A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D.
Headline: Psychologist's Motion to Dismiss Denied: Emotional Distress Claims Allowed to Proceed
Citation:
Case Summary
A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D., decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on April 2, 2026, resulted in a remanded outcome. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a mother and her children against a psychologist. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, allowing the case to proceed. The court held: A plaintiff can state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that caused severe emotional distress.. A plaintiff can state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist breached a duty of care, causing severe emotional distress.. The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims at the pleading stage when the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of liability.. This decision is significant because it clarifies that patients can pursue claims against mental health professionals for emotional distress stemming from alleged misconduct, even at the initial pleading stage, preventing premature dismissal of potentially valid lawsuits.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- A plaintiff can state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that caused severe emotional distress.
- A plaintiff can state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist breached a duty of care, causing severe emotional distress.
- The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims at the pleading stage when the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of liability.
Entities and Participants
Frequently Asked Questions (15)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (15)
Q: What is A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. about?
A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. is a case decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on April 2, 2026.
Q: What court decided A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D.?
A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state appellate court.
Q: When was A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. decided?
A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. was decided on April 2, 2026.
Q: What was the docket number in A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D.?
The docket number for A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. is 4D2025-1377. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: What is the citation for A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D.?
The citation for A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: Is A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. published?
A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D.?
The case was remanded to the lower court in A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D.. Key holdings: A plaintiff can state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that caused severe emotional distress.; A plaintiff can state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist breached a duty of care, causing severe emotional distress.; The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims at the pleading stage when the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of liability..
Q: Why is A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. important?
A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. has an impact score of 65/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision is significant because it clarifies that patients can pursue claims against mental health professionals for emotional distress stemming from alleged misconduct, even at the initial pleading stage, preventing premature dismissal of potentially valid lawsuits.
Q: What precedent does A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. set?
A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. established the following key holdings: (1) A plaintiff can state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that caused severe emotional distress. (2) A plaintiff can state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist breached a duty of care, causing severe emotional distress. (3) The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims at the pleading stage when the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of liability.
Q: What are the key holdings in A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D.?
1. A plaintiff can state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that caused severe emotional distress. 2. A plaintiff can state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against a psychologist by alleging the psychologist breached a duty of care, causing severe emotional distress. 3. The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims at the pleading stage when the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of liability.
Q: How does A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. affect me?
This decision is significant because it clarifies that patients can pursue claims against mental health professionals for emotional distress stemming from alleged misconduct, even at the initial pleading stage, preventing premature dismissal of potentially valid lawsuits. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: Can A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. be appealed?
Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.
Q: What specific actions by the psychologist would constitute 'extreme and outrageous conduct' in the context of a mental health professional's duties?
While the opinion doesn't detail specific actions, such conduct generally involves behavior that goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. For a psychologist, this could involve egregious breaches of professional ethics or boundaries that cause severe harm.
Q: Does this ruling imply that any complaint of emotional distress against a mental health professional will survive a motion to dismiss?
No, the ruling specifically states that the *plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded* their claims. This means the allegations, if true, met the minimum legal requirements to proceed. The defendant can still present defenses and challenge the evidence at later stages.
Q: What is the difference in the legal standard for proving intentional versus negligent infliction of emotional distress in this context?
Intentional infliction requires proof of intent to cause severe emotional distress through extreme and outrageous conduct. Negligent infliction requires proof of a breach of a duty of care that caused severe emotional distress, without necessarily proving intent to cause that distress.
Case Details
| Case Name | A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. |
| Citation | |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeal |
| Date Filed | 2026-04-02 |
| Docket Number | 4D2025-1377 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Remanded |
| Impact Score | 65 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision is significant because it clarifies that patients can pursue claims against mental health professionals for emotional distress stemming from alleged misconduct, even at the initial pleading stage, preventing premature dismissal of potentially valid lawsuits. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Medical Malpractice, Pleading Standards |
| Jurisdiction | fl |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This AI-generated analysis of A. Doe, O/B/O Herself and Minor Children, L. Doe 1 and L. Doe 2 v. Malissa Tigges, Psy. D. was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress or from the Florida District Court of Appeal:
-
Mikesha Chantae Johnson v. Department of Revenue and Jevaun Shimoi Harvey
Homestead Exemption Allowed for Co-Owned Property Despite Co-Owner's IntentFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
-
Paris Demetrius Evans v. State of Florida, Orange County Sheriff's Office, and Clerk of the Court for Orange County
Appellate court affirms denial of motion to correct illegal sentence without hearingFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
-
Raul A. Campoverde v. State of Florida
Anonymous tip insufficient for traffic stop, evidence suppressedFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
-
Carliovis Bandera-Valier v. State of Florida
Prior Bad Acts Evidence Admissible Under Modus Operandi ExceptionFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
-
Damerius Kashon Hart v. State of Florida
Traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion, evidence suppressedFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
-
JERRETT WILLIAMS GRAHAM, Individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF RAJAH MALIK GRAHAM v. ORLANDO LODGE NO. 1079, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A ORLANDO FLORIDA ELKS LODGE 1079, and TAJH WILLIAMS, Individually
Elks Lodge owes duty of care in overdose death caseFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
-
Patrick Maxwell v. State of Florida
Florida appeals court: Nervousness and marijuana smell insufficient for probable causeFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
-
Quintavis Jaquan Wilson v. State of Florida
Affirmed: Reasonable suspicion justified traffic stop, leading to drug conviction.Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24