We successfully persuaded the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that a general practitioner is under no specific or "heightened" duty in tort to refrain from sexual relations with a patient under the circumstances where the general practitioner provide "incidental mental health treatment." The Supreme Court also found that the facts alleged by the plaintiffs do not establish that the defendant doctor violated his duty of care to the plaintiff, which was that of a general practitioner and not that of a mental health specialist precluded from engaging in sexual relations with a patient. The Court rejected the Superior Court's decision which held the doctor to a novel duty and standard.