Slate v. Bozeman Deaconess, 2017 MT 43N

Slate, a medical physicist/radiation officer, was employed by BDHS from 2009–2013 and terminated for cause in 2013.
BDHS disciplinary history included a written final warning after profanity toward an NRC inspector and a later counseling for a hostile work environment.
Slate’s termination followed a BDHS investigation into text messages and encounters with a coworker, including inappropriate sexual content and threats about snakes.
Slate claimed his termination violated the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA) and was retaliatory for reporting NRC safety violations.
The District Court admitted a BDHS exhibit on Slate’s internet usage (exhibit 518) over Slate’s hearsay and confrontation objections; the court ruled it admissible under the business records exception.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court’s rulings on all issues and held issues (5) and (6) were waived due to briefing rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of a new-trial motion was correct	Slate argued insufficient evidence to support liability	BDHS contends evidence showed good cause for termination	Denied; sufficient evidence supported good cause
Whether exhibit 518 was admissible hearsay	Slate argued business records exception not satisfied	BDHS showed Jerome prepared it in course of duties and Green relied on it	Admissible under business records exception
Whether mistrial was required due to juror impeachment issue	Slate sought mistrial based on juror statement	Court properly struck the question and treated as harmless	Denied; no manifest abuse of discretion; error moot to liability
Whether NRC witness Caniano’s testimony violated rules of evidence	Inconsistent voir dire memory violated personal knowledge rule	Witness had personal knowledge; no abuse of discretion	Admissible; no error
Whether juror questionnaire issues warranted new trial	Misleading juror information affected verdict	No reversible error; evidence supports verdict	Waived/failed to warrant new trial

State v. Ferguson, 330 Mont. 103 (2005 MT) (incorporation by reference not allowed in appellate briefs)
Stubblefield v. Town of W. Yellowstone, 298 P.3d 419 (2013 MT) (sufficiency review hinges on substantial credible evidence)
Byrum v. Andren, 159 P.3d 1062 (2007 MT) (abuse-of-discretion standard for mistrial decisions)
In re T. W., 139 P.3d 810 (2006 MT) (confrontation rights in civil cases and hearsay exceptions)
O’Connor v. George, 381 Mont. 127 (2015 MT) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial; prejudice)