SWANSON v ST JOHN S LUTHERAN HOSP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-106 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA O R F F 1980 MARJORIE C . SWANSON, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN HOSPITAL, a Montana C o r p o r a t i o n , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Nineteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f L i n c o l n . Honorable R o b e r t C . H o l t e r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: F e n n e s s y , C r o c k e r and Harman, L i b b y , Montana F o r Respondent: Smith Law Firm, H e l e n a , Montana W i l l i a m s and S v e r d r u p , Libby, Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A p r i l 2 4 , 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f M a r j o r i e Swanson o r i g i n a l l y b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n under Montana's "Conscience Law," s e c t i o n 50-5-504, MCA, i n t h e L i n c o l n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t . The judgment was r e v e r s e d and remanded by t h i s C o u r t i n June 1979. J o h n ' s Lutheran Hospital (1979), 702, 36 St.Rep. 1075. Judgment was Swanson v . S t . , Mont. 597 P. 2d On remand, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded damages t o t a l i n g $11,950.86. P l a i n t i f f brings t h i s appeal from t h e damage award, and d e f e n d a n t c r o s s - a p p e a l s . P l a i n t i f f ' s employment a s a n u r s e - a n e s t h e t i s t was t e r m i n a t e d on August 24, 1977, by d e f e n d a n t h o s p i t a l f o r p l a i n t i f f ' s r e f u s a l t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a tuba1 l i g a t i o n . P l a i n t i f f had been employed by t h e h o s p i t a l f o r e i g h t y e a r s p r i o r t o h e r d i s m i s s a l and had e i g h t y e a r s r e m a i n i n g u n t i l retirement. A t t h e t i m e of her discharge, s h e had s l i g h t l y more t h a n seven months remaining on h e r employment c o n t r a c t . On t h e i n i t i a l a p p e a l , t h i s C o u r t found t h a t s h e w a s e n t i t l e d t o "monetary damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d " under s e c t i o n 50-5-504(2), MCA. W remanded t h e c a s e s t a t i n g , e " [ i ]t is t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f and k i n d of monetary damages t o which s h e i s e n t i t l e d . " 597 P.2d a t 711. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded damages e q u a l t o t h e amount o f wages p l a i n t i f f would have r e c e i v e d f o r t h e s e v e n months r e m a i n i n g on h e r employment c o n t r a c t p l u s i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s m i t i g a t e d by wages s h e r e c e i v e d i n a n o t h e r j o b d u r i n g t h e period. While a v a r i e t y o f i s s u e s have been r a i s e d by t h i s a p p e a l and c r o s s - a p p e a l , t h e following i s s u e i s d i s p o s i t i v e : t Did t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t err i n t h e manner and amount it c h o s e t o award damages? P l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s on a p p e a l t h a t t o r t and exemplary damages s h o u l d have been awarded. Defendant c o n t e n d s on c r o s s - a p p e a l t h a t t h e amount of wages awarded s h o u l d have been r e d u c e d by t h e amount of p a y r o l l t a x e s which would have been d e d u c t e d from t h e wages and by t h e amount of unemployment compensation r e c e i v e d by p l a i n t i f f . S e c t i o n 50-5-504, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "Unlawful t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h r i g h t of r e f u s a l . (1) I t s h a l l be u n l a w f u l t o i n t e r f e r e o r a t tempt t o i n t e r f e r e with t h e r i g h t of r e f u s a l a u t h o r i z e d by t h i s p a r t , whether by d u r e s s , c o e r c i o n , o r any o t h e r means. " ( 2 ) The p e r s o n i n j u r e d t h e r e b y s h a l l be ent i t l e d t o i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , when a p p r o p r i a t e , and s h a l l f u k t h e r be e n t i t l e d t o monetary damages f o r i n j u r i e s suffered." ( ~ m p h z i s upplied.) While no c a s e i n Montana h a s c o n s t r u e d t h i s s t a t u t e , t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s c l e a r . The s t a t u t e i s d e s i g n e d a t t h e o u t s e t t o p r e v e n t u n l a w f u l a c t i o n s under t h i s s e c t i o n t h r o u g h i n j u n c t i o n , where a p p r o p r i a t e , and f u r t h e r t o m o n e t a r i l y compensate p e r s o n s who s u f f e r i n j u r i e s a s a r e s u l t of s a i d unlawful a c t i o n s . T h i s law c r e a t e s a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o r e c e i v e damages above and beyond t h e employment c o n t r a c t . A s s u c h , t h e r e i s no s p e c i f i c t h e o r y s e t f o r t h f o r d e t e r m i n i n g damages ( e . g . , a s i s a r g u e d by t h e p a r t i e s h e r e . contract o r t o r t ) The l e g i s l a t u r e i n s t e a d s o u g h t t o compensate i n j u r e d p e r s o n s no m a t t e r what form t h e i n j u r i e s took. I t s e f f e c t i s s i m i l a r t o 42 U.S.C. 81983, which i s d e r i v e d from 81 o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s Act of 1871. The b a s i c purpose of a 51983 damages award i s t o compensate p e r s o n s f o r i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by t h e d e p r i v a t i o n of c o n s t i tutional rights. Carey v. P i p h u s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 435 U.S. 247, 254, I n Carey t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t p r o v i d e d a n e x c e l l e n t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e compensation t h e o r y t o a 51983 a c t i o n . It stated: ". . . R i g h t s , c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and o t h e r w i s e , do n o t e x i s t i n a vacuum. T h e i r p u r p o s e i s t o prot e c t p e r s o n s from i n j u r i e s t o p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s , and t h e i r c o n t o u r s a r e shaped by t h e i n terests they p r o t e c t . "Our l e g a l s y s t e m ' s c o n c e p t of damages r e f l e c t s t h i s view of l e g a l r i g h t s . 'The c a r d i n a l p r i n c i p l e of damages inAnglo-Americanlaw i s t h a t of compensation f o r t h e i n j u r y c a u s e d t o p l a i n t i f f by d e f e n d a n t ' s b r e a c h of d u t y . ' [ A u t h o r i t y omitted.] The C o u r t i m p l i c i t e d l y h a s recogn i z e d t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o a c t i o n s under 81983 by s t a t i n g t h a t damages a r e a v a i l a b l e under t h a t s e c t i o n f o r a c t i o n s 'found t o have been v i o l a t i v e of constitutional rights --and t o have c a u s e d compensable injury.' ... ... ... ". . . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t Congress i n t e n d e d t h a t awards under 51983 s h o u l d d e t e r t h e d e p r i v a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t i t meant t o e s t a b l i s h a d e t e r r e n t more f o r m i d a b l e t h a n t h a t i n h e r e n t i n t h e award of compensatory damages. [Citation omitted.] " I t i s l e s s d i f f i c u l t t o c o n c l u d e t h a t damages awards under 5 1983 s h o u l d be governed by t h e p r i n c i p l e o f compensation t h a n i t i s t o a p p l y t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o c o n c r e t e c a s e s . But o v e r t h e c e n t u r i e s t h e common law of t o r t s h a s developed a s e t o f r u l e s t o implement t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t a p e r s o n s h o u l d be compensated f a i r l y f o r i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by t h e v i o l a t i o n of h i s l e g a l r i g h t s . These r u l e s , d e f i n i n g t h e e l e m e n t s of damages and t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r t h e i r recovery, provide t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r t h e i n q u i r y under 5 1983 as w e l l . " I t i s n o t c l e a r , however, t h a t common-law t o r t r u l e s o f damages w i l l p r o v i d e a c o m p l e t e s o l u t i o n t o t h e damages i s s u e i n e v e r y 8 1983 c a s e . I n some c a s e s , t h e i n t e r e s t s p r o t e c t e d by a p a r t i c u l a r b r a n c h o f t h e common law of t o r t s may p a r a l l e l c l o s e l y t h e i n t e r e s t s p r o t e c t e d by a particular constitutional right. I n such c a s e s , i t may be a p p r o p r i a t e t o a p p l y t h e t o r t r u l e s [Citao f damages d i r e c t l y t o t h e 5 1983 a c t i o n . t i o n s omitted.] " I n o t h e r c a s e s , t h e i n t e r e s t s p r o t e c t e d by a p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t may n o t a l s o be p r o t e c t e d by a n a n a l o g o u s b r a n c h of t h e common l a w of t o r t s . [Citations omitted.] I n those c a s e s , t h e t a s k w i l l be t h e more d i f f i c u l t one of adaptingcornmon-lawrules of damages t o prov i d e f a i r compensation f o r i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by t h e deprivation of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t . "Although t h i s t a s k of a d a p t a t i o n w i l l be one of some d e l i c a c y - - a s t h i s c a s e d e m o n s t r a t e s - - i t must be u n d e r t a k e n . The purpose of 8 1983 would be d e f e a t e d i f i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by t h e d e p r i v a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s went uncompensated s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e common law d o e s n o t r e c o g n i z e an analogous cause of a c t i o n . [ C i t a t i o n s omitt e d . ] I n o r d e r t o f u r t h e r t h e p u r p o s e o f 5 1983, t h e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g compensation f o r i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by t h e d e p r i v a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s s h o u l d b e t a i l o r e d t o t h e i n t e r e s t s prot e c t e d by t h e p a r t i c u l a r r i g h t i n q u e s t i o n - - j u s t as t h e common-law r u l e s o f damages t h e m s e l v e s were d e f i n e d by t h e i n t e r e s t s p r o t e c t e d i n t h e v a r i o u s b r a n c h e s of t o r t law. W e a g r e e w i t h M r . J u s t i c e H a r l a n t h a t ' t h e e x p e r i e n c e of judges i n dealing with p r i v a t e [ t o r t ] claims supports t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t c o u r t s of law a r e c a p a b l e of making t h e t y p e s o f judgment c o n c e r n i n g causat i o n and magnitude o f i n j u r y n e c e s s a r y t o a c c o r d meaningful compensation f o r i n v a s i o n of [ c o n s t i tutional] rights.' Bivens v . S i x Unknown Fed. N a r c o t i c s Agents, s u p r a , 403 U.S. a t 409, 91 S.Ct. a t 2011 ( H a r l a n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n judgment.)" 435 U.S. a t 254-259. F e d e r a l c o u r t s a p p e a r t o g e n e r a l l y a g r e e t h a t damages awards under 51983 s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e compensation principle. Cir. U n i t e d S t a t e s e x r e l . T y r r e l l v. Speaker ( 3 r d 1 9 7 6 ) , 535 F.2d 823; Magnett v. P e l l e t i e r (1st C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) , 488 F.2d 33; Donovan v . Reinbold ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 0 ) , 433 F.2d 738. F u r t h e r m o r e , exemplary o r p u n i t i v e damages may b e awarded i n a p r o p e r c a s e under 81983 w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e of d e t e r r i n g o r p u n i s h i n g v i o l a t i o n s of c o n s t i t u tional rights. S i l v e r v. Cormier ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) r 529 F.2d 1 6 1 , 163-164; S t e n g e l v . B e l c h e r ( 6 t h C i r . 438, 4 4 4 n. 4 , c e r t . d i s m i s s e d 429 U.S. 5 0 dbp 47- L.Ed. 2d + I H. 1 9 7 5 ) , 522 F.2d 97 35 7' 118, 4%- S.Ct. Montana f o l l o w s a s i m i l a r compensatory scheme f o r awarding damages. There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t i n Montana e v e r y p e r s o n who s u f f e r s d e t r i m e n t from t h e u n l a w f u l a c t o r o m i s s i o n of a n o t h e r may r e c o v e r damages from t h e p e r s o n a t fault. S e c t i o n 27-1-202, MCA. An i n j u r e d p e r s o n i s a l s o e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e compensation f o r f u t u r e damages which a r e shown t o be r e a s o n a b l y c e r t a i n . F r i s n e g g e r v. Gibson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , St.Rep. 1335. S e c t i o n 27-1-203, - Mont. , MCA; 598 P.2d 574, 36 F u r t h e r , i n any a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h of a n o b l i g a t i o n n o t a r i s i n g from c o n t r a c t where t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s been g u i l t y of o p p r e s s i o n , f r a u d o r m a l i c e , a c t u a l o r p r e sumed, exemplary damages may be a l l o w e d . MCA S e c t i o n 27-1-221, . Based on t h e above c a s e s and s t a t u t e s , w e f i n d t h a t a compensation t h e o r y i s t o b e used when d e t e r m i n i n g damages under s e c t i o n 50-5-504, MCA. Therefore, with these prin- c i p l e s i n mind, w e now t u r n t o t h e problem of compensation i n t h e c a s e a t hand. During t h e h e a r i n g on damages e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e amount of wages and b e n e f i t s p l a i n t i f f would have r e c e i v e d d u r i n g t h e remainder of h e r c o n t r a c t . The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o heard evidence concerning p l a i n t i f f ' s p r o j e c t e d f u t u r e e a r n i n g s had s h e remained employed a t t h e h o s p i t a l u n t i l h e r r e t i r e m e n t i n 1987. There was no e v i - d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a s t o p u n i t i v e damages, n o r w a s t h e r e evidence introduced a s t o mental d i s t r e s s . The ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t u l t i m a t e l y awarded p l a i n t i f f $11,950.86. T h i s amount i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f what s h e would have r e c e i v e d i n wages and b e n e f i t s , l e s s c e r t a i n m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s , d u r i n g t h e r e m a i n d e r of h e r 1977-1978 c o n t r a c t . No r e a s o n s w e r e g i v e n a s t o t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o g r a n t f u t u r e damages. W e must, however, assume t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t was aware t h a t it had t h e power t o g r a n t t f u t u r e damages under s e c t i o n 27-1-203, v . Gibson, s u p r a . MCA, and ~ r i s n e g g e r T h e r e f o r e , we c a n o n l y c o n c l u d e t h a t , i n i t s opinion, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t f e e l t h a t t h e f u t u r e damages, a s c l a i m e d by p l a i n t i f f , w e r e r e a s o n a b l y c e r t a i n t o occur. I t was p r o p e r l y w i t h i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e - t i o n t o make t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , and we c a n n o t h o l d t h a t i t w a s e r r o r f o r t h e c o u r t t o r e f u s e t o g r a n t f u t u r e damages. P l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m f o r exemplary damages, a s w e l l a s h e r c l a i m f o r damages f o r m e n t a l d i s t r e s s , must f a i l . Plaintiff d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e any e v i d e n c e of e i t h e r a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t l e v e l , and t h e m a t t e r i s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l . T h i s d o e s n o t imply a n a p p r o v a l o r d i s - a p p r o v a l of such c l a i m s ; t h e r e i s s i m p l y n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t them. A s s t a t e d e a r l i e r , exemplary dam- a g e s , a s w e l l a s damages f o r m e n t a l d i s t r e s s o r any o t h e r i n j u r y s u s c e p t i b l e o f p r o o f , may b e awarded i n a p r o p e r c a s e under s e c t i o n 50-5-504, MCA. W e see no p a r t i c u l a r d i f - f i c u l t y i n p r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a c l a i m f o r exemMCA, o r t o show t h a t p l a r y damages under s e c t i o n 27-1-203, m e n t a l and e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s a c t u a l l y was c a u s e d by t h e defendant's actions. These a r e c o n c e p t s f a m i l i a r t o t h e law, which c a n be proven i n t h e case of exemplary damages by showing t h e d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y o f o p p r e s s i o n , f r a u d o r m a l i c e , a c t u a l o r i m p l i e d , and i n t h e c a s e of m e n t a l d i s t r e s s by showing t h e n a t u r e and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e wrong and i t s e f f e c t on p l a i n t i f f . I n sum, a l t h o u g h b o t h a r e compensable under s e c t i o n 50-5-504, MCA, we h o l d t h a t n e i t h e r t h e l i k e l i h o o d of such improper b e h a v i o r o r i n j u r y nor t h e d i f f i c u l t y of proving e i t h e r i s s o g r e a t t o j u s t i f y awarding exemplary o r compensatory damages w i t h o u t proof t h a t such improper b e h a v i o r took p l a c e o r t h a t s u c h i n j u r y a c t u a l l y occurred. A s t h e r e c o r d below p r o v i d e s no s u p p o r t f o r e i t h e r , t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r s u c h a n award i n t h i s case. The s u p p l e m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t by p l a i n t i f f i n l i e u o f o r a l argument h a s been d i s r e g a r d e d , and t h e m a t t e r d e c i d e d e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e b r i e f s . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.