Opinion ID: 1314092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Involuntary Dismissal of Chowdhry's Claims

Text: Chowdhry's punitive damage claim was dismissed pursuant to NRCP 41(b). Directed verdicts were entered pursuant to NRCP 50(a) against Chowdhry's defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims. A motion for involuntary dismissal of an action may be made after the close of plaintiff's case on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has failed to prove a sufficient case for the court or jury. NRCP 41(b). In ruling on a 41(b) motion, a court must accept the plaintiff's evidence as true, draw all permissible inferences in the plaintiff's favor, and not assess the credibility of the witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Nevada Indus. Dev., Inc. v. Benedetti, 103 Nev. 360, 362, 741 P.2d 802, 804 (1987) (citations omitted). To defeat a 41(b) motion, the plaintiff must present a prima facie case upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 362-63, 741 P.2d at 804. NRCP 50(a) provides that a motion for directed verdict shall be denied [i]f the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict for the opponent. Stated differently, [a] directed verdict is proper only in those instances where the evidence is so overwhelming for one party that any other verdict would be contrary to the law. Bliss v. DePrang, 81 Nev. 599, 602, 407 P.2d 726, 727-28 (1965). On a motion for a directed verdict, the district court must view the evidence and all inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Broussard v. Hill, 100 Nev. 325, 327, 682 P.2d 1376, 1377 (1984). The same standard applies on appellate review. Bliss, 81 Nev. at 601, 407 P.2d at 727. Mindful of these principles, we now address the propriety of the district court's rulings.
We have not previously had occasion to decide whether a plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress for negligent acts committed directly against the plaintiff. In State v. Eaton, 101 Nev. 705, 710 P.2d 1370 (1985), we first recognized a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress where a bystander suffers serious emotional distress which results in physical symptoms caused by apprehending the death or serious injury of a loved one due to the negligence of the defendant. 101 Nev. at 718, 710 P.2d at 1379. The physical impact requirement has also been applied where, as here, the negligent act is alleged to have been committed directly against the plaintiff. See, e.g., Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (Ct.App. 1988); Evans v. Twin Falls County, 118 Idaho 210, 796 P.2d 87 (1990), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 960, 112 L.Ed.2d 1048 (1991); and Allen v. Otis Elevator Co., 206 Ill.App.2d 173, 150 Ill. Dec. 699, 563 N.E.2d 826 (1990), appeal denied, 141 Ill.2d 535, 162 Ill.Dec. 481, 580 N.E.2d 107 (1991). In the context of intentional infliction of emotional distress, we have stated that [t]he less extreme the outrage, the more appropriate it is to require evidence of physical injury or illness from the emotional distress. Nelson v. City of Las Vegas, 99 Nev. 548, 555, 665 P.2d 1141, 1145 (1983). In the present case, Chowdhry's emotional distress claims are premised upon respondents' accusations of patient abandonment. Chowdhry testified that as a result, he was very upset and could not sleep. Insomnia and general physical or emotional discomfort are insufficient to satisfy the physical impact requirement. See Hopkins v. State, 237 Kan. 601, 702 P.2d 311, 320-21 (1985). No other evidence was presented of serious emotional distress or physical injury or illness. Moreover, the evidence failed to demonstrate the existence of extreme or outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. See Nelson, 99 Nev. at 555, 665 P.2d at 1145. In short, Chowdhry failed, as a matter of law, to present sufficient evidence to sustain verdicts for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the district court properly granted directed verdicts on these claims.
Chowdhry contends that respondents made several statements charging him with patient abandonment and insists that these statements are defamatory per se because patient abandonment is perhaps the most serious complaint that could be leveled against a physician. Chowdhry also argues that the statements had the potential to critically damage his medical practice. In granting the directed verdict on the defamation claim, the district court ruled that respondents had not published the statements as contemplated under the law of defamation because they were communicating as one corporate agent to the other. The district court also ruled that the communications were not false. In order to establish a prima facie case of defamation, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a false and defamatory statement by defendant concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 558 (1977). If the defamation tends to injure the plaintiff in his or her business or profession, it is deemed defamation per se, and damages will be presumed. See, Nevada Ind. Broadcasting v. Allen, 99 Nev. 404, 409, 664 P.2d 337, 341 (1983). Whether a statement is capable of a defamatory construction is a question of law. Branda v. Sanford, 97 Nev. 643, 646, 637 P.2d 1223, 1225 (1981). A jury question arises when the statement is susceptible of different meanings, one of which is defamatory. Id. The actual statements made by the various respondents were not that Chowdhry abandoned his patient but that he failed to respond or would not come to NLVH to treat his patient. Although these statements cannot by themselves be deemed defamatory, we recognize that words do not exist in isolation. Branda, 97 Nev. at 646-47, 637 P.2d at 1226. The words must be reviewed in their entirety and in context to determine whether they are susceptible of defamatory meaning. Id. The record reflects that the statements were made by the respondents to hospital personnel and other interested parties (e.g., the patient's mother), in the context of reporting what was reasonably perceived to be Dr. Chowdhry's refusal to treat the patient at NLVH. We conclude that the statements attributable to the respondents, taken in context, are not reasonably capable of a defamatory construction. Because our conclusion is dispositive of this issue, we need not address whether the statements were published or privileged.
Punitive damages are recoverable only upon a showing of malice, fraud or oppression, by clear and convincing evidence. NRS 42.005. The district court determined, based upon the evidence presented in Chowdhry's case in chief, that the respondents acted in the interest of their patients and not out of malice towards Chowdhry. We agree. Chowdhry failed to establish a prima facie case for punitive damages. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed this claim under NRCP 41(b).