Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center
| Decision Date | 01 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 1866,1866 |
| Citation | 665 A.2d 297,106 Md.App. 470 |
| Parties | Robert Fulton BAGWELL, Jr. v. PENINSULA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
David B. Love (Paul R. Levene, P.A. on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.
Bruce S. Harrison, Baltimore (Alice P. Estill and Shawe & Rosenthal, Baltimore, and William G. Duvall and Duvall & Duvall of Salisbury, on the brief), for appellees.
Argued before FISCHER, HARRELL and HOLLANDER, JJ.
Robert Fulton Bagwell, Jr., appellant, was terminated from his employment as a Special Commissioned Police Officer at Peninsula Regional Medical Center ("Peninsula"). 1 Thereafter, he filed suit in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County against Peninsula, Alonzo Tull (head of Peninsula's security division), Craig Koppenhaver (Peninsula's Director of Personnel), and Jeffrey Corrigan (Peninsula's Vice President of Human Resources), appellees herein. In his Second Amended Complaint, Bagwell asserted a plethora of claims against appellees: breach of contract, abusive discharge, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective relations, defamation, invasion of privacy/false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent investigation.
The court granted appellees's motion for summary judgment on all counts. 2
Appellant presents one broad issue for our review: "Whether the trial judge erred in granting, without a hearing, Appellees' Motion for Summary Judgment as to all causes of action asserted by Appellant." He contends that the court erred in failing to recognize actual disputes of material fact. As we perceive no error, we shall affirm.
The summary of facts that follows was gleaned from the pleadings and the evidence produced in connection with appellees' motion for summary judgment. To the extent there is any factual dispute, we have cast the facts in the light most favorable to Bagwell, as we are reviewing the trial court's resolution of the motion for summary judgment.
On December 4, 1989, Peninsula, a hospital located in Salisbury, Maryland, hired Bagwell as a security officer. 3 The parties did not execute a written contract of employment. But, upon hiring Bagwell, Peninsula gave him a copy of its "Employee's Handbook," which discusses, among other things, the hospital's policies on discipline and termination. Bagwell was supervised by Tull who, in turn, reported to Koppenhaver and Corrigan. Bagwell's duties primarily concerned controlling the flow of visitors in the hospital emergency room, and occasionally assisting in controlling violent patients. For about two and a half years, all of Bagwell's job performance evaluations were exemplary.
Bagwell was terminated by Peninsula on July 17, 1992. The event precipitating Bagwell's discharge occurred on July 9, 1992. At about 11:30 p.m., while Bagwell was on duty, Juan Rivero was brought into the emergency room. Rivero had been suffering from multiple epileptic seizures over a thirty minute period, apparently brought about by his consumption of twelve cans of beer. He had been treated en route with valium, and by the time he arrived at the emergency room, the convulsions had ceased. Nevertheless, Rivero thrashed violently and shouted abusively, threatening to kill hospital staff if they did not immediately release him.
The attending physician ordered that Rivero, as he lay on a gurney, be restrained, and three people attempted to comply: Karen Malone, a nurse; Willie Ames, a nursing assistant; and Bagwell. Ames and Malone positioned themselves by Rivero's legs, and Bagwell stood by Rivero's head. Although they initially secured Rivero with soft restraints, Rivero quickly broke free. Then, while Bagwell, Ames, and Malone attempted to secure Rivero with leather straps, Rivero bit Bagwell on the right wrist. Other than Bagwell, no one saw Rivero bite appellant. Bagwell thereafter struck Rivero on the top of the head.
There is essentially no dispute that Rivero bit Bagwell. What the parties dispute is the time interval between the bite and the strike. In the light most favorable to Bagwell, he reflexively hit Rivero during the bite in an attempt to get Rivero to let go.
Rivero became even more angry and violent after being struck. Bagwell was asked to leave the room and another security officer, who had been waiting outside the emergency room, took over for Bagwell. After leaving the emergency room, Bagwell went to the security office and prepared a statement concerning the incident. He never sought medical treatment for the bite. In the meantime, after calming down somewhat, Rivero began complaining about having been punched by the security guard and he threatened to sue the hospital. He claimed that Bagwell's punch had broken his nose, but Ann Lynch, a nurse present in the emergency room
during the incident, saw no evidence that Rivero had suffered any injury from Bagwell's blow. Within an hour of his arrival at Peninsula, Rivero discharged himself against medical advice.
Rivero's wife called Trina Powell, Peninsula's Administrative Supervisor of Nursing, on July 10, 1992, demanding to know the identity of the officer who hit Rivero. Powell contacted Tull who, along with Koppenhaver, initiated an investigation. Tull immediately placed Bagwell on paid leave pending the outcome of the investigation.
On July 13, 1992, Tull and Koppenhaver interviewed Malone, Ames, and Lynch. Each witness had, by that point, already prepared a handwritten statement. Ames later indicated that he had prepared his statement specifically because Powell had asked him to do so, due to her concern that Peninsula would be sued. 4 Following each interview, Tull and Koppenhaver together drafted a typed, undated statement reflecting their understanding of the witness's version of events as related during the interview. Each witness signed the typed statement, confirming his or her agreement with the facts presented in the typed statement.
According to Lynch's original statement, she first entered the emergency room while Bagwell, Ames, and Malone were attempting to restrain Rivero. She saw Bagwell strike Rivero with a closed fist on the top of his head,
hard enough that everyone in the room heard it. [Bagwell] looked up at me and said "he bit me, nobody bites me." After this the [patient] became more combative screaming at [Bagwell], saying he was going to sue because security had hit him. The [patient] eventually calmed down after Fulton Bagwell left the room.
The typed statement indicated, in relevant part, as follows:
Ms. Lynch stated that when she entered the room she observed Karen Malone ... and Willie Ames ... restraining
the arms of a combative patient. Officer Bagwell was standing at the head and behind the patient. She stated that she did not witness the patient bite Officer Bagwell. Ms. Lynch estimated that approximately thirty (30) seconds elapsed between her arrival in the room and the point where she observed Officer Bagwell strike the patient with a closed fist on top of his head. Ms. Lynch also confirmed that she did not witness the patient biting Officer Bagwell prior to his striking the patient.
Ms. Lynch stated that after striking the patient, Officer Bagwell looked up at her and said "He bit me, nobody bites me."
Lynch never repudiated any portion of either statement. Also, in a deposition taken later, Lynch indicated that she was watching Rivero constantly during the entire thirty second period between her entry and Bagwell's strike, but she never saw the bite.
Malone wrote in her original statement that all three were attempting to restrain Rivero, with Bagwell standing by Rivero's head and Malone standing at Rivero's right side. While she was attempting to restrain Rivero's right arm, she
heard a SMACK, looked up and saw [the patient with his] head turned up toward [Bagwell]. [The patient] stated "You punched my face!" and [Bagwell] replied "You bit me!" I did not witness the actual incident.
The typed version of Malone's account of events was essentially consistent with her original statement. It added that she had "indicated that she observed no marks on the patient or Officer Bagwell that were related to the incident." Malone never repudiated any portion of either statement.
According to Ames's handwritten statement, dated July 9, 1992, he indicated that he and Bagwell entered the emergency room together to help restrain a combative patient. Ames continued:
Officer Bagwell proceeded to help hold the patient, when all of a sudden Officer Bagwell said, "I will teach you not to
bite people." I heard a thump. The patient said he hit me in my face. The patient proceeded to call him nasty names. The patient said he was going to get a lawyer and sue Officer Bagwell.
Ames's typed statement indicated, in pertinent part, as follows:
Mr. Ames stated that he had restrained the patient's arm when he heard Officer Bagwell state that the patient bit him. Mr. Ames stated that he heard Officer Bagwell say, "I will teach you not to bite people." Mr. Ames said that he then heard a thump. Mr. Ames did not see Officer Bagwell punch the patient nor did he see the patient bite Officer Bagwell. Mr. Ames also stated that he observed a bruise on the patient's forehead after he heard the thump.
In a deposition taken during discovery, Ames repudiated the implication that he had already restrained Rivero when Bagwell first spoke; Rivero was still unrestrained at that time. Ames affirmed the remainder of the statements.
Corrigan called Rivero's wife on July 14, 1992, and he wrote a memorandum to the file purporting to memorialize the conversation. In the memorandum, Corrigan indicated that he told Ms. Rivero that he "had become fully aware of most of the facts surrounding the situation," and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marcas, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of St. Mary's Cnty.
...and loss resulting.'" Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 163 Md. App. 220, 242, 878 A.2d 628, 641 (citing Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr., 106 Md. App. 470, 504, 665 A.2d 297 (1995) (quoting Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Assocs., Inc., 336 Md. 635, 652, 650 A.2d 260 ......
-
Marcas, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of St. Mary's Cnty., Civil Action No. WGC–07–196.
...resulting.’ ” Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 163 Md.App. 220, 242, 878 A.2d 628, 641 (2005) (citing Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr., 106 Md.App. 470, 504, 665 A.2d 297 (1995)) (quoting Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Assocs., Inc., 336 Md. 635, 652, 650 A.2d 260 (1......
-
Baron Financial Corp. v. Natanzon, No. SKG-03-3563.
...action exists to recover for tortious interference with one's occupation and livelihood in general. See Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 106 Md.App. 470, 665 A.2d 297 (1995)(citing Alexander, 336 Md. at 650-1, 650 A.2d 260)(The tort of interference with economic relationships "......
-
Green v. Brooks
...exists as to any material fact, and that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Ctr., 106 Md.App. 470, 488, 665 A.2d 297 (1995), cert. denied, 341 Md. 172, 669 A.2d 1360 (1996). A material fact is one that will "alter the outcome of t......
-
Table of Cases
...179 B Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg. Med. Ctr., 106 Md. App. 470, 665 5 A.2d 297 (1995).............................................................................242 Baker v. Roy H. Haas Assocs., Inc., 97 Md. App. 371, 629 A.2d 1317 (1993).............................................................
-
CHAPTER SIXTEEN DAMAGES IN MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION CASES
...164 Md. 397, 404, 165 A.182, 184 (1933).[32] . 73 Md. App. 351, 533 A.2d 1350 (1987).[33] 76 Md. App. 298, 544 A.2d 808 (1988).[34] 106 Md. App. 470, 665 5 A.2d 297 (1995).[35] 351 Md. 554, 719 A.2d 119, 132-134 (1998). [36] Hunt, supra, 121 Md. App. at 531, 710 A.2d at 369.[37] 73 Md. App.......
-
Exceptions To the At-Will Employment Doctrine
...high bid, no clear public policy regarding reporting of potential conflicts of interest existed); Bagwell v. Peninsula Med. Ctr., 106 Md. App. 470, 498-501, 665 A.2d 297, 311-12 (1995) (explaining that officer employed by hospital and discharged for striking a patient could not claim there ......
-
Employer Tort Liability To Employees
...in Emery v. Ne. Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp., 880 N.E.2d 1002 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).[47] See Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr., 106 Md. App. 470, 665 A.2d 297 (1995) (issue not reached because it was not raised below).[48] McDermott v. Hughley, 317 Md. 12, 561 A.2d 1038 (1989); Gohari v......