# Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 25, 1998 · 554 Pa. 209

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862532

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronald B. EMERICH, Administrator of the Estate of Teresa M. Hausler, Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. and Albert Einstein Medical Center, Appellees; Ronald B. EMERICH, Administrator of the Estate of Teresa M. Hausler, Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., Albert Einstein Healthcare Foundation, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Harvey Friedrich, ACSW, Anthony J. Scuderi, M. Div., Cac and Hacan Ulus, Administratrix of the Estate of Ahmet Ulus, M.D., Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 25, 1998
- **Citations:** 554 Pa. 209; 720 A.2d 1032; 1998 Pa. LEXIS 2532
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Gro
- **Cited by:** 92 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/9862532

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the special relationship between a mental health professional and his patient may, in certain circumstances, give rise to an affirmative duty to protect and warn patient's intended victim
- recognizing the difficulty “in predicting violent behavior, the importance of confidential communications between therapist and patient, and the policy that patients be placed in the least restrictive environment”
- finding “that the special relationship between a mental health professional and his patient may, in certain circumstances, give rise to an affirmative duty to warn for the benefit of an intended victim”
- holding that duty may lie "where the defendant stands in a special relationship to either the person whose conduct needs to be controlled or in a relationship to the foreseeable victim of that conduct"
- stating that psychotherapist has duty to warn only when specific and immediate threat of serious bodily injury has been made against “specifically identified or readily identifiable victim”

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Mr. Justice Cappy, on behalf of the court, has authored an excellent opinion, and I join it. I write to express my concern that this is yet another extension of liability in an already too litigious society. Here, in my view, the extension is justified by the circumstances presented, but I would go no further. Yes, one can reason in so many instances that an extension of liability is merely a small step flowing naturally and logically from the existing case law. Yet each seemingly small step, over time, leads to an ever proliferating number of small steps that add up to huge leaps in terms of extensions of liability. At some point it must stop and I would draw the line in this area of the law with what is expressed by the court in this case — no further.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862532. Public record. Not legal advice.