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.