Watson Chapel Sch. Dist. v. Vilches
| Decision Date | 10 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CV–15–602,CV–15–602 |
| Citation | 482 S.W.3d 755 |
| Parties | Watson Chapel School District, Appellant, v. June Vilches, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake PLC, Pine Bluff, by: Michael J. Dennis, for appellant.
Mitchell, Blackstock, Ivers, Sneddon & Marshall, PLLC, by: Greg Alagood, for appellee.
Watson Chapel School District (the District) appeals from a circuit court's order awarding one of its junior-high teachers, June Vilches, back pay for a thirty-nine-day leave of absence. The District contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the award; the circuit court improperly shifted the burden of proof; and the court's award of attorney's fees was improper. We affirm the circuit court's order.
The incident giving rise to this case occurred on October 8, 2013, when Ms. Vilches noticed a student in the hall whom she did not recognize, and he was not wearing an identification card as required by school policy. Eyewitnesses to the event described the young man as between 6'2" and 6'5" tall and between 180 and 190 pounds; Ms. Vilches is about 5'1" and weighs 115 pounds. Ms. Vilches confronted him and requested his identification. He became angry and confrontational, called her a b****, and began "cussing" her, so she decided to "write him up." Ms. Vilches testified that, at this point, he pushed her into the wall by "charging" her, which he did two additional times. Several teachers heard the commotion and came out into the hall. Ms. Vilches testified that, when he pushed her into the wall, she could not speak and she hoped he was not going to hit her.
A male teacher, Clifton Lewis, eventually grabbed the student and escorted him away. Mr. Lewis testified that he did not see the student hit Ms. Vilches but that they were standing chest to chest and they were touching. He said that the student was "right in her face" and was "towering over her." He testified that the student was "real aggressive," was standing like boxers do before the prefight, and was trying to intimidate Ms. Vilches. He said that Ms. Vilches did not treat the student any differently than she treats other students and that she did not provoke him.
The student just "flipped," and Ms. Vilches appeared upset by the incident.
Another teacher, Yvette Hammond, also witnessed the event. She testified that the student was aggressive toward Ms. Vilches, lunged forward while loudly threatening her, and briefly touched her. She said that Ms. Vilches was visibly shaken after the event.
Ms. Vilches testified that after three sleepless nights, nightmares, and headaches, she went to her doctor, Tracy Phillips, on October 11, 2013. Her blood pressure was high, which was unusual for her. Dr. Phillips diagnosed Ms. Vilches with posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) and advised her not to return to work "at this time." He told her to follow up with him in two weeks. He also prescribed medication for anxiety and a sleep aid.
Ms. Vilches returned to work on January 15, 2014. She did not return to see Dr. Phillips until February 3, 2014. Dr. Phillips testified that Ms. Vilches had been his patient since 2001. He said that when she came in on October 11, 2013, she told him that she had been assaulted by a student at school. His notes reflected that she had a knot on her right arm, her blood pressure was elevated, her head and chest hurt, and she had blurred vision. Her blood pressure that day was 162 over 106, and her pulse measured 112. Ms. Vilches did not have a history of high blood pressure
. He noted that she was "pretty shaken" and was not her "normal self." He diagnosed her with PTSD, which, he testified, can affect people in different ways. He said that, typically, he would schedule a follow-up exam to check on a patient after such a diagnosis. He said that his opinion "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty" was that it was appropriate for Ms. Vilches to be off work from October 11, 2013, through January 15, 2014, and that she "needed to be off work." On cross-examination, he admitted that he could not definitively say Ms. Vilches had symptoms of PTSD any time after October 11, 2013, when he met with her.
After she returned to work, Ms. Vilches sought payment from the District for the thirty-nine days she was off work pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 6–17–1209
(Supp. 2013). The District's superintendent refused her request, and the school board also voted to deny it. She filed a complaint on March 13, 2014, alleging that the District had violated Ark.Code Ann. § 6–17–1209 and had breached its employment contract with her by refusing to pay her for the thirty-nine-day leave of absence. She requested damages in the amount of the back pay for the thirty-nine-day leave and for her costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 16–22–308 (Repl. 1999).
At the end of a bench trial, the circuit court ruled from the bench, finding that an assault did take place, stating that it found the testimony of Ms. Vilches, Ms. Hammond, and Mr. Lewis credible. Without determining that Ms. Vilches was grabbed or pushed, the court found that she suffered personal injury as a result of the assault. The court credited Dr. Phillips's diagnosis of PTSD—noting that this type of injury had been recognized by our court in Moore v. Pulaski County Special School District, 73 Ark. App. 366, 43 S.W.3d 204 (2001)
, as a "personal injury" under the statute—and further considering Dr. Phillips's notes regarding Ms. Vilches's elevated blood pressure, painful chest and head, and blurred vision. Finally, the court noted that there was no medical testimony to suggest that Ms. Vilches had not been injured due to the assault. After announcing its findings, the court stated that the case was a "dual case" including a private statutory cause of action in addition to a breach-of-contract issue because section 6–17–1209
is "part of every teacher contract." Thus, the court stated that Ms. Vilches would be entitled to attorney's fees and costs and requested her to submit those in an itemized statement.
On April 28, 2015, the circuit court entered an order awarding Ms. Vilches damages for the thirty-nine-day absence, granting a setoff to the District for sick days for which she had been paid and ordering the sick days reinstated, and awarding her attorney's fees and costs. The order tracked the court's oral ruling, finding that Ms. Vilches had met her burden of proving that an assault had occurred against her in the course of her employment and that she had sustained a personal injury caused by the assault, noting Dr. Phillips's diagnosis of PTSD. The court then stated that the case was a private cause of action pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 6–17–1209
but awarded attorney's fees, stating that it was also a breach-of- contract case by virtue of the fact that the District was required to incorporate the statute into its written personnel policies. Taking into account the setoff, the court awarded damages in the amount of $6649.01 and attorney's fees of $9160.00.
A week after the order was entered, the District filed an objection to the request for attorney's fees, stating that the statement for legal services submitted by Ms. Vilches's counsel was excessive in light of the amount of damages received by Ms. Vilches; that none of the tasks reflected a one-tenth-hour entry; and that the requested hourly rate was not supported by evidence indicating that it was an appropriate rate, Ms. Vilches responded to the objection, but the court did not enter any additional orders. The District filed this appeal.
In bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is whether the circuit court's findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a)
(2015); Optical Partners, Inc. v. Dang, 2011 Ark. 156, at 14, 381 S.W.3d 46, 55. Disputed facts and determinations of the credibility of witnesses are within the province of the fact-finder. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ellison, 334 Ark. 357, 361, 974 S.W.2d 464, 467 (1998).
For its first point on appeal, the District contends that Ms. Vilches did not provide sufficient proof to support her claim. Specifically, it argues that there must be more medical proof to support a personal-injury claim than an initial diagnosis of PTSD and a two-week-off-work slip. The District also argues that the PTSD diagnosis was based on a characterization of the event that wasn't true—that is, an incident in which Ms. Vilches was grabbed or punched. Before we address the District's...
To continue reading
Request your trial