Opinion ID: 681592
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mr. Lareau's, Christopher's, and Ashley's Negligent-Infliction-of-Emotional-Distress Claims

Text: 43 Mr. Lareau, Christopher, and Ashley also bring claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. In these claims, Mr. Lareau, Christopher, and Ashley seek to recover for injuries arising from their concern over harm to Mrs. Lareau, specifically her brain surgery and her continued uncertain prognosis. 44 Massachusetts does not apply the discovery rule to claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress brought to recover for injuries arising from concern over harm to another. See Gore v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 645, 461 N.E.2d 256, 260 (1984) (the [emotional-distress] claims fail because they are tied by the amended complaint to the date of claimed awareness of Gore's condition, i.e., almost three years after the accident). Rather, in addition to the physical injury required for all emotional-distress claims, bystander plaintiffs must show physical proximity to the accident, temporal proximity to the negligent act, and familial proximity to the victim. Anderson v. W.R. Grace & Co., 628 F.Supp. 1219, 1229 (D.Mass.1986) (summarizing Massachusetts cases). 45 Mr. Lareau, Christopher, and Ashley cannot show physical or temporal proximity to Mrs. Lareau's 1970 operation, in which she was allegedly negligently injected with Thorotrast. Accordingly, their emotional-distress claims fail. IV.