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 . . . “