Phrase “workplace bully” was applicable to plaintiff’s claims of assault and is entirely appropriate consideration in determining issues before a jury

To access case, press here

Dickson, Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant Daniel Raess, M.D., a cardiovascular surgeon, challenging a $325,000 jury verdict and judgment on a claim for assault brought by plaintiff Joseph Doescher, a hospital operating room perfusionist. Appealing the verdict and judgment, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denials of (a) his objections to the plaintiff’s testimony regarding the doctor’s prior offensive conduct, and (b) his tendered instruction on “workplace bullying.”
Conclusion (slip op. at 11):  The trial court judgment entered on the jury verdict is affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 8, 10):  We find nothing in the trial court colloquy to have informed the trial judge of the claim that Dr. Namie’s testimony was based upon unreliable scientific principles, that it violated Evidence Rule 702, or that it would not assist the jury to determine a fact in issue. The defendant may not present grounds on appeal that were not made at trial to support an objection . . . The phrase “workplace bullying,” like other general terms used to characterize a person’s behavior, is an entirely appropriate consideration in determining the issues before the jury . . . workplace bullying could be considered a form of intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In seeking to tell the jury that “workplace bullying” was not an issue in the case, the tendered instruction was incorrect.
Shepard, C.J., and Rucker, J., concur.
Sullivan, J., concurs in result with separate opinion:  “I agree with Justice Boehm that defendant’s pretrial objections to the admissibility of Dr. Namie’s testimony were adequately preserved for appeal. However, I concur because I believe that even if the Namie testimony was erroneously admitted, it was harmless error for purposes of this appeal . . . ”
Boehm, J., dissents with separate opinion:  “I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that challenges to Dr. Namie’s testimony were not preserved for appeal. I also conclude that his testimony was inadmissible and prejudicial . . . “

About Bose McKinney & Evans LLP

Bose McKinney & Evans LLP is a business law firm, headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, serving both publicly held and privately held businesses, governmental entities and high-growth industries. Our clients include Fortune 100 companies, international manufacturers, national and regional financial institutions, agribusinesses, sports teams, university-incubated start-ups, media, utilities, cities and schools, to name a few. We strive to build strong relationships with our clients as key business advisors, to exceed expectations in the quality of our work, to be knowledgeable about our clients’ businesses and sectors, to be responsive to service needs and to continually seek to improve the delivery of client services. Our ultimate focus is on our clients.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s