Swanson v. St. John's Lutheran Hospital

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 . Judgment was

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. Swanson v . S t .

J o h n ' s Lutheran Hospital (1979), Mont. , 597 P. 2d

702, 36 St.Rep. 1075. 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 :

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
t

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 unemploy-

ment 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 en-
t 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 . , contract o r t o r t )

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 . 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 pro-
t 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 recog-
n 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 ... constitu-
tional 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
o f damages d i r e c t l y t o t h e 5 1983 a c t i o n . [Cita-
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 pro-
v 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 omit-
t 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 pro-
t 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 causa-
t 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 judg-
ment.)" 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. 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

Cir. 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 . 1 9 7 5 ) , 522 F.2d
97 35
7'
438, 4 4 4 n. 4 , c e r t . d i s m i s s e d 429 U.S. 118, 4%- S.Ct.
50 dbp
47- L.Ed. 2d + I
H.

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 . S e c t i o n 27-1-203, MCA;

F r i s n e g g e r v. Gibson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , 598 P.2d 574, 36

St.Rep. 1335. 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 . S e c t i o n 27-1-221,

MCA .
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, MCA, and ~ r i s n e g g e r

v . Gibson, s u p r a . 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 exem-

p l a r y damages under s e c t i o n 27-1-203, MCA, o r t o show t h a t

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