Opinion ID: 162495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Against the Hospital

Text: 6 Both Dr. Muckala and the Hospital challenge their liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Prior to and following the jury verdict, both Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, but the district court denied their motions. Defendants now appeal. 7 The Hospital argues that Oklahoma does not recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. This plain statement is not quite accurate. Rather, Oklahoma courts say that negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but is in effect the tort of negligence. Kraszewski v. Baptist Med. Ctr. of Okla., Inc., 916 P.2d 241, 243 n. 1 (Okla.1996); Lockhart v. Loosen, 943 P.2d 1074, 1081 (Okla.1997); Mason v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 23 P.3d 964, 969 (Okla Ct.App. 2000). A Plaintiff therefore cannot proceed on a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory of liability separate from negligence, Lockhart, 943 P.2d at 1081, and the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. Kraszewski, 916 P.2d at 245. The question in this case is simply whether the Defendants were justly found liable for negligence. 8 In looking to the merits of Ms. Wilson's claim sounding in negligence, the Hospital contends that the lack of evidence of physical injury provides a basis for reversal. In Oklahoma, damages for mental anguish are recoverable only if they are produced by, connected with or the result of physical suffering or injury to the person enduring the mental anguish. Ellington v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Tulsa, 717 P.2d 109, 111 (Okla.1986). This means that [u]pon proper proof, the Plaintiff may recover for mental anguish where it is caused by physical suffering and may also recover for mental anguish which inflicts physical suffering. Id.; see also Slaton v. Vansickle, 872 P.2d 929, 931 (Okla.1994) (Oklahoma does acknowledge a claim for physical injury where it is accompanied by mental stress or mental stress is accompanied by physical injury). Oklahoma law obligated Ms. Wilson to provide proof of some physical injury, whether incurred contemporaneously with her emotional injury, or whether as a direct consequence of her emotional injury. 9 The Hospital's claim that there is no evidence that Ms. Wilson suffered any physical harm is not quite true. Some evidence came from her treating psychiatrist, who testified that following Ms. Wilson's resignation from the Hospital, 10 she described increasing feelings of humiliation, intimidation, very, very strong subjective unpleasant feelings, as well as... increasing depression. She had difficulty sleeping, crying, sad, gained weight, lost interest in working, felt not safe working as a nurse, at least at Doctors. 11 IV Wilson App. at 999. 12 The Hospital requested that the jury instructions on negligent infliction of emotional distress mention the required finding of physical injury consequent to the emotional distress — a request denied by the district court. 1 We review de novo a timely challenge to a jury instruction to determine whether, considering the instructions as a whole, the jury was misled. United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150, 1156 (10th Cir.1999) (internal citations omitted). We reverse only when we have substantial doubt that the jury was fairly guided. Id. 13 In light of the clear requirement that physical damages accompany an award for mental distress or anguish, and the evidence of physical harm presented at trial, we find that the jury instructions on negligent infliction of emotional distress delivered by the district court were infirm and constitute reversible error. 14 We need not reach the Hospital's contention that, as a matter of law, the Hospital had no common law duty to protect their employee, Ms. Wilson, from sexual harassment by Dr. Muckala. 15