An interprofessional team was commissioned to give their response to a law proposal in compulsory psychiatric care. In this work a controversy arose due to the opposing opinions within the team about the use of a restraining method. This study aimed to investigate how the team handled the controversy and how the strategies used had implications for interprofessional learning (IPL), which is the learning that arises from interactions between different professions. In this case study, interviews were conducted and a narrative analysis was used. The controversy was primarily managed through compromise. The findings reveal how IPL was negatively affected when the members projected expert dominance. The team used three problem-solving tactics: defining and arguing the problem as belonging to the own area of expertise, mobilization of external experts to bring new arguments for the own rational fact, and, a negotiated closure or a compromise. Consequently, the findings also showed that even if power dominance was exerted, social affective learning was possible. Constructive management of these controversies is crucial to improve the quality of mental health care. Controversial dilemmas often arise in complex mental health care; therefore, strengthening the capacity to respect and maximize diversity of expertise for patient-centered problem solving is recommended.