Court Opinion

ID: 9796995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:10:18.38508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:53.098364
License: Public Domain

Greene, J.,
dissenting: I must respectfully depart from my colleagues in the majority because I am convinced that Daniel Ware, III, a minor, presents an authentic claim for emotional injury that should be cognizable based on existing Kansas law. Moreover, if existing law does not support this claim, I would advocate that existing law be clarified or modified to recognize such a claim.
Noting that the case was decided on summary judgment, the uncontroverted facts are deserving of examination. The following plaintiffs’ statements of fact were not controverted:
“1. Daniel Ware was a very happy child before this [October 2002] incident.
“2. After the incident of being left on the bus, Daniel is very withdrawn, negative and sad. He wants to stay in the house and stay close to an adult.
“3. Jenni and Daniel Ware Jr. took Daniel back to preschool the day of the incident and Daniel became very upset and was crying saying he did not want to stay so Jenni and Daniel Ware Jr. took him home.
“4. Jenni Ware rode the bus with Daniel on one occasion when Neka Hall could not ride with him. Daniel cried to [sic] whole way there, held Jenni’s hand and shook.
“5. Daniel vomited at school or at home every time Jenni or Daniel Ware Jr. took him to school after March 2003 until the end of May 2003.
“6. Jenni Ware took Daniel to see a Dr. Ready possibly in November 2002 to receive counseling. Jenni Ware also took Daniel to a Dr. Wright to receive counseling. Dr. Wright diagnosed Daniel with post traumatic stress disorder that was he believed brought on by being left on the bus.
“7. Daniel Ware was still treating [sic] for his condition at the time of his deposition.
“8. Daniel Ware suffered from behavior problems after this incident.
“9. Daniel Ware could not sleep by himself after the incident, he slept with his parents every night.
“10. Daniel was prescribed and took Zoloft and Lamictal to treat his emotional distress.
“11. Jeff Ready, LCP, the first professional to see Daniel, (which was three weeks after the date of the incident), testified that Daniel had a genuine reaction to what happened.
“12. Doug Wright, Ph.D., was the initial treating therapist. He testified that he diagnosed Daniel with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with a variety of *413symptoms, including but not limited to nightmares, vomiting, anxiety, nervousness, physically shaking, acting-out, hyper-vigilance, sleep difficulties, bedwetting, a significant increase (35 lbs) in his weight, and a refusal to attend school.
“13. Doug Wright also testified that the problems Daniel was having had been continuous since the incident on the bus and in Dr. Wright’s opinion was clearly linked to the bus incident.
“14. Dr. Wright further testified that PTSD cannot be diagnosed for at least one month after an incident and that the nature of PTSD is a physical re-enactment of feelings associated with the initial trauma.
“15. Dr. Hunter, Plaintiffs’ expert, also diagnosed Daniel with PTSD and that there was nothing else to attribute the onset of Daniel’s problems other than the bus incident.
“16. Dr. Hunter further testified that Daniel had hyperphasia, weight gain and vomiting, all physical reactions caused by Daniel being left on the bus in October 2002.
“17. Shawna Wright, Ph.D., L.P., became Daniel’s treating therapist after Doug Wright. She testified that she agreed with Daniel’s initial diagnosis of PTSD and that the PTSD was a result of the incident on the bus.
“18. Shawna Wright also testified that Daniel vomited while treating with her and that the vomiting reaction was due to the bus incident in 2002.”
Additionally, the concessions of counsel for the defense are remarkable. In argument on the summary judgment motion, he stated:
“[I]n the light most favorable to plaintiff this kid did sustain a real mental injury. And on the basis of this factual record for summary judgment purposes I’m not arguing about that. The boy is in counseling. We are not debating that.” (Emphasis added.)
First, I would hold that the physical manifestation of the emotional injury, vomiting that is triggered by a reenactment of feelings associated with the initial trauma, meets the criteria of Hoard v. Shawnee Mission Medical Center, 233 Kan. 267, 662 P.2d 1214 (1983), because it “directly resulted” from the original bus incident and it appeared within a sufficiently short span of time after the original bus incident, especially when it is considered that the triggering reenactment of feelings was deliberately delayed by steps intended to preclude any such reenactment. I respectfully believe the majority reads and applies Hoard far too narrowly; our Supreme Court did not draw a bright-line test for temporal proximity but, rather, set forth several guidelines for such an injury.
*414“As in all actions for the recovery of damages for negligence, the appellants must show that the physical injuries complained of were the direct and proximate result of the emotional distress caused by the . . . negligent conduct. [Citations omitted.] Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle of law that recovery may be had only where it is shown with reasonable certainty that damage was suffered and that such damage resulted from the act or omission of which complaint is made. [Citation omitted.] Recovery may not be had where the cause of the injury is too remote and speculative and where the alleged resulting damages are too conjectural and speculative to form a sound basis for measurement. [Citation omitted.] Other states have held that . . . [such] recovery may be had if, but only if, there is shown a clear and unbroken chain of causal connection between the negligent act, the emotional disturbance and the physical injury. [Citations omitted.]” Hoard, 233 Kan. at 277.
In Hoard, the plaintiffs sought recovery for emotional distress where physical manifestation occurred from 6 weeks to 2 years after the incident. Here, Daniel’s physical manifestation occurred less than 6 months after the bus incident.
Surely, we must recognize that the nature of Daniel’s injury is unlike the typical emotional distress scenario. Here, Daniel did not suffer due to a horrific event that would never be repeated; Daniel suffered a horrific event in connection with an instrumentality that is a common element in the fife of most students — a bus. The problem in this case that is absent from the usual case of emotional distress is that Daniel is expected to face the prospect of another horrific act every time he must do what nearly all students must do on a daily basis — ride a bus. His physical symptoms did not occur so long as he was provided some crutch to assure no repeat of the horrific event; but when he later realized he would be expected to resume bus riding without any chaperone or other crutch, the physical symptoms emerged immediately and continued persistently.
Here, I would argue there is no serious question that the physical manifestations of vomiting was the direct and proximate result of the emotional distress, that the damages suffered resulted from the initial incident, that the cause was neither remote nor speculative, and that Daniel’s damages were neither conjectural nor speculative to form some claim for measurement. Moreover, I believe Daniel has shown that there was a clear and unbroken chain of causal *415connection between the negligent act, the emotional disturbance, and the physical injuiy. Thus, I conclude a fair application of Hoard precludes summary judgment for ANW Special Education Cooperative No. 603 (ANW).
Second, if these facts and arguments do not move Daniel’s claim within controlling precedent, perhaps it is time for our Supreme Court to reexamine the Hoard criteria. Where there is undisputed evidence of emotional injury that is caused by or directly related to the defendant’s actions, where it is substantiated by medical opinion and being treated by drug therapy, counseling, or other similar medical treatment, where the physical manifestations are shown to be causally connected to the negligent acts, and where the finder of fact is convinced by a preponderance of evidence that there is no fakery of symptoms, perhaps the Hoard criteria should be modified.
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is now a psychological trauma that may produce measurable brain damage or is otherwise capable of forensic assessment. Moreover, there is no longer any scientific reason to believe that medical science is somehow more competent to sort out the physical than the mental consequences of tortuous events. In fact, the research does not support a categorical distinction between emotional and physical harm on the ground that people who suffer mental or emotional loss are more likely to malinger or are more difficult to detect when they do. See Shuman, How We Should Address Mental and Emotional Harm, Judicature, Vol. 90, pp. 248-49 (May-June 2007). As stated by that commentator:
‘Whatever the best minds of the day might have thought about the difference in physical and emotional harm when tort law came of age, the best minds of today do not support such a stark mind-body dichotomy.
“Our current understanding rejects this Cartesian dualism and leads us in the direction of an integrated model for understanding harm. Illustrating this understanding is a diagnosis common in civil and criminal courtrooms, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. . . . Today and tomorrow’s scientific paradigms do not support differential legal treatment of mental and physical harm.” Shuman, How We Should Address Mental and Emotional Harm, Judicature, Vol. 90, p. 248.
Notably, some of the jurisdictions that previously required the physical manifestation element for compensability of emotional *416harm have now abandoned the requirement. See, e.g., Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916, 921-31, 167 Cal. Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813 (1980); Doe Parents No. 1 v. State Dept. of Educ., 58 P.3d 545, 579-81 (Hawaii 2002); Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics, 395 S.E.2d 85, 92-97 (N.C. 1990); Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437, 440-46 (Tenn. 1996); Brueckner v. Norwich University, 730 A.2d 1086, 1092 (Vt. 1999). As noted by the majority, however, wholesale abandonment of the physical manifestations element can be problematic. Accordingly, I would advocate clarifications of the requirements for compensable emotional distress that parallel the rationale of Hoard without the uncompromising bright-line test for temporal proximity imposed by the majority.
It is critical that the law keep pace with medical science. The frequency of PTSD, particularly in military veterans, will undoubtedly continue to advance the science of diagnosis as well as treatment of this emotional illness. The record on appeal in this case demonstrates that an authentic diagnosis of PTSD can be medically substantiated with reasonable reliability. Kansas need not retain criteria for compensability that are no longer consistent with the state of medical science.
For Daniel to be left without a remedy under all the undisputed facts in this case is antithetical to the general policy of tort liability in Anglo-American jurisprudence: those who are legitimately injured due to the act or omissions of others should have a remedy in our courts.
I would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of ANW and remand for further proceedings.