ILNews

Justices rule on 'workplace bullying' case

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The phrase "workplace bully" was applicable to a plaintiff's claims of assault and is an entirely appropriate consideration in determining issues before a jury, ruled the Indiana Supreme Court April 8. However, the court did not define in the opinion what makes a "workplace bully."

The majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices affirmed the trial court jury verdict of $325,000 and judgment on a claim for assault against a surgeon.

In Daniel H. Raess, M.D., v. Joseph E. Doescher, No. 49S02-0710-CV-424, Dr. Raess appealed and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Raess and Doescher, a perfusionist (the person who operates the heart/lung ma-chine during open-heart surgeries), got into a confrontation at an Indianapolis hospital. Doescher testified that Raess aggressively charged at Doescher after learning he had reported to hospital administration about Raess treatment of other perfusionists. Doescher was backed against a wall and put his hands up, believing Raess would hit him. Raess swore and screamed at Doescher, and then turned and walked away. As a result of the incident, Doescher claimed he couldn't go to work and experienced anxiety.

Doescher sought compensatory and punitive damages for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortuous interference with employment. The trial court granted Raess' motion for partial summary judgment on the tortious interference claim. The jury found in favor of Raess on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, but found in favor of Doescher on his assault claim and awarded him compensatory damages.

On appeal, Raess challenged the trial court denial of his motion for judgment on the evidence challenging its sufficiency to support the jury finding of assault; his request to set aside or reduce the award of compensatory damages as excessive; his objections to testimony from Doescher's expert witness; his objections to Doescher's testimony regarding the doctor's prior conduct; and his tendered instruction on workplace bullying.

Authoring Justice Brent Dickson wrote since Raess did not assert the same claims during the trial that he does on appeal regarding the expert witness' testimony, the claims are barred by procedural default. Raess tried before trial to file a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Gary Namie's testimony or evidence referring to Raess as a workplace bully. The trial court denied the motion to exclude testimony and granted the "workplace bully" motion only in part. Although Raess' counsel repeatedly objected to Namie's testimony at trial, he didn't assert the claim he presents at trial - that Naime's testimony lacked scientific reliability. He also didn't raise the claim that the trial court's limitation on the testimony referring to Raess as a workplace bully was inherently prejudicial, so the claim is procedurally barred.

Also barred is Raess' argument that he deserves a new trial because he was unfairly prejudiced by hearsay evidence of his alleged prior bad acts and bad character.

"Because there were no contemporaneous trial objections asserting improper prior bad acts or character evidence, consideration of these appellate claims is foreclosed," wrote Justice Dickson.

The trial court did not err in denying Raess' motion for judgment on the evidence incorporated in his motion to correct errors. Raess believed there was no evidence to support liability for assault and that the jury verdict was unsupported or excessive. Based on Doescher's testimony about the incident, there is substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusions that an assault occurred, wrote Justice Dickson.

The Supreme Court declined to disturb the jury's award of damages in this case because even if there is conflicting evidence, as long as there is evidence to support the award, the award won't be disturbed, he wrote.

Finally, the majority affirmed the term "workplace bullying" can be used in the trial because the phrase, "like other general terms used to characterize a person's behavior, is an entirely appropriate consideration in determining the issues before the jury," wrote Justice Dickson. Workplace bullying could be considered a form of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court didn't abuse its discretion in refusing to tender Raess' instruction on the matter, which told the jury the phrase was irrelevant to the plaintiff's claims. In the opinion, the high court didn't attempt to define what makes a workplace bully.

In a separate opinion, Justice Theodore Boehm dissented from the majority's conclusions that challenges to Namie's testimony weren't preserved for appeal. He also concluded that the testimony was inadmissible and prejudicial. Justice Frank Sullivan, in a separate opinion, concurred in result with Justice Boehm that the objections to the admissibility of Namie's testimony were preserved for appeal; however, he concurred in the Supreme Court's opinion because he believes even if the testimony was erroneously admitted, it would be a harmless error.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT