Wendeln v. The Beatrice Manor, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. S-05-188.,S-05-188. |
| Citation | 712 N.W.2d 226,271 Neb. 373 |
| Parties | Rebecca WENDELN, appellee, v. THE BEATRICE MANOR, INC., appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Michaela Skogerboe and Brent M. Kuhn, of Harris Kuhn Law Firm, L.L.P., Omaha, for appellant.
Carole McMahon-Boies, Spirit Lake, IA, for appellee.
The primary issue presented in this appeal is whether we should recognize a public policy-based cause of action for retaliatory discharge when an employer discharges an employee for making a report to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) as mandated by the Adult Protective Services Act (APSA), Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 28-348 to 28-387 (Reissue 1995 & Cum.Supp.2004).
Rebecca Wendeln, a certified nursing assistant, began working at The Beatrice Manor, Inc. (Beatrice Manor), in May 2000 as a staffing coordinator. A particular patient at Beatrice Manor was wheelchair-bound, and it was Wendeln's understanding that any time the patient was lifted or transferred, such transfer needed to be done by two persons and with a gait belt (an ambulatory aid used to transfer or mobilize patients). In December 2001, a "very upset" medical aide approached Wendeln, describing that approximately 2 weeks prior, this patient had been improperly moved and had fallen and bruised herself. The aide reported that she had offered to assist another aide in the transfer of the patient, but that the other aide had refused to let her help. The next thing the aide observed was the patient on the floor with no gait belt in sight. The aide told Wendeln that she had informed the administrator and the acting director of nursing about the incident, but that the aide did not believe that it had been properly reported to DHHS or was otherwise being taken care of.
That same day, a licensed practical nurse at Beatrice Manor also approached Wendeln about the incident, expressing concern that nothing was being done about it. The nurse did not witness the incident, but was a relative of the patient. In response to these reports, Wendeln approached another aide who was working the day of the incident to confirm that it had actually occurred. That aide had been called to help the patient off of the floor and told Wendeln that pain medication had been given to the patient as a result of the fall.
Wendeln then called DHHS to make sure that it had been reported. When DHHS indicated that no incident had been reported, Wendeln made a report.
A few days after her report to DHHS, Wendeln was called into her supervisor's office. Wendeln said that her supervisor was very angry with her after having learned that Wendeln had made a report with DHHS without having first spoken to her. Wendeln testified that her supervisor was "very aggressive" and made her feel scared and intimidated. Wendeln, who was 21 years old at the time, asked for some time off work because she "didn't know how [she] was going to face [her supervisor] after the way she had aggressively approached [her]." Her supervisor granted her the time off. Wendeln testified that during this time, she felt very nervous and upset. She explained that she had never before been "attacked" in such a manner by either a peer or a supervisor.
Upon Wendeln's return to work on her next scheduled workday, Wendeln found that the locks to her office had been changed. Eventually, her supervisor appeared and told Wendeln to follow her to her office. There, Wendeln was asked to resign, and when she refused, she was told she was fired. Her official termination date was January 2, 2002.
Wendeln testified that after her discharge from employment, even though she had a close family friend as a patient at Beatrice Manor, she never felt comfortable enough to be able to return to visit. She explained that on the one occasion she had returned to the facility to pick up her W-2 form, her former supervisor had come out of the building and stood watching her park her car. Thereafter, the supervisor stood by the nurses' station as Wendeln picked up the W-2 form, making Wendeln feel uncomfortable.
After her discharge from employment at Beatrice Manor, Wendeln was unable to find other employment in Beatrice, where she lived near her mother. She eventually found work in Lincoln.
On January 27, 2003, Wendeln filed this action against Beatrice Manor. Her original action sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief under the whistleblower provisions of the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA), Neb. Rev.Stat. § 48-1101 et seq. (Reissue 1998), as actionable under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 20-148 (Reissue 1997). However, she was allowed to amend her complaint to add the allegation that she suffered from wrongful termination in contravention of the public policy of the State of Nebraska, as articulated in the APSA. On April 5, 2004, Beatrice Manor, pursuant to leave granted by the court, filed an amended answer alleging for the first time that Wendeln's claims were barred by the 300-day statute of limitations period set forth in § 48-1118(2).
The court granted a motion by Wendeln to dismiss her first cause of action which alleged relief under the NFEPA and § 20-148, reasoning that essentially the same cause of action was pending before the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. The court overruled respective motions for summary judgment by Wendeln and Beatrice Manor, and the case went to trial before a jury on Wendeln's second cause of action alleging retaliatory discharge in contravention of the public policy mandate expressed by the reporting provisions of the APSA.
Prior to trial, the court overruled Beatrice Manor's motion in limine for an order precluding Wendeln from making any reference to damages in the form of pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, or humiliation. Beatrice Manor's motion was based on its argument that Wendeln's claim sounded in contract and that noneconomic damages were not recoverable as a matter of law. The jury was eventually instructed that it "must determine the amount of any noneconomic damages sustained by [Wendeln] such as mental suffering, emotional distress and humiliation." (Emphasis in original.) Beatrice Manor objected to the instruction on the ground that Wendeln's cause of action sounded in contract and on the alternative ground that "there has been no evidence that [Wendeln] did sustain the mental suffering, emotional distress and humiliation as a result of this incident, as required by law."
The court also refused Beatrice Manor's proposed jury instruction that Wendeln had the burden to prove that she "acted in good faith and upon reasonable cause in reporting the suspected abuse." Over Beatrice Manor's objection, the jury was instructed only that it must find that Wendeln "acted upon reasonable cause in reporting the suspected abuse."
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Wendeln, finding actual damages in the amount of $4,000 and noneconomic damages in the amount of $75,000, for a total of $79,000. Beatrice Manor moved for a new trial and remittitur, which alleged that the noneconomic damages granted Wendeln were clearly excessive and made under the influence of passion or prejudice.
Beatrice Manor argues, summarized and restated, that the trial court erred in (1) failing to find that the applicable statute of limitations was the 300-day period set forth in § 48-1118(2), rather than the general 4-year limitation period found in Neb. Rev.Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995); (2) failing to find as a matter of law that Wendeln's public policy retaliatory discharge claim sounded in contract and, therefore, noneconomic damages were not recoverable; (3) instructing the jury that it was Wendeln's burden to prove that her report to the DHHS was made upon reasonable cause, without also instructing the jury that she must prove the report was made in "good faith"; (4) instructing the jury on noneconomic damages when the evidence was insufficient to show that Wendeln suffered "severe" emotional distress as a result of her discharge; and (5) failing to set aside the jury's verdict of noneconomic damages as excessive.
Beatrice Manor also assigns as error the trial court's failure to grant Beatrice Manor summary judgment on the ground that no material issue of fact existed as to Wendeln's lack of good faith and reasonable cause in reporting the alleged abuse to DHHS. However, the issue of whether a denial of summary judgment should have been granted generally becomes moot after a full trial on the merits. Moyer v. Nebraska City Airport Auth., 265 Neb. 201, 655 N.W.2d 855 (2003). Moreover, Beatrice Manor did not preserve any issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding whether Wendeln acted upon reasonable cause because it failed to make a motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence, or any other motion questioning the sufficiency of the evidence in that respect. We do not, therefore, consider this issue. As to good faith, we determine in this opinion that "good faith" is not a requirement in reporting under the APSA.
Which statute of limitations applies is a question of law that an appellate court must decide independently of the conclusion reached by the trial court. Andres v. McNeil Co., 270 Neb. 733, 707 N.W.2d 777 (2005).
A jury verdict will not be disturbed on appeal as excessive unless it is so clearly against the weight and reasonableness of the evidence and so disproportionate as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some means not apparent in the record, or that the jury disregarded the evidence or rules of law. Barks v. Cosgriff Co., 247 Neb. 660, 529 N.W.2d 749 (1995).
A motion for new trial is to be granted only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holbein v. TAW Enterprises, Inc.
...must predict how the Nebraska Supreme Court would decide this case. To this end, we find the analysis in Wendeln v. The Beatrice Manor, Inc. , 271 Neb. 373, 712 N.W.2d 226 (Neb. 2006), instructive. In Wendeln , a certified nursing assistant claimed her discharge contravened public policy be......
-
Sturzenegger v. Father Flanagan's Boys Home
...245 Neb. 586, 514 N.W.2d 319 (1994). 63. See State v. Archie, 273 Neb. 612, 633, 733 N.W.2d 513, 531 (2007). 64. Wendeln v. Beatrice Manor, 271 Neb. 373, 712 N.W.2d 226 (2006); Steele v. Sedlacek, 267 Neb. 1, 673 N.W.2d 1 (2003); Wolfe v. Abraham, 244 Neb. 337, 506 N.W.2d 692 (1993). 65. Wo......
-
Clark v. Sarpy Cnty., 8:17CV405
...the filing of a workers’ compensation claim. An action for retaliatory discharge is a tort action. Wendeln v. The Beatrice Manor, Inc. , 271 Neb. 373, 390, 712 N.W.2d 226, 241 (2006). Damages for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee are out-of-pocket loss of income and noneconomic dama......
-
Cmty. Care Ctr. of Aberdeen v. Barrentine
...Campbell v. Husky Hogs, LLC, 292 Kan. 225, 255 P.3d 1, 9 (2011) (“Retaliatory discharge is a tort.”); Wendeln v. The Beatrice Manor, Inc., 271 Neb. 373, 712 N.W.2d 226, 238 (2006) (“We agree that a public policy-based retaliatory discharge claim is based in tort. Accordingly, such a claim i......
-
Resolving the Ambiguity--a Post-trosper Guidebook for Courts and Employers: Trosper v. Bag `n Save, 273 Neb. 855, 734 N.w.2d 704 (2007)
...Commc'ns Corp., 265 Neb. 423, 657 N.W.2d 634 (2003). 9. Trosper, 273 Neb. at 856, 734 N.W.2d at 706. 10. Wendeln v. Beatrice Manor, Inc., 271 Neb. 373, 385, 712 N.W.2d 226, 238 (2006). Accord Jackson, 265 Neb. at 425-26, 657 N.W.2d at 636; Malone v. Am. Bus. Info., 262 Neb. 733, 735, 634 N.......