Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877933%20Order%20and%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,773 chars

(holding that a six-year period of employment discrimination is substantial and

supports a large award of noneconomic damages).

Danielson sought only noneconomic damages for “emotional distress,

anxiety, humiliation, and embarrassment[.]” At closing argument, he suggested “a

range of $15 to $20 million” for the damage that he experienced “over 21 years.”

Substantial evidence supports the jury’s award. Danielson worked for 21

years in what the jury determined to be a hostile work environment. He testified at

trial that the hospital had caused “great mental strain, changes in the way [his]

heart functions, and changes in the way [he] eat[s] and sleep[s].” He also testified

that he had stopped practicing medicine because the “personal wound” affected

his “sense of [his] capacity” to work with the patients. This testimony is substantial

25
No. 87793-3-I/26

evidence supporting the verdict. The amount is not flagrantly outrageous

considering the length of time in the hostile work environment. See id.

For the court to disturb the jury award despite substantial evidence, the

record must “unmistakably indicate[] that the verdict is not actually based on that

substantial evidence but instead on some improper consideration that gives rise to

passion or prejudice, or that otherwise shocks the court's conscience.” Coogan v.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc., 197 Wn.2d 790, 814, 490 P.3d 200 (2021).

The hospital claims that the verdict was based on the alleged errors

addressed supra. Since we find no error on review, no alleged error was the

improper basis for passion or prejudice.

The hospital also argues that Danielson incited passion and prejudice when

the court improperly allowed him to “tell the jury that [the hospital] should be ‘held