Legal Practice Skills, 2015F Papadopoulos, Stavros

Suffolk University Law School

CASE BRIEF [Yes E + O]

Name: Gordon v. Frost, 388 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)
Facts:
One day Mrs. Gordon (P together with her husband) awoke with a migraine. She went
to take some prescribed Fiorinal, but saw that she was out. P then proceeded to call
Treasury Drug, her primary pharmacy, for a prescription renewal.
Pharmacy intern questioned P on the phone. P revealed to intern that she was a
hypochondriac and took a lot of medication. but upon hearing that P did not know her
doctors DEA, handed the phone to her supervisor, Frost (D), who had known P since
they were frequent customers at the pharmacy. P instructed D to get ahold of her doctor to
learn DEA number.
P called D to ask if medication was ready. D said yes. D then spoke to doctors office and
learned that the prescription was nonexistent. D did not further consult his own
pharmaceutical records, the doctor, or P in order to clarify the situation. Doctor believed
that P was not abusing the prescription.
D filed a Citizens Arrest Form, and police officer arrested P for violation of the GA
Controlled Substances Act when she arrived at the pharmacy.
P was shocked, upset, hysterical, and was yelled at by officer. P was taken to jail and held
there for 8 or 9 hours. ADA determined not to present case to grand jury.
Procedural History: P sued pharmacist and pharmacy after Mrs. Gordon was fraudulently
arrested on suspicion of attempting to obtain prescription drugs fraudulently. Jury found in favor
of P, but judge entered a JNOV in favor of Frost and the Pharmacy. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issue: Is there sufficient evidence to support a finding of extreme and outrageous conduct in an
IIED claim, where a P with a known medical condition suffers an ordeal of arrest and
imprisonment and is found not guilty, after her pharmacist alerted DEA of Ps attempted to
commit a crime.
Holding: Yes, Ds conduct was acceptably extreme and outrageous to support Ps claim of IIED.
Reasoning:
Rule: Ds conduct must be of such serious import as to naturally give rise to such intense
feelings of fright or extreme outrage as to cause severe emotional distress. P was shocked,
outraged, upset and hysterical; so much that police officer had to yell at her to calm her down.
Rule: Comment f, 46 of Restatement (Second) Outrageous character of conduct may
arise from Ds action that P is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, or from the
existence of a special relationship between P and D here patient and medical professional.
D knew that P was susceptible to emotional distress when she stated that she was a
hypochondriac and took medication. It went undisputed that P was already in an ill state prior to
arrest. Also, Ds position as a pharmacist had an implicit relationship of trust between D and P.
Yet D failed to investigate Ps presumed felony before calling for Ps arrest, and having her go
through the ordeal of arrest and imprisonment while P was already in an ill state and needing
medical care. There was explicit evidence that Frost perceived that Mrs. Gordon had emotional
problems.