Inc., 637 A.2d 441, 447 (Me.1994). The removal of the necessity for a plaintiff to allege an underlying tort or physical impact did not create a new cause of action, but simply removed the barriers that prevented plaintiffs from proceeding with claims already recognized in Maine, when the only damage suffered was to the psyche. See id. [¶ 31] In examining the scope of this tort, we have declined to apply a pure foreseeability analysis to determine when a duty arises. See Cameron v. Pepin, 610 A.2d 279, 284 (Me.1992). Only where a particular duty based upon the unique relationship of the parties has been established may a defendant be held responsible, absent some other wrongdoing, for harming the emotional well-being of another. See, e.g., Bolton v. Caine, 584 A.2d 615, 618 (Me.1990) (<HOLDING>); Gammon v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Me., 534 A.2d
holding that a physicianpatient relationship gives rise to a duty to avoid emotional harm from failure to provide critical information to patient holding that relationship between executor and estates beneficiaries is one that gives rise to fiduciary duty as matter of law holding that the unique nature of psychotherapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty of care to the patient holding that a hospitals relationship to the family of deceased gives rise to a duty to avoid emotional harm from handling of remains recognizing that the nature of the therapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty  to refrain from  causing emotional or mental harm to the patient