Courtney Love Sued by Psychiatrist for 'Breach of Contract'

Hole frontwoman could owe $50,000 to Dr. Edwin Ratush

Courtney Love
Craig Barritt/Getty Images
Courtney Love
By |

A New York psychiatrist and addiction specialist is suing Courtney Love for nearly $50,000 for "breach of contract," according to Courthouse News Service (via Spin).

Where Does Hole's 'Live Through This' Rank Among the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time?

Dr. Edward Ratush claims the former Hole frontwoman owes him $48,250 in back payment since 2010. The suit does not specify the reason for the claim, but notes that the "nature of this action is Breach of Contract, Account Stated, Money Due and Owing, and Unjust Enrichment."

According to his website, Dr. Ratush "specializes in helping people who suffer from Mood Disorders such as depression and mania, Anxiety Disorders such as panic attacks, obsessive compulsive disorder and PTSD, Arousal Disorders such as insomnia, fatigue, shift work disorder and Adult ADHD" and provides "comprehensive, private, innovative and personalized treatment for mental health and substance use disorders."

Calls to Dr. Ratush and his attorney were not immediately returned.

Love is no stranger to courtrooms. Last month, the singer was cleared of libel charges filed by her former lawyer. Love's former attorney, Rhonda Holmes, brought the lawsuit in 2011, claiming that Love had committed libel in a 2010 Twitter post implying that Holmes had taken a bribe. During the trial, Love testified that she had intended that tweet as a private direct message in response to a question, and that when she realized she had accidentally tweeted the comment publicly, she immediately deleted it. 

The jury unanimously found that Love had indeed published the tweet in question, and that it contained false information, which 11 of the jurors concluded would have been damaging to its target's reputation. However, they also ruled 9-3 that Holmes' lawyers had failed to prove that Love knew at the time that the statement was false, and so could not be held liable for defamation.