previous professional relationship.” Dr. Soumelidis knew Patient A suffered from anxiety and knew she had a panic attack severe enough to land her in the hospital. But as previously mentioned, there is no evidence that he exploited this knowledge during the course of their brief relationship. Although Patient A testified that she felt sedated while in the hospital, there is no indication that she acted under the influence of medication once out of the hospital or that Dr. Soumelidis took advantage of her as a consequence. Dr. Soumelidis did not make the initial contact with Patient A after her discharge. Indeed, he had no intention of initiating a post-discharge relationship. The evidence does not show, therefore, that he had a plan to exploit Patient A based on what he had learned about her when she was his patient. When Patient A initiated contact, and Dr. Soumelidis responded, his goal was to have dinner with Patient A and see where that led. In their lengthy Facebook exchange on the evening of her discharge, there is no hint that he was trying to use her anxiety to further a sexual relationship with her. Instead, he tries to give her reasons to be calm. When they met the following day and kissed in an AutoZone parking lot, nothing suggests that Dr. Soumelidis was exploiting Patient A in any way. He reiterated an earlier request that they arrange to meet for dinner. She initially agreed. Her anxiety about being seen by someone she knew led her to back away from this plan, but this was an anxiety that might have been felt by any married person who was planning on having a romantic dinner with someone who was not their spouse. To avoid being seen, Patient A suggested they meet at the doctor’s hotel room. There is no evidence that the doctor tricked her into this meeting, or that any of the intimate contact that occurred in the hotel room was
previous professional relationship.” Dr. Soumelidis knew Patient A suffered from anxiety and knew she had a panic attack severe enough to land her in the hospital. But as previously mentioned, there is no evidence that he exploited this knowledge during the course of their brief relationship. Although Patient A testified that she felt sedated while in the hospital, there is no indication that she acted under the influence of medication once out of the hospital or that Dr. Soumelidis took advantage of her as a consequence. Dr. Soumelidis did not make the initial contact with Patient A after her discharge. Indeed, he had no intention of initiating a post-discharge relationship. The evidence does not show, therefore, that he had a plan to exploit Patient A based on what he had learned about her when she was his patient. When Patient A initiated contact, and Dr. Soumelidis responded, his goal was to have dinner with Patient A and see where that led. In their lengthy Facebook exchange on the evening of her discharge, there is no hint that he was trying to use her anxiety to further a sexual relationship with her. Instead, he tries to give her reasons to be calm. When they met the following day and kissed in an AutoZone parking lot, nothing suggests that Dr. Soumelidis was exploiting Patient A in any way. He reiterated an earlier request that they arrange to meet for dinner. She initially agreed. Her anxiety about being seen by someone she knew led her to back away from this plan, but this was an anxiety that might have been felt by any married person who was planning on having a romantic dinner with someone who was not their spouse. To avoid being seen, Patient A suggested they meet at the doctor’s hotel room. There is no evidence that the doctor tricked her into this meeting, or that any of the intimate contact that occurred in the hotel room was
rec-dec-n-soumelidis.docx