## Facts

- Elizabeth Ann Miller gave birth at Morristown-Hamblen Hospital on September 19, 1995, and authorized Dr. David Willbanks to provide postnatal care for the newborn.
- The newborn remained hospitalized and later exhibited elevated vital signs.
- Dr. Willbanks examined the newborn and diagnosed Drug Withdrawal Syndrome without first testing the newborn for drugs.
- Dr. Willbanks communicated suspicion that Mrs. Miller was a drug abuser to hospital staff and to Mrs. Miller’s parents before confronting her.
- Dr. Willbanks reported Mrs. Miller to the local health department, including after drug tests were negative.
- Wayne Miller and Elizabeth Miller alleged that these events caused them severe emotional distress and sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress (also called “outrage”) and related torts.

## Issues

1. Whether expert medical or scientific proof of a “serious mental injury” is required as a matter of law to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in Tennessee.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
- The court held that expert medical or scientific proof of serious mental injury is generally not required to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings because the lower courts applied a categorical expert-proof requirement rather than evaluating whether non-expert evidence could create a triable issue on serious mental injury.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof that: (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the conduct was so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society; and (3) the conduct caused serious mental injury.
- Serious mental injury may be shown through objective manifestations and surrounding circumstances, including physiological or psychological symptoms, treatment-seeking, functional impairment, and the duration and intensity of symptoms.
- Expert testimony is not a universal prerequisite to prove serious mental injury; lay testimony and circumstantial evidence may suffice depending on the case.
- Trial courts retain discretion to require expert proof in particular cases when causation or the nature of the alleged mental injury is beyond common understanding.
- Summary judgment standards require viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and denying summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact exist.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claims by rejecting a per se expert-testimony requirement for “serious mental injury,” holding that such injury can often be proven through lay and circumstantial evidence, and remanded for case-specific evaluation under ordinary summary judgment rules.


Miller v. Willbanks, 8 S.W.3d 607 (Tenn. 1999)