Lemieux v. Next step Counseling Services, Inc.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0392
Filed August 6, 2025

RHONDA JEAN LEMIEUX, Individually and as Administrator of the ESTATE
OF JOHN D. LEFLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

NEXT STEP COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., and BRYON LITTLE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert,

Judge.

A plaintiff appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

the defendants. AFFIRMED.

Roxanne Conlin and Devin Kelly of Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C.,

Des Moines, for appellant.

Alexander E. Wonio of Hansen, McClintock & Riley, Des Moines, for

appellees.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and

Sandy, JJ.
2

AHLERS, Judge.

This case stems from the suicide of John Lefler. At the time of his death,

Lefler was a patient at Next Step Counseling Services, Inc. (Next Step). Rhonda

Lemieux—Lefler’s mother and the administrator of his estate—filed this action

against Next Step and one of its therapists, Bryon Little.1 Based on Lefler’s suicide,

Lemieux sought damages from Next Step under theories of negligence, breach of

fiduciary duty, tortious infliction of severe emotional distress, and loss of

consortium.

Next Step moved for summary judgment, arguing alternatively that (1) Next

Step owed no duty to Lefler to prevent his suicide and (2) Lemieux failed to present

sufficient evidence to establish that any breach of duty Next Step may have owed

to Lefler caused his suicide. The district court granted the motion on both bases

and dismissed the case. Lemieux appeals.

I. Standard of Review

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment for correction of

errors at law. Villarini v. Iowa City Cmty. Sch. Dist., 21 N.W.3d 129, 133 (Iowa

2025). Summary judgment is proper only when there are no genuine issues of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

In considering a motion for summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party, including giving the nonmoving party every

legitimate inference that can be drawn from the record. Id.

1 As Lemieux’s individual claims and the claims she brings in her capacity as the

representative of Lefler’s estate align, for the sake of economy, we refer to both
categories of claims as being Lemieux’s claims. For the same reason, we refer to
Next Step and Little collectively as Next Step.
3

II. Discussion

To establish a claim of negligence under Iowa law, the alleging party must

demonstrate the party was owed a duty of care, the duty was breached, and the

breach caused the party’s injuries. Singh v. McDermott, 2 N.W.3d 422, 425 (Iowa

2024). The district court found Lemieux failed to establish that Next Step owed

Lefler a duty or that any breach caused his suicide and the resulting damages.

Although Lemieux challenges both findings on appeal, we find it unnecessary to

address the duty question, as we find the causation issue dispositive. So we

assume without deciding that Next Step owed Lefler a duty and that Next Step

breached it, and we proceed to the causation question.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Lemieux, the record shows

these facts. Lefler began therapy services with Next Step in February of 2018. He

was still dealing with the traumatic loss of his girlfriend to suicide. Initially, Lefler

was assigned to a therapist who was an intern at the practice. When that therapist

left, Lefler was reassigned to a therapist named Janet.

At the time, Janet was practicing under a temporary social work license

while supervised by the owner of Next Step. She had recently experienced

personal hardships following the suicide of her husband and had ongoing family-

related challenges. Janet disclosed her circumstances to Next Step, which

responded by offering her assistance with paperwork and the option to take time

off if needed. Despite Janet’s testimony that she was struggling with mental illness

and excessive alcohol consumption at this time, she had maintained a clean record

over her four years of employment at Next Step with no disciplinary actions or

patient complaints. Given her background working with patients who experience
4

trauma and her personal experience with suicide, Next Step believed Janet would

be well suited to support Lefler.

While under Janet’s care, Lefler showed signs of improvement in his mental

health. However, at some point, Lefler and Janet’s relationship became more akin

to a friendship and crossed ethical boundaries. In January 2019, Lefler and Janet

mutually agreed that his care should be transferred to another therapist, Bryon

Little. They did not inform Next Step that this decision was motivated by a

developing personal relationship—instead, Janet briefly explained that their

shared experiences were becoming a barrier to effective therapy and Lefler might

benefit more from Little’s specialized area of therapy.

Months later, in the summer of 2019, Janet voluntarily ended her

employment at Next Step, citing family issues as the reason for her departure. It

was not until late July or early August that Lemieux informed Little about an

ongoing personal relationship between Lefler and Janet. When Little raised the

issue with Lefler at a subsequent session, Lefler denied the relationship and

suggested that it had been a misunderstanding. At the time, Lefler was

experiencing symptoms of serious mental illness, including delusions and

hallucinations, which complicated Little’s assessment of the reliability of his

statements. Little’s notes of these sessions are sporadic; often lacked detail; and,

in some instances, were not completed until after Lefler’s death.

In late August, Lefler was involuntarily committed to a mental-health facility

but consistently denied any suicidal ideation. Following his discharge, his

treatment plan was modified, including the removal of certain medications. Lefler

expressed frustration and distress related to these changes.
5

After Lefler’s committal, Little called Lemieux to check on Lefler’s well-

being. During that call, Lemieux shared information about a text-message

exchange between Lefler and Janet. This greatly concerned Little. He consulted

with the National Association of Social Workers regarding the implications of

reporting the alleged relationship, and, after the weekend, he submitted a formal

complaint expressing concerns about Janet’s conduct. Less than a month later,

Lefler committed suicide.

Based on these facts viewed in the light most favorable to Lemieux,

Lemieux challenges the district court’s finding that she failed to produce sufficient

evidence that Next Step’s actions caused Lefler’s suicide. In support, she relies

on a text exchange between Janet and Lefler, which she interprets as Janet

encouraging Lefler to take his own life. She also cites her expert’s testimony that

criticizes Janet’s ethical violations and characterizes her relationship with Lefler as

unstable and harmful. Ultimately, the expert opined that Janet’s conduct caused

Lefler’s suicide.

The problem with Lemieux’s argument is that it relates to conduct that

occurred when Janet was no longer acting as Lefler’s therapist and at or after the

time Janet no longer worked at Next Step. And Lemieux makes no claim directly

against Janet and no claims against Next Step based on vicarious liability for

Janet’s conduct. Therefore, Lemieux must prove that Next Step’s own conduct—

not Janet’s independent actions—was the cause of Lefler’s death. She has not

met that burden.

The record shows the intimate personal relationship between Lefler and

Janet developed after Lefler was transferred from Janet’s care, and that improper
6

relationship was not known to Next Step until many months later, at or after the

time Janet ended her employment at Next Step. The only causation evidence in

the record is Lemieux’s expert’s opinion that Janet was responsible for Lefler’s

death. However, Lemieux has conceded that Next Step is not vicariously liable for

Janet’s actions. And Lemieux’s expert’s opinion that Next Step’s conduct caused

Lefler’s death is based on Janet’s inappropriate therapist-to-client relationship that

had developed. Such development, in part, occurred while Janet was working with

Lefler at the direction of Next Step. Lemieux reasons that, but for Next Step’s

assignment to have Janet work with Lefler, Lefler would not have committed

suicide. But we hold that such causal connection is too attenuated and not

supported by the record. As such, Lemieux has not raised a genuine issue of

material fact as to causation.

III. Conclusion

Even assuming Next Step owed Lefler a duty and that Next Step breached

it, the district court correctly found that Lemieux failed to provide sufficient evidence

to generate a genuine issue of material fact that Next Step caused Lefler’s suicide.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of

Next Step.

AFFIRMED.