## Facts

- James J. Homer sued Dr. S. Eugene Long, a psychiatrist who treated Homer’s wife, asserting claims in Homer’s own right rather than on behalf of the patient.
- Mrs. Homer suffered worsening depression and attempted suicide in October 1985; Mr. Homer retained Dr. Long to evaluate her while she was hospitalized.
- Homer alleged that, during treatment, Dr. Long used confidential information and exploited Mrs. Homer’s condition to initiate a sexual relationship with her.
- Homer alleged the relationship altered his wife’s personality, contributed to the breakdown of the marriage, and caused Homer severe emotional distress and related damages.
- Homer pleaded tort theories including negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); a breach of contract claim remained nominally pending.
- The trial court dismissed the tort claims and entered final judgment on those counts to permit an immediate appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse may recover for marital injury caused by an affair by recasting the claim as negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, or IIED rather than as an abolished alienation-of-affections-type action.
2. Whether a psychiatrist owes a professional duty of care to a patient’s spouse (a nonpatient) sufficient to support negligence-based claims for the spouse’s damages.
3. Whether a spouse may recover for IIED based on private conduct directed at the patient where the spouse was not present when the conduct occurred.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the husband’s tort claims.
- The court held that the psychiatrist’s professional duty ran to the patient, not to the patient’s spouse; absent a treatment relationship with the spouse, negligence-based claims failed for lack of duty.
- The court concluded that claims seeking damages for interference with a marriage could not proceed merely by changing labels; the substance remained a barred attempt to recover for marital interference.
- The court rejected the spouse’s IIED claim because the alleged extreme and outrageous conduct was directed at a third person and the spouse was not present at the time, as required for third-party IIED under the governing standard.
- The court held that a prior malpractice decision allowing recovery against a therapist was distinguishable because the plaintiff there was also in a professional relationship with the therapist, unlike the nonpatient spouse here.

## Legal Principles

- Courts assess the substance of a claim rather than its label; a plaintiff cannot obtain damages for marital interference by pleading the conduct as negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, contract, or other tort theories when the underlying harm is the type barred by Maryland policy.
- A psychiatrist’s professional duty of care is owed to the patient; a nonpatient spouse generally cannot assert malpractice-type claims absent a direct professional relationship giving rise to a duty.
- IIED requires: (1) intentional or reckless conduct, (2) extreme and outrageous conduct, (3) causation, and (4) severe emotional distress.
- For IIED based on conduct directed at a third person, liability to an immediate family member is limited to circumstances where the family member is present at the time of the conduct (subject to narrow conditions); after-the-fact distress from private conduct does not satisfy this requirement.

## Conclusion

The court held that a nonpatient spouse could not recover tort damages from a psychiatrist for an alleged sexual relationship with the patient because the psychiatrist owed no professional duty to the spouse, the pleaded tort theories were an impermissible attempt to obtain damages for barred marital-interference harms, and third-party IIED was unavailable where the spouse was not present when the alleged conduct occurred.


Homer v. Long, 599 A.2d 1193 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992)