Prohibitions stands for mental health care providers
By Zack Needles
The Legal Intelligencer
Originally published October 15, 2012
In a case of first impression, the state Supreme Court has ruled that general practitioner doctors are not barred from having consensual sex with a patient, even if they are also providing "incidental mental health treatment" to the patient.
In so doing, the court has refused to extend the prohibition that prevents mental health physicians from having consensual sex with their patients -- and makes those who do susceptible to medical malpractice suit -- to general practitioners and family doctors.
In Thierfelder v. Wolfert, the high court ruled 5-1 -- suspended Justice Joan Orie Melvin did not participate in the decision -- to reverse a divided May 2009 Superior Court ruling that both general practitioners and psychiatrists "need to maintain the same trust when rendering psychological care."
Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, writing for the majority, said that even what might constitute an ethical violation does not necessarily amount to a legal violation.
"The question is not whether this court condones appellant's actions, nor even whether his actions amounted to a violation of medical ethics," Justice Castille said. "We hold here only that, as a general practitioner, appellant was under no specific or 'heightened' duty in tort to refrain from sexual relations with his patient under these circumstances."