4 ms·

A bit of a side note, but this is super rare: > Meanwhile, Dean took SavantCare to small claims court over the letter and calls she later received, and won a $

A bit of a side note, but this is super rare: > Meanwhile, Dean took SavantCare to small claims court over the letter and calls she later received, and won a $275 judgment in March 2018 for “negligent infliction of emotional distress.” NIED claims are nearly impossible to win. In law school we were taught to point them out on issue-spotting questions, but that they were basically unwinnable.

dylan604 3y ago
so you're claiming that since there was a win, that it was that egregious?
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Not egregious, certainly for the couple hundred dollars recovered. I was mostly pointing it out (1) because any lawyers here would find it interesting that someone, somewhere, once won on an NIED claim, and (2) so that non-lawyers wouldn't get the sense that NIED claims are winnable, in general. They are often tacked on to other, more legit claims, but they are very rarely won.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Egregious in the sense that it was so over the top obvious there was no other outcome but to award the win vs some minor squabble between two parties. Not that it was so egregious mountains of cash were expected.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  The article doesn't say whether Savant Care showed up. If they didn't show up it would have been a default judgement.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    Not sure of the jurisdiction issues where the judgement was issued but the last time I looked into it you can't meaningfully collect a judgement from small claims court in my area.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      The article also didn't say whether the judgement was collected, just that it was won.
bombcar 3y ago
Judges in small claims court are much more lenient with petitioners (and defendants) than they are in "big real court". And it could have been a default judgement.
wintermutestwin 3y ago
I've heard a judge in CA say that emotional distress claims were not permissible in small claims court.
- pc86 3y ago
  That's either not the case (this was in California), or is for something "worse" than negligent infliction. As a sibling comment pointed out it's possible that this was a summary judgment so perhaps it isn't technically emotional distress.
fakereviewwatch 3y ago
This is an interesting thread, so I thought I'd give some more detail. A few months earlier, my husband and I visited small claims court and had the opportunity to ask a judge if I could bring an emotional distress case there. His response? "Sure you can." We poured through the CACIs and prepared our case for weeks, knowing how difficult it would be to prove. Frankly, I thought we had enough to prove intentional emotional distress, but I was satisfied with getting an award for negligent. Yes, Vikas Kedia and the two head doctors for Savant Care showed up. At the time, I didn't even know that the letter from the lawyer had been forged! Savant Care knew it, though, and hid that fraud in small claims court. Regardless, I still had enough evidence that a psychiatric practice had inflicted emotional distress that I won the case. As the article mentioned, it was about principle, not money. Savant Care eventually paid, but only after we sent them a letter threatening to drag them back to court. Of course, this case only concerned Savant Care's actions toward me, not their fake reviews. Kay

dylan604 3y ago

so you're claiming that since there was a win, that it was that egregious?

gnicholas 3y ago
Not egregious, certainly for the couple hundred dollars recovered. I was mostly pointing it out (1) because any lawyers here would find it interesting that someone, somewhere, once won on an NIED claim, and (2) so that non-lawyers wouldn't get the sense that NIED claims are winnable, in general. They are often tacked on to other, more legit claims, but they are very rarely won.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Egregious in the sense that it was so over the top obvious there was no other outcome but to award the win vs some minor squabble between two parties. Not that it was so egregious mountains of cash were expected.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
The article doesn't say whether Savant Care showed up. If they didn't show up it would have been a default judgement.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Not sure of the jurisdiction issues where the judgement was issued but the last time I looked into it you can't meaningfully collect a judgement from small claims court in my area.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    The article also didn't say whether the judgement was collected, just that it was won.

bombcar 3y ago

Judges in small claims court are much more lenient with petitioners (and defendants) than they are in "big real court". And it could have been a default judgement.

wintermutestwin 3y ago

I've heard a judge in CA say that emotional distress claims were not permissible in small claims court.

pc86 3y ago
That's either not the case (this was in California), or is for something "worse" than negligent infliction. As a sibling comment pointed out it's possible that this was a summary judgment so perhaps it isn't technically emotional distress.

fakereviewwatch 3y ago

This is an interesting thread, so I thought I'd give some more detail. A few months earlier, my husband and I visited small claims court and had the opportunity to ask a judge if I could bring an emotional distress case there. His response? "Sure you can." We poured through the CACIs and prepared our case for weeks, knowing how difficult it would be to prove. Frankly, I thought we had enough to prove intentional emotional distress, but I was satisfied with getting an award for negligent. Yes, Vikas Kedia and the two head doctors for Savant Care showed up. At the time, I didn't even know that the letter from the lawyer had been forged! Savant Care knew it, though, and hid that fraud in small claims court. Regardless, I still had enough evidence that a psychiatric practice had inflicted emotional distress that I won the case. As the article mentioned, it was about principle, not money. Savant Care eventually paid, but only after we sent them a letter threatening to drag them back to court. Of course, this case only concerned Savant Care's actions toward me, not their fake reviews. Kay