## Facts

- Harvey and Marsha Kazatsky purchased two cemetery plots for the burial of their prematurely born infant twins who died shortly after birth.
- The cemetery billed the Kazatskys for charges described as perpetual care and sodding after the burials.
- When the Kazatskys did not pay, the cemetery refused to maintain the gravesites.
- The Kazatskys sued seeking (1) equitable relief compelling maintenance and (2) damages in trespass, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (and initially fraudulent misrepresentation, later abandoned).
- The equitable claim was later dismissed by stipulation after the cemetery began maintaining the gravesites.
- At trial, the Kazatskys presented no expert medical testimony or medical records and did not obtain professional psychiatric or medical treatment for emotional injury.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff pursuing intentional infliction of emotional distress must present competent medical evidence to prove the existence and severity of the alleged emotional distress.
2. Whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 should be formally adopted as Pennsylvania law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the compulsory nonsuit for the cemetery.
- The court held that an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim requires competent medical evidence of the alleged severe emotional distress.
- Because the Kazatskys presented no competent medical evidence, their proof was legally insufficient even assuming Restatement § 46 applied.
- The court again declined to decide whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 is adopted in Pennsylvania.

## Legal Principles

- Recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires objective proof of severe emotional distress supported by competent medical evidence, typically through expert testimony.
- The court will not permit recovery for claimed emotional distress based solely on a plaintiff’s subjective testimony without medical corroboration.
- The court may resolve an IIED case on evidentiary insufficiency grounds without deciding whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 is formally part of Pennsylvania law.
- Under the Restatement formulation referenced by the court, IIED requires outrageous and extreme conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a nonsuit because the plaintiffs failed to present competent medical evidence establishing severe emotional distress, and it left unresolved whether Pennsylvania formally recognizes IIED under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46.


Kazatsky v. King David Mem'l Park, Inc., 515 Pa. 183, 527 A.2d 988 (Pa. 1987)