Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
December 20, 2002
TALLAHASSEE -- A marriage counselor who divulged the secrets of a husband and wife can be sued by the Orlando couple for emotional distress, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
A rule that lawsuits can seek damages for emotional distress only if there was an underlying physical injury doesn't apply in this case, Justice R. Fred Lewis wrote for the majority.
Donald Eaker is accused of "revealing the most confidential of information disclosed to him by each individual," Lewis wrote. He noted that the court did not judge the merits of the case, but for the purposes of the appeal accepted the allegations made by Donna Gracey and Joseph Gracey.
Eaker encouraged both Graceys, separately, "to reveal without hesitation the most private of thoughts, emotions, fears and hopes," Lewis wrote.
The Graceys confided in Eaker, believing it to be necessary for treatment, their lawsuit alleged. But they came to believe his intent was actually to break them up. Learning each other's secrets caused "severe mental anguish" and "irreparable damage to any trust that they would have had to each other," their lawsuit alleged.
"Without justification or authorization, Eaker is alleged to have repaid this repositing of confidence in him by placing the dagger of damage in the very soul of the Graceys' marriage, thereby exacerbating the problem for which the Graceys sought his assistance," Lewis wrote.
The Graceys went to another therapist after Eaker but weren't able to repair the damage and divorced, their lawyer, Nolan Carter, said.
State lawmakers have recognized the importance of emotional stability and survival, Lewis wrote, pointing to the state law that makes communications between therapists and their patients confidential.
People must be allowed to sue over violation of that confidence "if this legislative provision is to have any life or meaning and afford reliable protection to Florida's citizens," Lewis wrote.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead and Justices Leander Shaw, Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente concurred in the majority opinion. Justices Major Harding and Charles Wells dissented.
Harding wrote that he believed Thursday's ruling would bring forward "equally compelling scenarios of alleged emotional trauma" and be the downfall of the physical impact rule.
"This case is sure to become precedent, allowing . . . speculative, or even fictitious, claims of emotional injury which the rule was designed to prevent," Harding wrote in his dissent that Wells concurred in.
Lewis' majority opinion dismissed concerns about opening the floodgates to frivolous suits.
"The civil trial system in our country has withstood the test of time for more than 200 years," he wrote. "It is a system in which the finder of fact ultimately determines which allegations of injury are meritorious and which are not.
"We are confident this system will continue to function well when it considers claims of the type now before us."
Eaker's attorney didn't return a phone call seeking comment.
Death row inmate Rudolph Holton deserves a new trial in the 1986 murder of a Tampa girl, the court ruled.
In a brief order Wednesday, the high court upheld an order by Circuit Judge Daniel Perry in November 2001 ordering a new trial for Holton, 49, who was convicted of raping and killing Katrina Graddy, a 17-year-old prostitute, and setting her body on fire in an abandoned drug house.
About 10 days before the murder, Graddy told police another man had raped her. But Holton's defense attorney was never given that police report.
The state has 15 days to ask for a rehearing. The State Attorney's Office didn't immediately return calls seeking comment.
The court upheld the state law that makes animal cruelty a felony.
In an unanimous ruling, it dismissed an appeal by Ronald Reynolds, who was convicted under the law. He argued that the law should be interpreted to require a specific intent to be cruel or found unconstitutional because it lacked such a requirement.
But the plain language of the law doesn't require a specific intent to be cruel, simply an intentional act that results in a cruel death or repeated and unnecessary suffering, Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead wrote.