Plaintiffs, an elderly couple, brought suit alleging intentional and unintentional tort claims against nurses and their corporate employer, arising out of allegations of theft of certain personal property belonging to the plaintiffs.

One of the nurses moved to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and argued that the plaintiffs failed to state facts sufficient to support that claim.

The Court denied the nurse’s motion.  Under D.C. law, to succeed on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant which (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress.  Here, the Court concluded:
 [R]easonable jurors could believe that Bahi’s conduct—especially when viewed in the light of his relationship with the Manns—was outrageous and extreme. Bahi had permission to enter the Manns’ home, but that permission was implicitly conditioned on his agreement to not enter the locked areas of their home (and, it should go without saying, to not steal from the Manns).