Court Opinion

ID: 9487998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:33:18.705178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:37.538610
License: Public Domain

COFFEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with Section A.l. (Professional Negligence and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Harm — Defendant Ryske) subsections a. and b. and Section B. (Sexual Exploitation in Psychotherapy Act) of Judge Ripple’s opinion, but wish to make it clear that this is in no way to be interpreted as expanding the liability of the clergy and thus spiritual counseling, or some combination of spiritual and secular counseling, remains shielded by the First Amendment. Thus Dauseh’s claims for professional negligence (Count I) and violation of the Illinois psychotherapy statute (Count IX) are the only claims against Rev. Ryske that survive on remand. This position is also consistent with Section C. (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) of Judge Ripple’s concurrence which affirms the dismissal of Dausch’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against Rev. Ryske (Count III), but it is at odds with Section A.l. (Professional Negligence and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Harm — Defendant Ryske) subsection c. of Judge Ripple’s analysis as it unfortunately combines the reversal of the trial judge’s dismissal of Dausch’s professional negligence claim with the reversal of the trial judge’s dismissal of her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count V). I also wish to point out that Dausch’s brief on appeal fails to assign error to the court’s dismissal of that claim, thus it is not before the court. Further, Dausch’s complaint in my opinion fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action against the church defendants sounding in professional negligence (Count II), breach of fiduciary duty (Count VI), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count VIII). I agree with the trial court’s action and Section C. (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) of Judge Ripple’s analysis, affirming the dismissal of Dausch’s breach of fiduciary duty claim. However, I disagree with Section A.2 (Professional Negligence and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Harm — Church defendants) of Judge Ripple’s analysis for Dausch’s complaint fails to adequately allege that the church defendants knew or should have known of the improper counselling conduct of Rev. Ryske. I further note that Dausch’s complaint fails to allege any basis for a claim under the doctrine of respondeat superior because her complaint fails to state that the church defendants ever hired or authorized Rev. Ryske to engage in secular psychological counselling. Rev. Ryske’s sexual contact with Dausch was obviously a deviation from the terms of the contract of his employment with the church and was certainly not in furtherance of the church defendants’ business. Finally, Dausch’s complaint fails to allege that the church defendants incurred any supervisory liability for it is devoid of any allegation that the church defendants were aware or had any knowledge that Rev. Ryske made improper sexual ad-*1430vanees either before or during the time in question.