Vandall v. Trinity Hospitals
v.
Trinity Hospitals, a
corporation, and
Margaret C. Nordell, M.D., Defendants and Appellees
Judge Douglas L. Mattson
| Appellee: | Pringle & Herigstad, P.C. | |
| Appellee: | Zuger Kirmis & Smith | |
| Appellee: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. | |
| Appellant: | William P. Zuger |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. The Complaint states a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against Trinity for the common law tort of retaliation, for retaliating against Dr. Vandall for actions taken by him in furtherance of statutorily grounded public policies.
2. The Complaint states a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against Dr. Margaret Nordell for the common law tort of wrongful initiation and continuation of administrative proceedings.
3. The Complaint states a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against Trinity and Dr. Margaret Nordell for the common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4. The trial court's award of attorneys' fees to Trinity is devoid of lawful justification.
5. Appointment of new presiding judge on remand.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Dr. Vandall's Claim For Wrongful Use Of Civil Proceedings Was Correctly Dismissed Because He Failed to Establish The Threshold Element That Dr. Nordell Initiated, Continued, Or Procured A Civil Proceeding Against Him
A. North Dakota Medical Board
B. Trinity's Quality Assurance Committee
C. American College of Obstetricians And Gynecologists
II. Dr. Vandall's Claim For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Was Correctly Dismissed Because He Failed To Establish The Threshold Element of "Extreme And Outrageous" Conduct
III. If This Court Affirms That The Trial Court Correctly Applied The Law When It Dismissed Dr. Vandall's Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(vi), Dr. Vandall's Request For Recusal Of The Trial Court Judge On Remand is Moot
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Dr. Vandall's retaliatory discharge claim because it was not filed within the statute of limitations.
2. Whether the trial court properly held that Dr. Vandall's common law claim for retaliatory discharge is preempted by N.D.C.C. 34-01-20(3), and that even if the claim is not preempted, Dr. Vandall failed to state a claim because he was not an at-will employee and no discharge occurred as a matter of law.
3. Whether the trial court, acting in its role as a gatekeeper, properly dismissed Dr. Vandall's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to sufficiently allege outrageous conduct.
4. Whether the trial court properly awarded a portion of Trinity's attorneys' fees pursuant to N.D.C.C. 34-01-20(3).
5. Whether, in the event of remand, a new presiding trial judge should be appointed.
Add Docket 20030255 RSS