Henderson v. GlobalLab Solutions, Inc.
2015 WL 5074345, 310 F.R.D. 400, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114869 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Arkansas law, a plaintiff in a negligence action cannot recover damages for mental anguish unless the mental anguish was preceded by a physical impact or injury. Physical manifestations of stress or mental anguish, such as headaches or sleeplessness, do not constitute the requisite preceding physical injury.
Facts:
- Melissa Henderson and Dana Jones were employed as drug counselors for the Washington/Madison County Drug Court.
- As a condition of their employment, they were required to undergo a random drug screen.
- GlobalLab Solutions, Inc. erroneously reported that both Henderson and Jones tested positive for MDMA, or 'ecstasy'.
- Dr. Tyler Freeman, a medical review officer for GlobalLab, electronically signed a certification confirming the positive results despite not having personally reviewed them.
- Based solely on GlobalLab's erroneous report, both Henderson and Jones were terminated from their jobs in May 2010.
- The termination caused Henderson and Jones to lose their jobs, thousands of hours of training credits toward their professional licenses, and to suffer stress-related physical symptoms like headaches, stomach pain, and sleeplessness.
- GlobalLab later sent a letter to the state certification board admitting that the positive test results for both individuals were erroneous and had been reported to their employer in error.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Melissa Henderson and Dana Jones filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas (a state trial court) against GlobalLab Solutions, Inc. and Tyler Freeman, MD.
- Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
- The first trial in January 2014 resulted in a hung jury.
- A second trial in November 2014 resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs, awarding Henderson $775,000.00 and Jones $770,000.00 in compensatory damages.
- The district court entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
- Defendants GlobalLab and Freeman then filed a post-trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, or Remittitur with the district court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Arkansas law, may plaintiffs in a negligence action recover damages for mental anguish where their alleged physical injuries are manifestations of emotional distress, rather than a preceding physical impact that caused the mental anguish?
Opinions:
Majority - Timothy L. Brooks
No. Under Arkansas law, a plaintiff in a negligence action may not recover damages for mental anguish where their physical injuries are merely manifestations of that emotional distress. The court reasoned that Arkansas does not recognize the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Citing precedent like M.B.M. Co. v. Counce, the court explained that for mental anguish damages to be recoverable in a negligence claim, they must be 'parasitic' to a physical injury, meaning a physical impact or injury must precede and cause the mental anguish. In this case, the plaintiffs' physical symptoms (headaches, sleeplessness, etc.) were the result of the mental anguish they suffered from losing their jobs, not the cause of it. Therefore, since there was no preceding physical impact, the jury's award for mental anguish constituted a clear legal error. The court upheld the jury's finding of negligence but found the damages excessive as a matter of law, granting a remittitur to remove the portion of the award attributable to mental anguish.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict application of the 'physical impact' rule for mental anguish damages in Arkansas negligence cases. It clarifies that physical symptoms that are manifestations of emotional distress do not satisfy the legal requirement for a preceding physical injury. This holding significantly limits the scope of recoverable damages in negligence actions where the primary harm is emotional or psychological, making it difficult for plaintiffs to be compensated for severe mental suffering absent a traditional physical impact. The opinion also serves as a practical example of a court using remittitur to correct a jury award based on a legal error, offering a more judicially efficient remedy than ordering an entirely new trial.
