HICKS v. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT FACILITY
2017 OK CIV APP 23
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Mrs. Virginia Hicks, a resident in Epworth Villa’s memory-care unit, suffered a wrist fracture while under Epworth Villa’s care; her husband William Hicks sued individually and as guardian ad litem for negligence, breach of contract, and IIED, seeking actual and punitive damages.
- Plaintiff served discovery in April 2012; Epworth Villa repeatedly failed to produce large volumes of responsive documents for years and often produced them only after depositions, threats, or court orders.
- After multiple hearings and a motion to compel, the trial court imposed discovery sanctions: default judgment on negligence and breach-of-contract liability, and later default as to Category I punitive-damages liability; the court also removed Epworth Villa’s right to a jury trial on IIED and damages.
- The bench trial proceeded on IIED and damages; the trial court found for Plaintiff on IIED and awarded substantial actual and punitive damages and attorney fees; Epworth Villa appealed multiple rulings.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the discovery sanctions (including removal of jury), reversed the IIED liability finding (holding the conduct was not sufficiently outrageous as a matter of law), affirmed actual damages for negligence and contract, reversed the IIED damages award, reversed the attorney-fee awards, and remanded for reassessment of punitive damages consistent with the reduced liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment was justified as a discovery sanction for failure to produce documents | Hicks: Epworth Villa’s prolonged, willful withholding prejudiced preparation and warranted default on negligence and contract | Epworth Villa: Sanction disproportionate; lesser sanctions would suffice | Affirmed: default was within trial court’s discretion under Payne factors (prejudice, interference, culpability, warning, lesser sanctions) |
| Whether trial court properly entered default judgment as to Category I punitive-liability after motion-to-vacate proceedings and late document production | Hicks: New documentary evidence showed prior false testimony and warranted default as to punitive-liability | Epworth Villa: Sanction exceeded court’s discovery authority and was procedurally unfair | Affirmed: sanction permissible (inherent authority and §3237); no abuse of discretion |
| Whether court could remove Epworth Villa’s right to jury trial on IIED and damages as a sanction | Hicks: Removal was a proper, lesser sanction given pattern of discovery abuse and dishonesty | Epworth Villa: Violation of jury-trial right and due process; requires de novo review | Affirmed: reviewed for abuse of discretion; removal was proper and not a due-process violation given notice and history |
| Whether IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) liability was supported by evidence | Hicks: Epworth Villa’s investigation, blame-shifting, and allowing alleged perpetrator on same floor caused severe emotional distress | Epworth Villa: Conduct did not meet the high threshold for IIED | Reversed: as a matter of law conduct was not extreme/outrageous; IIED liability and related damages vacated |
| Whether actual damages for negligence and breach were excessive | Hicks: Expert evidence tied Mrs. Hicks’ cognitive decline to the injury; amounts supported by evidence | Epworth Villa: Awards excessive and influenced by bias | Affirmed: awards sustained where supported by competent evidence and no showing of passion/prejudice |
| Whether punitive damages and allocation must be revisited after IIED reversal | Hicks: Punitive award justified by Category II finding | Epworth Villa: Amount excessive, nonprofit status and proportionality required | Reversed/remanded: punitive award vacated as to IIED; remand for new punitive-damages hearing limited to negligence and considering financial condition per 23 O.S. §9.1(A)(7) |
| Whether attorney-fee awards were authorized by contract/statute | Hicks: Resident Handbook and discovery RFA sanctions justified fees | Epworth Villa: Handbook not incorporated to impose fees on entity; RFAs denials reasonable | Reversed: Handbook provision applied to "individuals" not entity; fees under §3237(D) reversed because denials were reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. DeWitt, 995 P.2d 1088 (Okla. 1999) (discovery-sanction factors and default/dismissal standards)
- Garnett v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 186 P.3d 935 (Okla. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions)
- Lee v. Max Intern., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011) (upholding dismissal/default for repeated failure to produce discovery)
- Erenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (factors to consider before dismissal as sanction)
- Breeden v. League Services Corp., 575 P.2d 1374 (Okla. 1978) (trial court gatekeeper role on IIED outrageousness)
- Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 21 P.3d 48 (Okla. 2001) (sanction for failure to admit under discovery rules; reasonableness test)
- Neese v. Shawnee Med. Ctr. Hosp., Inc., 733 P.2d 383 (Okla. 1986) (standard for sustaining damage awards)
- Barnett v. Simmons, 197 P.3d 12 (Okla. 2008) (sanctions authority and inherent powers of the court)