Opinion ID: 2637163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clear and Convincing Evidence Supports the Court's Punitive Damages Award.

Text: The trial court awarded $25,000 in punitive damages. Dr. Brandner argues the trial court applied the wrong standard of review and that clear and convincing evidence does not support the award. Punitive damages serve to punish the wrongdoer and to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from repeating the offensive act. [18] To support a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct was outrageous, such as acts done with malice, bad motive, or reckless indifference to the interests of another. [19] Dr. Brandner challenges the court's conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports an award of punitive damages in this case. He asserts that although the trial court found an `intentional tort' in the limited and technical sense, the behavior at issue was not outrageous because he did not intend to physically harm Hudson and because he did not act with malice. [20] The trial court recognized that the clear and convincing evidence standard applied. [21] It reasoned that its finding that Dr. Brandner had committed civil battery gets one a long way[] along the path to . . . punitive damages. The court concluded that a complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress would have survived. The court reasoned that [o]nce you get [] an employer or a person in a position of authority, actually physically moving an employee around as if she were a piece of property to be placed at his whim in a different locale, I think you enter an entirely different ballpark. And so I am satisfied that this event was unjustified enough, outrageous enough, entailed enough indifference to Ms. Hudson's interest[] . . . [that] [i]t justifies an award of punitive damages. In its written order, the court stated that there was clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Brandner's conduct was highly egregious and reckless. We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's determination. Hudson testified that: [Dr. Brandner] grabbed me by the arm and [dragged] me down the hall and not only did it hurt, my arm was hurting so bad I thought it was going to fall off, it embarrassed me to death to think that I would be treated that way when I had worked there that many years and had been treated with [the] utmost respect. . . . All I said was his name. I couldn't understand why he was dragging me. . . . He back[ed] through the door [to the office], pulling me through the door and then escorting me to my office. . . . He shoved me in the chair. My foot got tangled up in my office chair and when he turned me, it twisted my knee. The trial court found Hudson to be credible. Her testimony, along with the corroborating testimony offered by her coworkers, supports the court's finding that Dr. Brandner committed civil battery, as well as its conclusion that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress would have survived. The trial court's finding that Dr. Brandner's behavior was outrageous was also based on the disparity in power between Hudson and Dr. Brandner. As the trial court discussed, Dr. Brandner was in a position of authority in [the] hospital, whereas Hudson was a member of the clerical staff. The trial court found that in light of their disparate status, Dr. Brandner's gratuitous manhandling of Hudson was outrageous and merited an award of punitive damages. Moreover, because we have held that the test for punitive damages is analogous to the test for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the trial court's conclusion that a claim for IIED would have survived further supports the award of punitive damages. [22] Finally, the trial court's determination that the conduct was outrageous is supported by the fact that Dr. Brandner's conduct led to a criminal charge of assault and battery, on which he received a deferred prosecution. [23] In sum, clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's determination that Dr. Brandner's action was outrageous.