This is somewhat breathtaking ...

Judge Orie Melvin dissented from an en banc Superior Court decision in Thierfelder v. Wolfert, 978 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. May 19, 2009), which held that when a physician is providing specific treatment for psychological problems, and has a sexual relationship with the patient, if that sexual relationship directly causes the patient?s psychological/emotional symptoms to worsen, that patient has potentially stated a cognizable cause of action for malpractice.  Judge Orie Melvin joined a dissenting opinion authored by Judge Lally-Green stating that a consensual, non-medical sexual affair between doctor and patient does not constitute the rendering of a medical skill associated with specialized training.

Judge Orie Melvin joined the dissenters in saying that the majority was mistaken in holding that a physician, whether a specialist or not, has a duty to refrain from a sexual affair with his patient even in the circumstances where the physician is treating the patient for an emotional condition or psychological problems and the patient alleges that the affair worsened the psychological problem. 

This is a breathtaking position for Judge Orie Melvin and the other two dissenters to take given that the doctor in question allegedly had a consensual sexual relationship with his patient for one year while she was his patient and being treated by him for anxiety and depression. 

Is this the kind of Judge that women of Pennsylvania want on the court?

Physicians have no duty to refrain from sexual affairs even when they will have a detrimental impact?  Huh?  WTF?  Oh my God?  All of those things to the nth degree! 

And this woman is running for the Highest Court in the Commonwealth? 

Case is attached below.

More?

AFA of PA questionairre.  Jack Panella refrains from pandering as is fitting for an impartial judge.  Joan spews it all out.