Educational Disclaimer: This case study is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, clinical guidance, or a substitute for professional psychiatric evaluation. All diagnostic criteria referenced are from the DSM-5-TR (APA, 2022). Clinicians should rely on their professional training, direct patient assessment, and current evidence-based guidelines when making diagnostic and treatment decisions.

Clinical Vignette

Patient: "Ms. G," 38-year-old paralegal, referred for psychiatric evaluation after a restraining order was filed by her supervisor, a senior attorney at her firm.

Chief Concern: "Dr. H [the attorney] and I are in love. He communicates his feelings through the way he assigns cases to me and the color of his ties. The restraining order is just to keep up appearances because of the firm's policies."

History of Present Illness: Ms. G has worked at the law firm for 3 years. Over the past 14 months, she has maintained an unshakeable conviction that Dr. H, a married senior partner, is secretly in love with her. She interprets neutral workplace behaviors as coded love signals: specific case assignments as 'messages,' tie colors as mood indicators, and brief hallway greetings as 'moments of connection.' She has sent him 60+ emails outside of work hours, left gifts at his office, and appeared at his family's home twice. Dr. H has consistently denied any romantic interest. The restraining order was filed after her second visit to his home. Ms. G interprets all denials and the restraining order itself as evidence of a 'cover-up' required by workplace rules. She denies any prior romantic relationship with Dr. H. Outside of this delusional system, Ms. G is described as a competent paralegal. Her work quality remains high. She maintains friendships and her personal presentation is appropriate. No history of mood episodes.

Past Psychiatric History: No prior psychiatric treatment. Unremarkable developmental history.

Mental Status Exam: Well-groomed, composed. Speech normal. Mood 'excited' when discussing Dr. H, otherwise euthymic. Affect appropriate to stated mood. Thought process coherent and logical. Content: fixed erotomanic delusion about supervisor. No hallucinations. No grandiosity beyond the delusional relationship. Cognitive screening normal. Insight absent regarding the delusional nature of the belief.

Step 1: Delusional Disorder Criteria

Criterion A: One or more delusions with a duration of 1 month or longer.

The erotomanic belief has persisted for 14 months. It is fixed, resistant to contradictory evidence (explicit denials, restraining order), and has prompted behavioral changes (emails, gifts, home visits). Duration far exceeds 1 month. MET.

Criterion B: Criterion A for Schizophrenia has never been met.

No hallucinations, no disorganized speech, no disorganized behavior, no negative symptoms. Thought process is coherent and logical. The psychopathology is limited to the erotomanic delusional system. MET.

Criterion C: Functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre.

Work quality remains high. Friendships maintained. Personal presentation appropriate. Functional impairment is limited to the delusional domain (interactions related to Dr. H). MET.

Criterion D: If manic or depressive episodes have occurred, these have been brief relative to delusional periods.

No history of mood episodes. MET.

Criterion E: Not attributable to substance or medical condition.

No substance use. No medical conditions. MET.

Step 2: Subtype Specification and Risk Assessment

The erotomanic type is characterized by the delusion that another person, usually of higher social status, is in love with the individual. This subtype carries specific risk considerations:

Erotomanic subtype features

The object of delusion (Dr. H) is of higher status (senior partner). Ms. G believes he communicates love through coded signals. She interprets denials as part of a 'cover-up.' She has engaged in approach behaviors (emails, gifts, home visits). These features are classic erotomanic presentations. EROTOMANIC TYPE CONFIRMED.

Stalking risk assessment

Ms. G has made over 60 unsolicited contact attempts and 2 uninvited home visits. A restraining order has been issued. Despite the legal consequence, she reinterprets it as supporting her delusion. The persistence of approach behavior despite legal intervention indicates elevated risk for continued contact. ELEVATED RISK.

Risk Summary

The erotomanic subtype has the highest stalking risk among Delusional Disorder subtypes. Ms. G's pattern of persistent approach behaviors, escalating contact (home visits), and reinterpretation of legal consequences as delusion-consistent evidence indicate ongoing risk. Forensic psychiatric involvement and safety planning for Dr. H are indicated.

Diagnostic Formulation

Diagnostic Conclusion

Delusional Disorder, Erotomanic Type (F22): All five criteria met. Erotomanic subtype: fixed conviction that a higher-status individual reciprocates romantic feelings, communicated through coded signals. Fourteen-month duration. Preserved global functioning except in the delusional domain. No comorbid mood or psychotic features. Stalking risk assessment: elevated based on persistent approach behaviors and escalation despite legal intervention.

Teaching Points

  • Erotomania (de Clerambault syndrome) involves the delusional conviction that another person is in love with the patient. The object is typically of higher social status (employer, celebrity, physician). The patient interprets neutral or rejecting behaviors as coded confirmation of the supposed relationship.
  • Denial by the object of the delusion is universally reinterpreted as part of a 'cover-up,' 'test,' or protective measure. This reinterpretation makes the delusion self-reinforcing: evidence against the belief is transformed into evidence supporting it.
  • The erotomanic subtype carries specific medicolegal implications. Persistent approach behaviors may constitute stalking. The treating clinician has a dual responsibility: treating the patient and, in some jurisdictions, duty-to-warn obligations regarding the safety of the delusional object.
  • Treatment with antipsychotic medication may reduce the intensity of the delusional conviction but rarely eliminates it entirely. Establishing a therapeutic alliance is challenging because the patient does not recognize the belief as pathological.
  • Differential diagnosis must exclude Bipolar I mania with erotomanic features. In mania, the romantic preoccupation occurs only during elevated mood episodes and resolves with mood stabilization. In Delusional Disorder, the erotomanic belief persists independently of mood state.