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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT