An Ohio man who discovered that his wife, a surgical tech, had an affair with a surgeon and that the surgeon was the biological father of his child cannot sue for child-raising costs or other damages, says a state appeals court.

The court's Dec. 17 ruling upholds a trial judge's previous rejection of Ronald Burel's lawsuit, which demanded compensation for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, the expenses of raising a child and other charges after he discovered that his former wife's lover was the biological father of their child.

Ronald and Angela Burel married in September 1996, but according to court testimony, she had conducted a sexual relationship with Houston Johnson Jr., MD — a surgeon at Flower Hospital in Sylvania, Ohio, where she worked as a surgical tech — before and during the marriage.

Ms. Burel gave birth to a child in September 1997, after which she introduced her husband to Dr. Johnson and suggested that her work colleague serve as the child's godfather. Dr. Johnson visited the family regularly, participated in family activities and even paid the child's private school tuition.

The Burels' marriage ended in January 2001. Six years later, Mr. Burel underwent DNA testing that revealed the child was not biologically his. Confronted with this information, Ms. Burel admitted her relationship with Dr. Johnson, but said (and later testified in court) that neither she nor the surgeon were aware of the child's paternity.

Mr. Burel's lawsuit, filed in August 2008, charged the two with invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, necessary expenses and unjust enrichment. It also charged Ms. Burel with breach of a confidential relationship, fraud, breach of the marital contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

But in a series of pre-trial hearings throughout 2009 and 2010, the trial judge dismissed each of the charges at the defendants' requests, rulings which the appeals court has upheld. The charges involving the extramarital affair were not actionable, those citing emotional distress did not meet the legal standard, and the statute of limitations on invasion of privacy had lapsed, the court has stated.

While case law exists allowing persons other than parents to recover expenses that supported a child, the appeals court notes that Mr. Burel "was the minor child's father by law and, thus, was himself under a duty, as a parent, to support the child." In addition, it rules, there was "no evidence that [Ms. Burel and Dr. Johnson] knew the child's true paternity and/or were concealing the same from [Mr. Burel]," Dr. Johnson's active role in the family notwithstanding. He'd been godfather to another colleague's child and had paid others' educational expenses, say court records.

"We are obviously terribly disappointed in the outcome," says Mr. Burel's attorney, Jack G. Fynes of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick in Toledo. "We don't believe that the court gave fair consideration to our arguments. The court's decision essentially sanctions and rewards this type of inappropriate behavior ... which sends the wrong message, as far as we're concerned."

An attorney for Ms. Burel declined to comment. Dr. Johnson's attorneys did not return calls seeking comment.

David Bernard

More breaking news