WhiteWind, also known as Susan Kilborne Musumici, sued by former client

September 9, 1994
Cover Page of Law Suit

LAW OFFICES OF LINDA M. SCAPAROTTI
LINDA M. SCAPAROTTI, ESQ. (#96992)
HARLAN G. SIMON, ESQ. (#122351)
50 California Street, Suite 3220
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 434-9600

Attorneys for Plaintiff LYNN M. SHEFFIELD

LYNN M. SHEFFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN KILBORNE MUSUMECI,
MFCC; FRIENDS' LANDING; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 740821-6

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1. Medical Malpractice I - Negligence
2. Medical Malpractice II - Abuse of Transference
3. Negligence Infliction of Emotional Distress
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
5. Sexual Battery
6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
7. Cause of Action Against Psychotherapist for Sexual Contact with Patient, CCC §43.93
8. Fraud
9. Constructive Fraud
10. Negligent Misrepresentation

Comes now plaintiff LYNN M. SHEFFIELD, and for causes of action against defendants, and each of them, alleges as follows:

1. LYNN M. SHEFFIELD (hereinafter referred to as "SHEFFIELD") is unaware of the true names, identities and capacities of the fictitious defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100 and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names of said fictitiously named defendants have been ascertained, the Complaint will be amended accordingly. Each of the defendants sued herein as a DOE is in some manner responsible for the injuries and damages sustained by SHEFFIELD, all as is more fully alleged hereinafter.
2. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent and/or employee of the remaining defendants, and in doing the acts hereinafter alleged was acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment and with the consent and permission of the other defendants.
3. At all fumes herein mentioned, defendant SUSAN KlLBORNE MUSUMECI (hereinafter referred to as "MUSUMECI") was a psychotherapist, MFCC, licensed to practice in the State of California, and pursuant to such license, said defendant was engaged in the practice of psychotherapy with an office in Berkeley, California, and said defendant held herself out to possess that degree of skill, ability and learning of such practitioners in the community.
4. At all times herein mentioned, defendant FRIENDS' LANDING was an organization, whose form is unknown, and was and is, upon plaintiff's information and belief, a provider of mental health care in the County of Alameda, and in fact, had its place of business in the City of Berkeley, County of Alameda, State of California.
5. The wrongful acts alleged in this complaint occurred in Alameda County; thus venue is properly placed in Alameda County.
6. SHEFFIELD is serving this complaint without writing a 90 day letter to make sure that the statute of limitations is protected. Because a 90 day letter would not toll the statute of limitations on the non-medical causes of action and since defendants would be sued on all those causes of action anyway, which would include basically the same allegations, it is impossible to see how defendants would be prejudiced by not having a 90 day letter.

   FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
   (Medical Malpractice I - Negligence)
   (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)

    

7. On or about the fall of 1990 or the periods relevant to each named defendant as set forth in the general allegations, SHEFFIELD was suffering from mental illnesses/conditions and multiple emotional problems, and consulted defendants, MUSUMECI and/or DOES l to 100 for the purpose of obtaining treatment for said illness and problems and evaluation and employed said defendants to care for her, and treat her and do all things
8. At said time and place, defendants, and each of them, undertook and agreed to diagnose and treat SHEFFIELD's illnesses/conditions and emotional problems and to care for her and treat her, and do all things necessary and proper in connection therewith, and it was then and there established the relationship of therapist and patient between said defendants and SHEFFIELD.
9. The acts hereinafter complained of were in the nature of continuing torts.
10. Commencing on or about November, 1990, and continuing thereafter until the relationship of therapist and patient was terminated, defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly treated, guided, counseled, diagnosed, supervised and cared for SHEFFIELD so as to proximately cause SHEFFIELD's mental condition to worsen. Such negligent and careless treatment included, but was not limited to the following treatment by defendant MUSUMECI:
    1. Utilization of massive regression techniques which were not indicated for SHEFFIELD given her pre-existing life experiences and psychological condition;
    2. Not attempting to treat SHEFFIELD for her presenting problems; rather, defendant developed her own agenda for treatment;
    3. Fostering a dependency relationship in a patient who needed help with individuation;
    4. Clouding and breaking down boundaries in a patient who should have been treated by the establishment of firm boundaries which should have been maintained and controlled throughout the therapy, including but not limited to the excessive mixing of social, personal and professional lives through the operation of "FRIENDS' LANDING" and the FRIENDS' LANDING "Friends' Days," the setting up of a barter fee-paying arrangement with plaintiff, and the employment of plaintiff as a representative for defendant's art-card "Soul Prints by Hand" personal business;
    5. Allowing herself to become too emotionally attached to SHEFFIELD, thus losing her objectivity and ability to diagnose and treat SHEFFIELD's problems;
    6. Allowing herself to become too involved in her own personal and psychological issues and needs, thus acting in her own best interest and not that of SHEFFIELD;
    7. Once the patient became uncontrollably regressed in the therapy, defendant attempted to handle the problem herself instead of acting appropriately by referring the patient to a neutral, qualified therapist who was capable of handling the problem and by seeking medical consultation for the patient and seeking psychiatric, psychological and/or mental consultation for herself;
    8. Defendant, instead of referring SHEFFIELD to another more appropriate therapist, told SHEFFIELD not to seek any other psychological help, aside from seeing herself;
    9. Instead of helping SHEFFIELD integrate into her family, social, school, work and other relationships, defendant caused SHEFFIELD to focus most of her energy and attention on defendant, which was disruptive to her life and relationships and defendant further disrupted SHEFFIELD's relationships by telling SHEFFIELD among other things that defendant's love would heal her;
    10. Defendant failed to properly monitor the therapy during the course of therapy;
    11. At many therapy sessions, instead of focusing entirely on SHEFFIELD's problems, defendant focused parts of the therapy on her own problems and life dilemmas. Defendant often spoke about herself, telling SHEFFIELD inappropriate things about her own life;
    12. Defendant failed to focus adequately on SHEFFIELD's emotional and psychological problems, social conduct, behavioral problems and her diagnoses and defendant failed to attempt to provide the patient with psychological insight regarding these problems;
    13. Defendant failed to recognize that SHEFFIELD's presenting problems were serious mental and emotional problems and, instead, defendant developed her own agenda and did not help SHEFFIELD with her problems and, instead, aggravated those problems;
    14. Defendant took an inappropriate amount of control over SHEFFIELD's life through various inappropriate techniques, including but not limited to abuse of the transference process, which defendant utilized throughout the period of therapy;
    15. Defendant allowed and encouraged SHEFFIELD to become involved in her personal life;
    16. Defendant told SHEFFIELD that she loved her, that she cared for her more than anyone else did, that she was the only one who could help her, and that her relationship with her was beneficial to plaintiff and part of her treatment with defendant, all to defendant's personal, professional, and financial benefit and to SHEFFIELD's detriment;
    17. Defendant breached SHEFFIELD's trust and confidentiality by revealing information she learned about SHEFFIELD in her capacity as therapist and patient to other patients and/or other individuals;
    18. Defendant breached the trust and confidentiality of other patients by communicating information about said patients to SHEFFIELD and others;
    19. Defendant made negligent and careless statements to SHEFFIELD, including accusing her of being passive-aggressive, mistrustful and jealous, and also became enraged at plaintiff and became verbally abusive, defensive and/or emotionally withholding;
    20. Defendant was negligent and careless in that she drank alcohol to the point of inebriation in front of plaintiff, despite the fact that the plaintiff was, and still is, a recovering alcoholic;
    21. On March 1, 1993, defendant abruptly and traumatically terminated the therapeutic relationship with plaintiff and left plaintiff confused about defendant's role and treatment.
11. All of the above allegations, which are not meant to be exhaustive, but only examples of defendant's inappropriate conduct, constitute actions and omissions below the standard of care in the community and exist wholly and separately from the seductive inappropriate acts alleged in other parts of this complaint. If defendant never acted sexually toward SHEFFIELD and never performed the intentional misconduct hereinafter alleged, she would have still violated the standard of care in her treatment of SHEFFIELD as alleged.
12. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, SHEFFIELD's mental condition worsened, causing SHEFFIELD severe emotional distress, physical injury and permanent mental injury.
13. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, SHEFFIELD has incurred and will incur in the future, medical and other related out-of-pocket expenses in a sum unknown at this time. At the time of trial, SHEFFIELD will seek damages for medical bills, past and future, and past and future other related expenses according to proof at the time of trial.
14. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, SHEFFIELD has sustained and will sustain in the future, lost wages and loss of earning capacity in a sum unknown at this time. At the time of trial, SHEFFIELD will seek damages for past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity according to proof at the time of trial.
15. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, SHEFFIELD has sustained and will in the future sustain, physical, mental and emotional pain, suffering and distress, all to her general damage in a sum to be proved at the time of trial.

     

    SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Medical Malpractice II - Abuse of Transference)
    (Plaintiff v. Defendant MUSUMECI)

     

16. SHEFFIELD herein repeats and realleges as if fully set forth at length each and every paragraph of the First Cause of Action, except for those paragraphs inconsistent with this cause of action.
17. On or about November 1990, and thereafter and for the periods relevant to each defendant as set forth in the general allegations, SHEFFIELD was suffering from mental illnesses/conditions and multiple emotional problems. Because of the nature and type of said mental illnesses/conditions and problems, and because of SHEFFIELD's presenting symptoms, pre-existing condition and background, SHEFFIELD was highly susceptible to the suggestions of a therapist who, by reason of her knowledge, training, and experience could take advantage of such illness/condition and problems. Because of such illness/condition and problems, SHEFFIELD was also particularly susceptible to believing that her therapist would actually care for her and look out for her best interest and thus she could easily be sexually seduced and otherwise inappropriately influenced by such therapist, especially considering the nature of therapy and the transference process as hereinafter alleged. Such actions upon the part of a therapist could severely aggravate her then-existing condition and cause it to be permanent in nature and further cause her to be deprived of further treatment because of her lack of confidence in that treatment and cause her the need to be hospitalized.
18. In order to cure a patient suffering from a mental illness/condition and problems and with a background like SHEFFIELD had on or about November, 1990 and beyond, it is necessary for the therapist, by methods learned by her in her training and education, to establish what is known as the "transference phenomenon." The therapist encourages the trust of the patient and as that trust develops, the patient begins to "transfer" feelings and perceptions which she had for significant people (usually mother and father) in her past onto the therapist. This is an unconscious process that the patient does not realize is occurring. The therapist essentially "becomes" the parent in the patient's eyes. However, unlike the real parent, the therapist can remain "neutral" and nonjudgmental. The patient begins to place enormous trust in the therapist when the patient reveals her darkest secrets to the therapist. Also, due to the natural imbalance of power in the relationship, in which a patient is looking towards the therapist for help, the therapist is not only in a position of tremendous power in relationship to the patient, but also the therapist can exert a tremendous amount of influence on the patient. In the natural progression of therapy, the patient begins to transfer the infantile sexual fantasies she had for her parents onto the therapist. The appropriate therapist is then able to learn more and more about the patient's unconscious motivations and barriers and then is able to slowly and carefully help the patient gain insight into a series of "problems" that began in early childhood, which will help the patient overcome years of self-destructive behavior and will place the patient on the road to mental health. On the other hand, at this point, the patient becomes extraordinarily vulnerable to the inappropriate suggestions and influence of the therapist. The patient can often be in a regressed state where she is reacting to the therapist the way a young child would react to her parents. It is usual for the patient to begin expressing sexual feelings towards the therapist and/or to attempt to act out on those feelings. When this occurs, the appropriate therapist maintains her neutral persona and helps the patient understand the source of the fantasies and feelings which the patient is experiencing. The inappropriate therapist exploits the situation and begins sexualizing the therapy for her own benefit or at least to the patient's detriment. Because of the transference situation, for a therapist to engage in any type of sexual contact with a patient would be almost identical in its harmful effect to a parent engaging in a sexual relationship with a child. Once a therapist allows a patient to believe her sexual fantasies can be fulfilled by the therapist, the patient is almost powerless to resist. If this transference phenomenon is abused by the therapist, not only sexually but in other ways too, it likely will not only worsen the mental illness of the patient but by the reason of the patient's resulting lack of confidence, it will also prevent the patient from being treated successfully in the future without a long term hospitalization, and even then the patient may not be put back together.
19. Commencing on or about November, 1990 and continuing thereafter, defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly treated, guided, counseled, diagnosed, medicated, supervised and cared for SHEFFIELD and abused the transference phenomenon so as to proximately cause SHEFFIELD's condition to worsen. Such negligent and careless treatment and abuse of the transference phenomenon by defendants, and each of them, included but was not limited to the following acts of defendant MUSUMECI:
    1. Defendant paid SHEFFIELD excessive compliments and made inappropriate romantic statements.
    2. Defendant held therapy sessions in her home, and spent hours and hours in this home therapy setting with plaintiff engaged in sexual activity;
    3. Defendant sexually touched SHEFFIELD, including but not limited to genital fondling, masturbation and oral sex. Such sexual conduct began from on or about May of 1991 and continued throughout the treatment;
    4. Defendant told SHEFFIELD intimate details of her sexual encounters with other individuals and further told SHEFFIELD of her fantasies about her and other individuals;
    5. Defendant assured SHEFFIELD that their relationship was appropriate therapy and made SHEFFIELD believe, through her words and/or actions, that their sexual relationship was a positive part of the treatment and beneficial for SHEFFIELD;
    6. Defendant informed SHEFFIELD that she could and would help her with all aspects of her life. She assured her that she would care for her psychologically and emotionally;
    7. Defendant became angry and abusive toward plaintiff when plaintiff expressed confusion and difficulty she was having in dealing with the dual professional and sexual relationship defendant had created;
20. Defendants, and each of them, by reason of their training and background knew, or should have known, that a woman such as SHEFFIELD with the type of mental illnesses/conditions and problems from which she was suffering was particularly susceptible to being influenced by defendant, being sexually seduced by defendant and believing defendant when she told her she was the only one who could help her.
21. On some of the times herein mentioned, when defendant performed her acts and omissions, defendant did said acts and omissions as part of SHEFFIELD's psychological treatment with the belief that such treatment and acts would be beneficial to help cure SHEFFIELD's mental condition. Defendant never gave any treatment or did any acts with the intent to cause SHEFFIELD any harm.
22. At other times, defendant performed acts which could not be legitimately considered part of the therapy; thus, the MICRA limitations should not apply to this cause of action as well as the causes of action hereinafter pleaded.
23. As a result of the above, SHEFFIELD proximately suffered damages as alleged in the First Cause of Action of this complaint.
24. As a proximate result of the above, SHEFFIELD suffered damages as otherwise alleged in this complaint.

     

    STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ALLEGATIONS
    AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

     

25. As to the non-professional negligence causes of action and the portion of the allegations of the Second Cause of Action of defendants' misconduct which could not legitimately be considered part of the therapy, the three-year MICRA outside statute of limitations limit should not apply. In addition, the one-year MICRA discovery statute of limitations should not apply to the above-referenced causes of action and theories of recovery. SHEFFIELD did not discover that she had been harmed by defendant, despite using reasonable diligence, until within a year of the filing of this complaint. Thus, the statute of limitations as to all of the non-MICRA causes of action has not run.
26. As to the three-year MICRA statute of limitations, SHEFFIELD alleges that:
    1. Due to the particular nature of SHEFFIELD's mental illnesses/conditions and the nature of the harm which defendant caused the SHEFFIELD, the three-year statute of limitations should be tolled because SHEFFIELD did not suffer any perceptible harm until within three years of the date of the filing of this Complaint. Also, SHEFFIELD did not begin having the symptoms of her current therapist abuse induced disorders until within a year of the filing of this complaint.
    2. Defendant committed fraud by not informing SHEFFIELD during therapy of her inappropriate actions and the harm that it caused plaintiff, even though she knew this at the time.
    3. Defendant committed fraud by telling SHEFFIELD that she loved her, that their relationship was beneficial to plaintiff, that defendant was the only one who could help her because she cared about her more than anyone else did, and that she would never do anything to hurt her. Defendant told her these things for the purpose of inducing SHEFFIELD to not bring an action against her; thus defendant should be estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense.
    4. Defendant committed fraud on SHEFFIELD by giving her the impression through her acts and statements that the inappropriate treatment that she was rendering would help plaintiff and was appropriate, when she knew that it was causing plaintiff harm and aggravating her mental and physical condition. SHEFFIELD relied on this fraud to her detriment in not bringing a complaint against defendant until this time. SHEFFIELD reasonably believed and relied upon the fraudulent statement of defendant because defendant was her therapist and SHEFFIELD trusted her.
    5. Defendant, throughout her relationship with SHEFFIELD, kept SHEFFIELD in such a psychologically regressed and dependent state that SHEFFIELD viewed defendant, and in fact still views defendant, as a young child would view a parent. Defendant did this through her abuse of the transference phenomenon, and through other inappropriate techniques. Even after SHEFFIELD's relationship with defendant ended, SHEFFIELD was left in a state where she honestly believed that someday she would need to return to defendant. Defendant told SHEFFIELD that she loved her, that their relationship would be beneficial to her and that she cared about her more than anyone else did and SHEFFIELD believed this to be true. A desperate and intense dependency condition was created in SHEFFIELD during the therapy sessions by defendant's abuse of the transference process and her other power over SHEFFIELD and her life. Thus, defendant's abuse of the transference phenomenon and power abuse created in SHEFFIELD a psychological state in which she was incapable of seeing defendant as anything other than an all-good, all-loving care taker. This mental condition lasted in SHEFFIELD beyond the period of time in which she was in treatment with defendant and to some extent still exists today. Thus, the statute of limitations should be tolled because SHEFFIELD was placed in a state of psychological regression, as her ability to understand that she had suffered any harm as a result of defendant's conduct is concerned, and defendant should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense, since her wrongful conduct both prevented SHEFFIELD from understanding that she had been harmed by her and, in fact, had suffered any perceptible harm, and prevented SHEFFIELD from being able to bring an action against defendant, since she believed until very recently that defendant loved her and acted in SHEFFIELD's best interests and SHEFFIELD did not want to hurt defendant.
27. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendant, as alleged herein, SHEFFIELD was suffering from severe mental illnesses/conditions. From November, 1990 until at least within one year of the date of filing this complaint, because of said mental conditions and/or illnesses, SHEFFIELD was incapable of appreciating the fact that the acts done by defendant were wrong and actionable and the fact that said acts had caused her harm. Further, SHEFFIELD, despite reasonable diligence, was unable to discover that defendant engaged in wrongful conduct and that she was harmed by that wrongful conduct.
28. SHEFFIELD was unable to discover through the exercise of due diligence that she had been injured or that her injury was the result of the action of defendant until at least within one year of the date of filing this complaint. Additional reasons for this were:
    1. SHEFFIELD was suffering from the mental delusion, deliberately induced by defendant, that any emotional difficulties which she was having in her life were not caused by defendant, but were rather her own problem and responsibility or were caused by her relationships with other people in her life;
    2. Because of the nature of the transference phenomenon and the power differential between the patient and therapist, a patient in a long term psychotherapy develops an extraordinary sense and feeling of loyalty and devotion to the therapist. This loyalty and devotion would be similar to a child's feeling of loyalty and devotion to a parent. Because of this, it is almost impossible for a patient to believe that the therapist has done or would do anything wrong and that her wrongful acts have harmed her until a significant amount of time has passed after the therapy has ended;
    3. A symptom of SHEFFIELD's current severe mental illness is that she blames herself for all things that go wrong in her life. This self-blame stems from childhood events which were greatly aggravated by defendant's treatment. Because of this feeling of self-blame and an inability to objectively see that defendant had harmed her, SHEFFIELD was unable to discover that she had been harmed by defendant until at least within one year of the filing of this complaint. In addition, defendant reinforced these feelings of self-blame;
    4. Defendant should be estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense since she intentionally induced SHEFFIELD to not bring an action against her by defrauding her and by making her believe that she is responsible for all of her own problems and by defendant performing actions and stating things within the therapy process which induced SHEFFIELD to believe that defendant in no way aggravated her severe mental condition and that she did not act inappropriately toward her. SHEFFIELD did in fact rely on these statements and actions to her detriment.
29. It is common for victims of abuse of the transference phenomenon to go into a state of psychological denial regarding the therapist's inappropriate conduct. Because of the nature of the transference phenomenon, patients become very dependent upon the therapist and even after the therapy is terminated, patients need to hold on to the delusion that the abusing therapist has helped them. A victim of transference abuse is then in an extremely psychologically decompensated and depleted condition. So at that point in the therapy and thereafter in the therapy, the patient is extremely needy. The patient needs to be able to hold onto the delusion and fantasy that the therapist has helped them because if they were to believe that the therapist had harmed them, they would then have to believe that all of the attention that the therapist had paid to them, and all the times that the therapist told the patient that she was special, and all of the compliments that the therapist gave the patient in order to abuse the transference were all just a lie and that the patient is really the worthless, defective human being that she always thought she was. For the patient to accept this reality would cause the patient to experience extreme depression and possibly again entertain suicidal notions. Thus, the patient enters into a period of severe denial where she attempts to hold on to the fantasy and the delusion that the abusing therapist has helped her. During this period the patient cannot appreciate that her therapist acted inappropriately and caused her harm. This phenomenon did, in fact, occur in SHEFFIELD's case. Thus, she was unable to break through this denial process until within a year of filing of this complaint; thus, she was not able to realize that she had suffered perceptible harm until within a year of filing of this complaint, and she was not able to discover that she was injured by defendant's misconduct until within a year of the filing of this complaint.
30. At various times during the therapy, defendant told SHEFFIELD that she loved her, cared about her, that their relationship was beneficial to plaintiff, and that defendant was the only one who could help her because she cared about her more than anyone else did. She told her this information at a time when SHEFFIELD was extremely vulnerable and regressed due to the defendant's abuse of the transference phenomenon. These statements were made by the defendant for the purpose of inducing SHEFFIELD to not only submit to her inappropriate advances and treatment, and to inappropriately take control over her life, but also for the purpose of fostering an enormous dependency relationship by SHEFFIELD on the defendant and making it impossible for SHEFFIELD to discover that defendant did anything to harm her and that she had been harmed by defendant's misconduct. Therefore, defendant should be estopped from raising the statute-of limitations as a defense in this case.
31. Defendant, through her inappropriate conduct, took nearly complete control over SHEFFIELD's life. As a result of this, SHEFFIELD virtually gave up her other psychological support systems. She became completely dependent upon defendant, and upon the defendant's support network at "FRIENDS' LANDING" that defendant induced plaintiff to join and become an integral part of. As a result of defendant's misconduct, SHEFFIELD remained dependent on defendant until within a year of the date of the filing of this Complaint; thus she was unable to appreciate that she had been harmed by defendant and that defendant had acted inappropriately until that time.
32. Because of the nature of the transference phenomenon, a patient who has suffered an abuse of transference is unable to believe that the abusing therapist has acted inappropriately and harmed her even when told by other people that defendant had acted inappropriately and harmed her. Thus, even if SHEFFIELD had at any time been told that defendant had acted inappropriately and had harmed her, she was still unable to discover these facts, i.e., break through the denial and really believe that she was harmed by defendant until within a year of the date of filing of this complaint.
33. Defendant, through her statements, bragging, and assertions, told SHEFFIELD that she would always take care of her, that there was always a place for her at Friend's Landing so long as she stayed in the relationship with her. Defendant held these powers over SHEFFIELD and led her to believe and SHEFFIELD did believe that if she ever opposed her she would use her power to hurt her and not to protect her. As a result of this state of dependency and control which defendant maintained over SHEFFIELD, SHEFFIELD was unable to see that defendant was harming her or that her conduct was wrongful. And, even if SHEFFIELD had begun to be aware of these things she would not have been able to act upon them to protect her rights as she did not want to see that the "therapeutic" life she had been living with defendant was a lie. As a result, SHEFFIELD was unable to discover her injury and/or that defendant's conduct was wrongful until within one year from the date of filing this complaint. As a further result of this, defendant should be estopped from using the statute of limitations as a defense to any allegation herein.

     

    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
    (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)

     

34. Plaintiff herein repeats and realleges as though fully set forth at length each and every paragraph of this complaint, except for the paragraphs which are inconsistent with a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
35. A confidential and fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants in that defendants were plaintiff's therapists and plaintiff was their patient. Plaintiff trusted defendants completely with the most intimate psychological information and plaintiff had every right to expect that the defendants would supervise and/or treat plaintiff with the proper psychological treatment her condition required and that the information she disclosed to defendants, as well as the relationships themselves, were to be kept professional and confidential.
36. During the course of defendants' treatment of plaintiff, defendants had access to medical and/or psychological information concerning plaintiff's state of mind and knew of her susceptibility to emotional distress.
37. Despite defendants' knowledge of plaintiff's susceptibility to emotional distress, upon plaintiff's information and belief, defendants, during the course of treating plaintiff, negligently and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's susceptibility to emotional distress, failed to properly administer, monitor, treat and/or provide plaintiff with the psychiatric counseling her condition required, as well as committing all of the other acts against plaintiff as previously described with detail.
38. By the facts stated set forth herein, defendants and each of them, owed plaintiff a duty to exercise due care towards plaintiff.
39. By virtue of their education, training and/or experience as business persons, counselors, therapists and/or other such health care providers, defendants and each of them, knew or should have known, that a woman such as plaintiff with the type of mental illnesses/conditions and problems from which she was suffering was particularly susceptible to being influenced by defendants and being manipulated by defendants and that their failure(s) to exercise due care in the performance of their acts and promises regarding their treatment of plaintiff would cause plaintiff severe emotional distress.
40. As a proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of defendants as heretofore described, plaintiff sustained severe emotional distress, mental suffering, all of which has caused, continues to cause, and will cause her great physical and mental pain and I suffering all to her damage.
41. At some of the times herein mentioned, when defendants performed their acts and omissions, defendants did said acts and omissions as part of the plaintiff's psychological treatment with the belief that such treatment and acts would be beneficial to help cure plaintiff's mental condition. Defendants never gave any treatment or did any acts with the intent to cause plaintiff any harm.

     

    FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
    (Plaintiff v. Defendant MUSUMECI)

     

42. SHEFFIELD herein repeats and realleges as though fully set forth at length each and every paragraph of this Complaint, except for the paragraphs which are inconsistent with a cause of action for intentional conduct.
43. Commencing on November, 1990 and continuing thereafter throughout the treatment period, defendant MUSUMECI used her ability, knowledge and background as a therapist to sexually seduce SHEFFIELD and continue the seduction thereafter knowing that SHEFFIELD had the type of background and mental illness and problems to make her extremely vulnerable to a sexual seduction. Defendant deliberately seduced SHEFFIELD by words and actions and by abuse of the transference phenomenon with a deliberate course of conduct on her part toward SHEFFIELD, so as to cause SHEFFIELD to succumb to her sexual advances. In addition to sexually seducing SHEFFIELD, defendant MUSUMECI sexualized and eroticized the therapy and committed such acts as genital fondling, mutual masturbation, oral sex, and various other sexual acts upon SHEFFIELD for defendant's advantage and to satisfy her own needs, and without attention to and in utter disregard of SHEFFIELD's needs, to SHEFFIELD's detriment.
44. As a proximate result of the intentional and careless acts of defendants as heretofore described, plaintiff sustained severe emotional distress, mental suffering, all of which has caused, continues to cause, and will cause her great physical and mental pain and suffering all to her damage.
45. As a proximate result of the above, SHEFFIELD suffered damages as otherwise alleged in this complaint.

     

    FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Sexual battery)
    (Plaintiff v. Defendant MUSUMECI)

     

46. SHEFFIELD herein repeats and realleges as though fully set forth at length each and every paragraph of this complaint, except for the paragraphs which are inconsistent with a cause of action for battery, including but not limited to paragraph 21.
47. During the course of the treatment of SHEFFIELD, defendant MUSUMECI used her powers and abilities as a therapist and her knowledge and background to engage in sexual contact and touching with SHEFFIELD, including but not limited to genital fondling, masturbation, oral sex and various other sexual behavior, while knowing that plaintiff had the I type of background and the type of mental illness that would make her vulnerable to this type of sexual touching.
48. Defendant MUSUMECI deliberately seduced SHEFFIELD by words and actions, and by abuse of the transference phenomenon with a deliberate course of conduct on her part toward SHEFFIELD which was designed to cause her to succumb to her sexual advances and sexual behavior. Had SHEFFIELD not been suffering from her mental illnesses/conditions and emotional problems, and if the mental illnesses/conditions had not been aggravated by said defendant, she would have never permitted or consented to the sexual touching of her by defendant, resulting in sexualized therapy and sexualized acts between the two of them, which acts constituted a harmful or offensive touching and battery upon her person.
49. SHEFFIELD did not consent to this sexualized touching and in fact was not able to consent to this sexualized touching because of the nature of the transference phenomenon. Because of the transference phenomenon and the power imbalance inherent in a psychotherapy relationship, SHEFFIELD viewed defendant as a trusted parent-like figure; thus, she was not able to consent to her touching and sexual advances any more than a child could or, for that matter, any more than a minor could ever consent to the touching of an adult under the law.
50. As a legal result of the above, SHEFFIELD suffered damages as otherwise alleged in this complaint, including punitive damages.

     

    SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
    (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)

     

51. SHEFFIELD incorporates all paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein, except those paragraphs which are inconsistent with a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.
52. Because of the position of authority and trust occupied by defendants, including MUSUMECI, and the nature of the therapy and the transference phenomenon, SHEFFIELD was induced to place special trust and confidence in the defendants with respect to the course of the treatment.
53. Because of the relationship of confidentiality and trust and power created and I fostered by the defendants, and SHEFFIELD's reliance on the confidence of each of the defendants named in this Cause of Action, a fiduciary relationship existed between SHEFFIELD and defendants.
54. The defendants fostered this fiduciary relationship from the beginning until the end of therapy.
55. Defendants failed to act to protect SHEFFIELD from harm, and acted in a way to cause SHEFFIELD harm by placing their interests ahead of the safety and well-being f SHEFFIELD.
56. Defendants' actions, set forth in more detail previously in this complaint, in this regard constitute a breach of fiduciary relationship that existed between SHEFFIELD and defendants. As a direct and proximate foreseeable result of the conduct of defendants named in this Cause of Action, SHEFFIELD has been injured as previously set forth.
57. As a proximate result of the above, SHEFFIELD suffered damages as otherwise alleged in this complaint.

     

    SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Cause of action Against Psychotherapist for Sexual
    Contact with Patient, C.C.C. §43.93)
    (Plaintiff v. Defendant MUSUMECI)

     

58. SHEFFIELD herein repeats and realleges as though fully set forth at length each and every paragraph of this complaint, except for the paragraphs which are inconsistent with a cause of action against a psychotherapist for sexual contact with patient.
59. During the period of time that SHEFFIELD was receiving psychotherapy from defendant MUSUMECI and by means of therapeutic deception, defendant MUSUMECI engaged in sexual contact with the SHEFFIELD.
60. As a proximate result of this sexual contact, SHEFFIELD suffered damages as otherwise alleged in this Complaint.

     

    EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Fraud)
    (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)

     

61. SHEFFIELD herein repeats and realleges as though fully set forth at length each and every paragraph of this Complaint, except for the paragraphs which are inconsistent with a cause of action for fraud.
62. At all times herein relevant, defendants acted falsely and fraudulently and with the intent to deceive SHEFFIELD by giving SHEFFIELD the impression, through statements and conduct, that defendants were the only ones who could help her, that defendant MUSUMECI loved her, and that their relationship was beneficial to plaintiff.
63. Defendants, in making these representations, intended that SHEFFIELD should rely on said representations as an inducement to continue her relationship with them, including her therapy relationship and otherwise to her detriment.
64. SHEFFIELD believed in and justifiably relied on the representations of defendants and was thereby induced to participate with and continue her relationship with defendants and her treatment with defendants.
65. SHEFFIELD did not discover the fraud and deceit practiced upon her by defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged, until after the date that her injury was caused by defendants, and within three years of the filing of this complaint.
66. As a direct and foreseeable result of the fraud of defendants and the deceit upon SHEFFIELD, she was damaged as previously set forth.

     

    NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Constructive Fraud)
    (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)

     

67. SHEFFIELD herein repeats and realleges as though fully set forth at length each and every paragraph of this complaint, except for the paragraphs which are inconsistent with a cause of action for constructive fraud.
68. In making the representations as previously set forth in the Fraud Cause of Action, defendants, and each of them, owed plaintiff a duty, as alleged in this complaint.
69. Defendants, and each of them, gained an advantage and personal benefit by misleading plaintiff to her prejudice. Defendants' representations constitute constructive fraud and were a breach of fiduciary relationship existing between SHEFFIELD and defendants.
70. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon this special relationship between themselves and each defendant, and on all of defendants' representations, to her detriment.
71. As a direct and foreseeable result of the constructive fraud of defendants upon plaintiff, plaintiff was damaged as otherwise alleged in this complaint.

     

    TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Negligent Misrepresentation)
    (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)

     

72. SHEFFIELD herein repeats and realleges as though fully set forth at length each and every paragraph of this Complaint, except for the paragraphs which are inconsistent with a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.
73. When defendants, and each of them, made the false representations as previously set forth in the Fraud Cause of Action, they had no reasonable grounds to believe that said representations were true, and defendants made said misrepresentations with the intent that SHEFFIELD rely on them.
74. SHEFFIELD believed and justifiably relied upon defendants' misrepresentations.
75. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations, and each of the, SHEFFIELD has been damaged as previously set forth.

WHEREFORE, SHEFFIELD prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. For damages for the past and future medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial;
2. For damages for past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity according to proof at the time of trial;
3. For general damages for physical and mental pain and suffering and emotional distress in a sum to be proved at the time of trial;
4. For punitive damages as to the Fifth Cause of Action for Sexual Battery in a sum to be proved at the time of trial;
5. For prejudgment interest pursuant to statute;
6. For costs of suit herein; and
7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Note: It seems this suit was dismissed at the request of plaintiff due to costs, the viability of collection and the statute of limitations--according to legal counsel. However, it appears this was not meant as a retraction by plaintiff Lynn Sheffield of any of her previously made claims or statements.

WhiteWind Swan Fisher Answers Lawsuit

Lawsuit by Former Member of Friends Landing Dismissed