RJ v. Humana of Florida, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “hypertension, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life” are “intangible, mental injuries [that] are insufficient to meet the physical injury required under the impact rule”
• reaffirming the physical impact rule but noting exceptions in cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress, bystander cases involving the witnessing of the death or serious injury of a close family member, and in actions for wrongful death
• refusing to create an exception to the impact rule for emotional distress suffered from negligent medical testing and expressly stating that the creation of such an exception would have a \substantial impact\ on the provision of medical care
• discussing Eastern in the context of exceptions to the impact rule
• discussing Eastern in the context of exceptions to the impact rule
• \We expressly recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under which emotional distress is recoverable even if no physical impact is present.\ (emphasis omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).