GUSSA v. J. MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

GUSSA v. J. MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2000 OK CIV APP 50
12 P.3d 473
71 OBJ 1617
Case Number: 92365
Decided: 11/05/1999
Mandate Issued: 05/15/2000

HERMAN GUSSA, Plaintiff/Appellee
v.
J. MORRIS and ASSOCIATES, INC, Defendant/Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

HONORABLE, JAMES B. BLEVINS JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Michael D. Segler, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellant
Earl H. Remmel, Dallas, Texas, For Appellee.

OPINION

JONES, CJ

¶1 This action was brought by Herman Gussa, alleging that the defendant, J. Morris and Associates, Inc., violated the provisions of Title

¶2 As to the first offered error, the employee maintains correctly Wallace v. Halliburton provides that timing of a discharge may be evidence of a retaliatory discharge, while it does not establish a prima facie case. The employee points out this is not the only evidence in this cause. One of the owners of the company testified the employee was a good worker. A third factor the jury considered was the company's failure to comply with

A. Every employer shall keep a record of injuries, which result in the loss of time beyond the shift or which require medical attention away from the work site, fatal or otherwise, received by his employees in the course of their employment.

B. Within ten (10) days or a reasonable time thereafter, after the occurrence of such injury a report thereof shall be made in writing by the employer to the Court and to the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier, if any, upon blanks to be procured from the Court for that purpose. Such reports shall state the name and nature of the business of the employer, the location of his establishment or place of work, the name, address and occupation of the injured employee, the time, nature, and cause of the injury and such other information as may be required by the Administrator.

C. Any employer who refuses or neglects to make a report as required by this section shall be liable for an administrative violation and subject to a fine by the Administrator of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00).

¶3 Not only did the employer fail to fulfill his duties under the statute quoted, he neglected to accept or file a Form 2 even after the employee fully filled out the form (which was employer's duty to accomplish in the first place). Failing to comply with the statute is additional evidence of the employer's hesitancy to comply with the Workers' Compensation Laws of the state and this, in addition to the evidence the employee was a good worker, refutes the employer's contention that the only circumstance the employee could show to establish a prima facie case was termination seven days after the hiring [12 P.3d 475] of an attorney to protect the employee's interests in the matter.

¶4 The second error in this judgment offered by the employer is lack of evidentiary support for the damage verdict of $9,000.00. For support of this proposition, Mantha v. Liquid Carbonic Industries,

§17 Employer also contests the jury's award for mental anguish. In Oklahoma, mental anguish damages may be recovered when employee is discharged for filing a workers' compensation claim. Malik v. Apex Intern Alloys, Inc., 762 F.2d 77 (10th Cir. 1985). Mantha's testimony that he was depressed and had been under the care of a psychiatrist was sufficient evidence of emotional harm to support an award of damages for mental anguish. Even though Mantha's statements were subjective, the jury is free to accept or reject such testimony as they see fit. C.f. Higginbotham v. Hartman,

(ea.)

¶5 Therefore, Employer's reference to Mantha does not support his thesis that the testimony of the employee alone is insufficient to support the verdict rendered here. Additionally, it is noted that the worker's wife supported this testimony, as she said he was very depressed and the situation was stressful for both of them. As said in another case of the Court of Civil Appeals:

As stated by one writer, "(I)t takes little foresight to acknowledge that a person whose employment is terminated is going to suffer mental anguish, embarrassment and even humiliation. The degree of such anguish and the amount of compensation an employee is entitled to is, of course, a matter for the jury to determine".

¶6 No legal error has been demonstrated on appeal. Absent legal error, the appellate court is bound by the jury's assessment of the evidence, even though conflicting. A verdict which is supported by conflicting but competent evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. Mitchell v. Ford Motor Credit Co.,

AFFIRMED

¶7 HANSEN, P.J., and ADAMS, J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

Gloyd L. McCoy, A Primer on the Oklahoma Retaliatory Discharge Act, 56 O.B.J. 715 (1986).