affirming summary judgment on outrageous conduct claim in part because there was no "evidence that [the patient] was obliged in any way to engage in sexual relations with [the doctor] as a prerequisite for treatment"
How later courts described this case
- affirming summary judgment on outrageous conduct claim in part because there was no "evidence that [the patient] was obliged in any way to engage in sexual relations with [the doctor] as a prerequisite for treatment"
- “ ‘With respect to the conduct element, this Court has stated that the conduct must be “so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” ’ ” (quoting Harris v. McDavid, 553 So.2d 567, 570 (Ala.1989))
- “[Tjhe great weight of authority holds that a sexual relationship between a nonpsychiatric physician and a patient is outside the scope of the physician’s treatment, and is not actionable as malpractice”
- collecting cases from California, Minnesota, and Oregon
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I agree with the main opinion that, under the law, Dr. Huddle's conduct does not amount to medical malpractice or intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, as has often been said, simply because certain conduct may be "legal" does not necessarily mean that that conduct is "right." I believe that Dr. Huddle's behavior toward Ms. Gunter *Page 548
raises questions about whether he used his position as her doctor to exploit her. The moral and ethical questions raised in this case are best addressed by the Medical Licensure Commission, which has the authority to act on conduct it finds to be "immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable." § 34-24-360 (2), Ala. Code 1975.