impact before a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress.
- A psychotherapist’s statutory duty of confidentiality under § 491.0147 is central to the therapeutic relationship and is intended to protect against the foreseeable harm of emotional injury from unauthorized disclosure.
- When a statute creates a confidential, fiduciary relationship and the primary, foreseeable harm from breach is emotional distress, applying the impact rule would defeat legislative policy; therefore, the rule does not apply in that setting.
- A breach of a statutorily imposed duty of confidentiality within such a relationship may support tort recovery for emotional distress without proof of physical impact.

## Conclusion

The court held that Florida’s impact rule does not bar emotional-distress damages where patients allege a psychotherapist breached a statutory duty of confidentiality arising from a statutorily created confidential relationship, and it allowed the case to proceed on remand without requiring allegations of physical impact.


Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2002)