Opinion ID: 2638169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Negligent Infliction of Emotioned Distress

Text: With respect to the first cause of actionfor negligent infliction of emotional distressthe Court of Appeal concluded that the complaint failed to articulate any theory of negligence that might apply in this case. The appellate court noted that although plaintiffs appellate brief contained an extremely vague argument that [defendants] breached their ethical obligations by violating applicable professional standards, plaintiff had failed to identify a single ethical obligation or professional standard that was allegedly breached. Instead, she contends that [defendants] have essentially conceded that publishing the Skeptical Inquirer article constituted a violation of the ethical obligations of a psychologist. Not surprisingly, [defendants] concede no such thing. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a probability that she would prevail on her negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress theory, and held that this claim must be stricken.