But how do we assess whether the degree of impact is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the rule? We have answered this question as follows: [Wlhen the courts have been satisfied that the facts of a particular case are such that the alleged mental anguish was not likely speculative, exaggerated, fictitious, or unforeseeable, then the claimant has been allowed to proceed with an emotional distress claim for damages even though the physical impact was slight, or the evidence of physical impact seemed to have been rather tenuous. Bader v. Johnson, 732 N.E.2d 1212, 1221 (Ind.2000) (finding that mother's continued pregnancy and the physical transformation that her body underwent satisfied the direct impact requirement) (citing Alexander v. Scheid, 726 N.E.2d 272, 283-84 (Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>); Holloway v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 695 N.E.2d
recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress holding that a party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot recover for emotional disturbance alone holding that under south dakota law compensation for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms and intentional infliction of emotional distress requires an extreme disabling emotional response holding that patient suffering from the destruction of healthy lung tissue due to physicians failure to diagnose cancer was sufficient for negligent infliction of emotional distress