Sex chat clayton s ill

Added: Shamica Hurst - Date: 05.05.2022 12:10 - Views: 40298 - Clicks: 5672

In six issues, Appellant Tom Clayton, M. We affirm in part and reverse and render in part. InWisener went to work for Medaphis Physicians Services Corporation, a medical billing service company, as an representative. Clayton contracted with Medaphis to perform his billing and collections for his radiology practice, and Wisener was ased to his. According to Wisener, in November ofDr. Clayton began calling her, making offensive comments, as well as propositions of a sexual nature, and asking inappropriate questions about her sex life with her husband.

In April ofWisener became ill and was admitted to Nacogdoches Medical Center for diagnostic testing. During her stay in the hospital, Wisener underwent a HIDA scan to determine if she had problems with her gallbladder. Clayton read the of her HIDA scan and reported that the scan was normal.

Wisener continued to suffer from abdominal pain and sought a second opinion. Her treating physicians concluded that her gallbladder was abnormal and removed the gallbladder. On July 1,Wisener sued Dr. Clayton, alleging his conduct invaded her privacy. Clayton, among other things, 1 asked her about her sex life with her husband, 2 asked if she ran around on [her] husband, 3 told her to show him different private parts of her body, 4 told her to perform various sex acts on him, 5 told her he wanted to touch different parts of her body, and 6 propositioned her for sex.

Wisener sought actual and exemplary damages from Dr. Clayton for his actions. On July 21, Dr. Clayton answered Wisener s suit with a general denial.

Sex chat clayton s ill

Wisener amended her petition on January 19, and included an allegation that Dr. Clayton s actions constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. She continued to seek actual and exemplary damages. Wisener s case went to trial on March 24, At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Wisener, finding that Dr.

Clayton intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Wisener and intentionally intruded on her private affairs. On May 30,Dr. Clayton filed motions for new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and to modify the judgment, all of which were denied on July 8. He timely perfected this appeal. Clayton contends that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury s findings of liability on Wisener s intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims. He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury s award of damages for mental anguish and past lost earning capacity.

In his second issue, Dr. Clayton contends that each of the jury s findings are immaterial and should be disregarded because the evidence to support each finding is legally and factually insufficient. Clayton makes the same arguments in issues one and two; therefore, we will consider them as one issue. In reviewing a legal sufficiency or no evidence complaint, the appellate court must consider only the evidence and inferences tending to support the challenged findings and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the challenged findings, the no evidence challenge fails.

Leitch v. Hornsley, S. We may sustain a no evidence point only when the record discloses one of the following: 1 there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, 2 the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, 3 the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla of evidence, or 4 the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of a vital fact.

See Merrell Dow Pharms. Havner, S. It is not within our province to second guess the fact finder unless only one inference can be drawn from the evidence. See Havner v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. If the evidence furnishes some reasonable basis for differing conclusions by reasonable minds about a vital fact s existence, more than a scintilla of evidence exists. Burroughs Wellcome v. Crye, S. When conducting a factual sufficiency review, we must consider all of the evidence, including any evidence contrary to the verdict. Steel Corp. Furthermore, we must reverse on the basis of factual insufficiency if the court s finding is so against the great weight and preponderance as to be manifestly unjust.

Sex chat clayton s ill

Pool v. Ford Motor Co. This court is not a fact finder and may not pass on the credibility of the witnesses or substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if a different conclusion could be reached on the evidence. See Herbert v. Herbert, S. Zale Corp. Dallaswrit ref d n. When a party without the burden of proof on an issue challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the question is whether insufficient evidence supports the complained-of finding.

Gooch v. Sling Co. Fort Worthno writ. An assertion that the evidence is "insufficient" to support a fact finding means that the evidence supporting the finding is so weak or the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that the finding should be set aside and a new trial ordered. Garza v. Alviar, S. To recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish that 1 the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, 2 the defendant s conduct was extreme and outrageous, 3 the defendant s actions caused the plaintiff emotional distress, and 4 the resulting emotional distress was severe.

Hoffman-LaRoche Inc. Zeltwanger, S. Clayton argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support a finding that his conduct was extreme and outrageous. Extreme and outrageous conduct has been defined as conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

Twyman v. Twyman, S. Generally, liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress has only been found in those cases in which a recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would lead him to exclaim, Outrageous! See Foye v. Montes, 9 S. Houston [14th Dist.

Sex chat clayton s ill

Liability does not extend to a defendant who conducts himself toward others with mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or other trivialities. GTE Southwest v.

Sex chat clayton s ill

Bruce, S. The test for determining what conduct is extreme and outrageous is essentially a subjective one. Chason, 81 S. Tylerpet. It is well recognized that a course of harassing conduct may support liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress. When ongoing harassment is alleged, the offensive conduct is evaluated as a whole. It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether a defendant s conduct was extreme and outrageous.

But when reasonable minds may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the court s control, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability. The cases discussing whether conduct is extreme and outrageous are as varied as the spectrum of facts that could conceivably constitute the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Courts deciding these cases have had great difficulty in analyzing whether a set of facts rises to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct, as evidenced by the Texas Supreme Court s recent statement that [f]or the tenth time in little more than six years, we must reverse an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failing to meet the exacting requirements of that tort. See Creditwatch, Inc. Jackson, S. The threshold for what constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to give rise to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is therefore a difficult one to meet.

The record, viewed in the light most favorable to Wisener, reveals that from November or December of to May ofWisener talked to Dr. Clayton three or four times a week. Wisener contends that the following conduct by Dr. Clayton supports the jury s finding that he intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her during that time period:. Around the first of Decemberduring business calls at work, Dr. Clayton began asking Wisener personal questions such as her age, whether she was married, whether she had any children, what her husband did for a living, and how much money he made.

She thought these matters were none of his business. Toward the end ofDr. Clayton asked her about her sex life at home and if her husband was happy with their sex life. He wanted to know how often she had sex with her husband and wanted to know her breast size. He also wanted to know if she had affairs with other men.

When talking about sex, Dr. In December or January ofDr. During Wisener s hospital stay, Dr. Clayton told her to get her ass out of bed and go collect his money. He also asked her to take her shirt off. In late April or early May ofafter her surgery, Dr. Clayton still wanted to know if she wanted to have sex with him and if they hurt [her] breasts during the surgery. Clayton intentionally misread her HIDA scan by stating that her gallbladder was normal when her gallbladder was abnormal.

Our opinion in Chason is helpful to determine whether this complained-of conduct was extreme and outrageous. Chason also complained that during the second day of the hearing, the attorney told a local newspaper reporter that she had some photographs she would like to sell him.

In Chason, this court analyzed the holdings of other courts deciding whether conduct was extreme and outrageous. The cases in which the reviewing court upheld a finding of extreme and outrageous conduct or found that summary judgment evidence created a fact issue on extreme and outrageous conduct dealt with unwanted sexual advances or suggestions over a period of time as well as conduct occurring within a short time period.

See Morgan v. Anthony, 27 S. Teamsters Local Union No. Houston [1st Dist. Willis, S. San Antoniono pet. After discussing these cases, we observed that Chason complained of two isolated incidents, not a prolonged series of acts. In holding that the conduct in Chason was not the sort of flagrant or heinous facts described in cases finding extreme and outrageous conduct, we noted that the attorney did not 1 make any indecent propositions to Chason, 2 engage in vulgar or obscene behavior, or 3 attempt to deceive Chason in order to further a personal interest.

In the instant case, Dr. Clayton 1 made indecent propositions to Wisener, 2 engaged in vulgar or obscene behavior, and 3 attempted to deceive Wisener by asking her to take her shirt off after telling her that he needed to discuss the of her test with her. The only evidence to the contrary is Dr. Clayton s testimony denying any of the actions described by Wisener. After reviewing the record, we hold that Dr. Clayton s continuous course of conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community ; therefore, the jury was within its province to judge his conduct.

See Twyman, S. Under the facts of this case, we hold that the above evidence constitutes more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding that Dr. Clayton s conduct was extreme and outrageous. After reviewing all of the evidence, we also hold that the finding that Dr.

Sex chat clayton s ill

email: [email protected] - phone:(711) 912-5424 x 9322

Tom Clayton, M.D., a/k/a Charles T. Clayton, M.D., a/k/a Thomas M. Clayton v. Susan Wisener--Appeal from th District Court of Nacogdoches County