 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayes v. Northern Hills General Hospital3/10/1999
upon his legal rights in a permissible way, even though he is well aware that such insistence is certain to cause emotional distress." Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 cmt g (1965).
We do not agree with the defendants' claim of privilege as they fail to detail exactly what conduct they are claiming is privileged. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by a comment in the Restatement that provides no other authority and states "[such] cases have not arisen." Id.
[ ] ii. Extreme, disabling emotional response
[ ] The trial court also found Hayes failed to meet the fourth element for the tort of intentional infliction of emotion distress, he failed to suffer an extreme, disabling emotional response to the defendants' conduct. Hayes claims his reaction to the defendants' conduct was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to this element of the cause of action. He claims he has suffered stress, humiliation, mental anguish, weight loss and a prolonged inability to sleep at night as a result of the defendants' actions.
[ ] A review of South Dakota cases concerning intentional infliction of emotional distress reveals stress, humiliation or mental anguish are enough to present a case to a jury. See Richardson, 531 NW2d 27. ("We have also noted intentional infliction of emotional distress includes reckless conduct resulting in emotional distress."); Kjerstad, 517 NW2d 429 (claimants alleged they suffered from physical symptoms, difficulty sleeping and nervousness); Bass v. Happy Rest, Inc., 507 NW2d 317, 323 n22 (SD 1993) (evidence of emotional distress consisted of depression and other symptomatic emotional distress); Petersen I, 486 NW2d 519, reh'g granted, Petersen II, 491 NW2d 467 (extremely stressful conversations were enough to bring an intentional infliction of emotional distress case before the jury). There is a genuine issue of material fact as to this element. As such, summary judgment was improper.
[ ] We reverse and remand this issue to the trial court for trial.
[ ] c. Breach of fiduciary duty
[ ] Hayes claims a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the shareholders of BHMC and NHMAI. He also alleges a breach of fiduciary duty against the partners of Lupus and NHMA. He did not allege this cause of action against NHGH. The trial court found that the scope of all defendants' fiduciary duties was limited and defined by the language of the contract. Finding there was no fiduciary duty owed Hayes under the contract or after his termination, the trial court dismissed this count.
[ ] Hayes claims the trial court's analysis regarding the breach of fiduciary duty is erroneous. He alleges there was a fiduciary relationship between himself and his fellow shareholders and partners. He argues this fiduciary relationship was breached when the defendants held a secret meeting in June 1992, when Dr. McLaughlin met with Homestake to gather support for Hayes termination and subsequently when he was terminated. Hayes argues that the duty continued after his termination and the defendants continued to breach it by returning all his mail to sender, abusing his patients and attempting to prevent him from re-establishing his practice in Deadwood.
[ ] i. Shareholders fiduciary duty
[ ] Hayes alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the shareholders of BHMC and NHMAI. Both of these entities are closely held corporations in which Hayes held an interest before his termination. The defendants were officers, directors and shareholders of NHMAI and BHMC when Hayes was terminated.
[ ] "The existence of a fiduciary duty and the scope of that duty are questions of law for the trial cou
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|