## Facts

- Barbara Ann Snyder worked as a scrub nurse during Dr. Robert Turk’s gallbladder-removal surgery at a hospital.
- Turk encountered technical difficulty during the operation and became frustrated with the procedure and with Snyder’s performance.
- Snyder testified that Turk complained about her to another physician, including stating that she had “already made three mistakes.”
- Snyder testified Turk responded to an instrument he considered inadequate by grabbing her by the shoulder and gown and pulling her face toward the patient’s open surgical wound while berating her.
- Snyder alleged no physical injury but claimed the contact and statements were demeaning and offensive.
- Snyder sued Turk for civil battery, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence could support a finding that Turk intended a harmful or offensive contact sufficient for civil battery, requiring submission to the jury.
2. Whether Turk’s statements about Snyder’s competence could be defamatory and outside any qualified privilege, making directed verdict on slander improper.
3. Whether Turk’s conduct and Snyder’s distress met Ohio’s standard for IIED (extreme and outrageous conduct and serious emotional distress).

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for Turk on IIED.
- The appellate court reversed the directed verdict for Turk on civil battery and slander.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the battery and slander claims.

## Legal Principles

- Civil battery requires intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact (or imminent apprehension of such contact) and resulting harmful or offensive contact; intent to cause physical injury is not required.
- “Offensive” contact is measured by whether the contact would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
- Where reasonable factfinders could differ on intent and offensiveness, a directed verdict is improper and the claim must go to the jury.
- Statements affecting professional competence may be subject to a qualified privilege in a workplace setting tied to performance and safety, but whether the privilege applies or was abused (including by malice or excess) is generally a jury question when the record permits competing inferences.
- IIED requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous and distress sufficiently serious that a reasonable person could not be expected to endure it; unprofessional or insulting conduct may be insufficient as a matter of law absent proof meeting that threshold.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury could reasonably find that forcibly pulling a nurse toward an open surgical wound constituted an intended offensive contact amounting to battery, and that the surgeon’s disparaging remarks about her competence raised jury questions on defamation and privilege, while the evidence did not meet Ohio’s demanding standard for IIED.


Snyder v. Turk, 90 Ohio App. 3d 18, 627 N.E.2d 1053 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)