In February 2014 Lisa Jones went to dentist Ryne Johnson to have her front tooth crowned. She claims that during her visit Ryne made sexually oriented jokes that made her uncomfortable. For example, when she asked about her dental options, Ryne quipped that she “always has Weld Square,” referring to the red-light district of New Bedford.
Lisa’s crown came loose a couple months later and she returned to Ryne’s office to have it repaired. He finished the job, told Lisa that there would be no charge, and joked that instead of payment Lisa could buy him a drink.
Lisa told Ryne that she wasn’t interested in his advances. So he promised to keep things “strictly professional” going forward.
Despite this, Lisa claimed to suffer severe stress and anxiety (which included hair loss) as a result of Ryne’s comments.
Nevertheless, she returned to his office in June 2014. Unexpectedly, according to Lisa, the dentist began drilling her tooth. He then allegedly pressed down on the tooth forcefully with pliers and caused it to break. When this happen, Ryne supposedly said.
Oh, no! Your tooth broke to the gum line and I can’t do the crown now.
Again, Lisa asked about her options and again Ryne supposedly told her that should work the streets of New Bedford.
Lisa sued Ryne in superior court. Her complaint asserted claims for
(1) unfair and deceptive business practices under 93A
(2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
(3) assault and battery.
The superior court dismissed Lisa’s claims based on Ryne’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.
Undeterred, Lisa filed an appeal.
The Appeals Court sided with Lisa and reversed the lower court’s ruling.
According to the justices, Ryne’s act of breaking Lisa’s tooth (if true) could have been economically motivated. To fully repair the damage, Lisa would have had to pay Ryne $8,500. Additionally, if breaking the tooth was intentional, it could amount to assault and battery. The court also found that “intentional infliction of emotional distress” (IIED) could be found:
Jones alleged that Johnson made numerous inappropriate sexual comments and advances to her when she was a patient under his care, intentionally broke her tooth as retaliation for rebuffing his advances, and finally suggested that, inferentially in spite of, or because of, her damaged front tooth, she could still become a sex worker on the street unless she paid $8,500 for an implant. Viewing these allegations and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to Jones, we cannot reasonably say, as a matter of law, that the conduct was not extreme and outrageous…
The case was remained to superior court for further proceedings.
The full text of the opinion is attached.