# Larijani v. Georgetown University

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · February 7, 2002 · 791 A.2d 41

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701933

## Case

- **Full name:** Shoukoufeh LARIJANI, Appellant, v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, and Jane L. Blumenthal, Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 7, 2002
- **Citations:** 791 A.2d 41; 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 562; 2002 D.C. App. LEXIS 35; 2002 WL 233669
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reid
- **Judges:** Schwelb, Farrell, Reid
- **Cited by:** 107 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701933

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding severe emotional distress given that the plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to *110mind and body including, involuntary body tremors, cold sweats, hysteria, muscular pain, hyperventilation, depression, and a traumatized psyche as a direct and proximate re…
- holding that a question of fact existed regarding the outrageousness of the defendants’ conduct when the plaintiff alleged that they had caused noisemakers to be placed in plaintiff’s workspace that created a “loud, piercing, and unbearable” noise “every minute of every day” f…
- finding severe emotional distress because the plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to mind and body including, involuntary body tremors, cold sweats, hysteria, muscular pain, hyperventilation, depression, and a traumatized psyche
- concluding that a university’s inaction in response to an employee intentionally causing a co-worker severe physical and mental injuries did not constitute outrageous conduct
- finding extreme and outrageous conduct because an employee was knowingly and continuously subjected to noise-making machines

## Opinion text

REID, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I view this as a very, very close case. Ms. Larijani’s complaint is quite “thin” regarding the elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The matter comes to us, however, on a Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Given the legal principles that govern our review of the denial of such motions, as identified by Judge Schwelb, I am compelled to agree that, in essence, Ms. Lari-jani’s complaint is minimally sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701933. Public record. Not legal advice.