Gracey v. Eaker

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the impact rule did not bar recovery of emotional distress damages arising from a psychotherapist's breach of the statutory duty of confidentiality
• holding the impact rule was inapplicable in a negligence action against a psychotherapist, alleging breach of fiduciary and statutory duty of confidentiality to patient
• holding the impact rule was inapplicable in a negligence action against a psychotherapist, alleging breach of fiduciary and statutory duty of confidentiality to patient
• indicating that the impact rule bars recovery for emotional distress in the absence of a physical injury or illness flowing from the emotional distress or an actual impact
• recognizing an exception for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information
• finding that the wrongful disclosure of confidential information by a psychotherapist constitutes a breach of a fiduciary duty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).