The courts historically have viewed mental and emotional injuries with suspicion. In attempting to ensure the genuineness of those claims brought to trial, most courts require plaintiffs to meet standards that go beyond those that are imposed for claims of physical injury, even though the value and validity of these additional standards have not been empirically assessed. Although the development of legal standards in the absence of empirical data is troubling, of particular concern is the fact that some of the imposed standards are artificial, in that they refer to factors not directly related to the injury claimed. Consistent with nationally accepted legal standards, Arizona permits claims that allege intentional infliction of emotional injury as independent torts; however, the injury must be severe, and the defendant's conduct must be outrageous. Claims that allege emotional injury due to negligence are permitted if the injury was foreseeable given the defendant's conduct and if a co-existing physical injury was present. This study examined data on litigant characteristics, physical injuries, emotional injuries, expert witnesses, and verdicts. Ratings of the severity of the physical and emotional injuries were conducted with the use of rating scales. The study found that plaintiffs who alleged intentional emotional harm tended to have less evidence of severe emotional harm than plaintiffs who claimed emotional damage due to neglect. This may have been due to the requirement that claims of neglect be accompanied by evidence of physical injury as well. The plaintiffs who claimed intentional infliction of emotional harm tended to focus on the "outrageousness" of the defendant's behavior more than upon evidence of emotional injury. Overall, the artificial legal standards failed to foster judgments based upon evidence of severe emotional injury due to defendant's action or inaction. Study limitations are discussed. 12 references