Teichmiller v.

Rogers Memorial Hospital Inc

597 N.W.2d 773 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (Unpublished Decision)

Parties:

Plaintiff – Elaine Teichmiller – Registered nurse who worked for D.

Defendant – Rogers Memorial Hospital Inc – Company that employed

Christine Hansburg-Hotson, Debbie Bergerson-Hawkins and Sue Otto,
people who tried to confine P.

Facts:

After P was notified that she was going to be terminated from her job as a
nurse at D’s hospital, she was told to meet at the clinic with Christine Hansburg-
Hotson, Debbie Bergerson-Hawkins and Sue Otto in order to discuss P’s exit
requirements. P sat in a chair nearest to the door, which remained open during the
meeting. During the meeting, P said that she refused to sign a form and wanted to
speak to and consult with an attorney. This is when Christine Hansburg-Hotson,
Debbie Bergerson-Hawkins and Sue Otto became excited and started to shot at P. P
stated that she wanted to make a copy of the document at the copier, which was
located in a different room. Bergerson-Hawkins then blocked the doorway, which
the other two D’s yelled at P. The D’s claimed that P was trying to steal hospital
property by taking the exit requirements to the copier in the conference room. The
confrontation took 3-4 minutes and on P’s third attempt to move out the room,
Bergerson-Hawkins stepped aside. P claims that she was never touched or
threatened with physical contact, even though she felt threatened physically and
verbally. P also claimed that she never asked to leave the office, all she stated was
that she wanted to make a copy of the document and because the copier was in
another room, she believed that she made it clear that she wanted to leave.

Procedural Posture:

P claimed that she was wrongfully discharged because she was forced to
leave her job because she refused to falsify medical records. D moved for summary
judgment on P’s wrongful discharge and false imprisonment claims. Trial court
granted D’s motion. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue:

Whether P’s confinement can lead to a false imprisonment claim?

Holding:
 The court holds that the trial court was correct in granting the D’s motion for
summary judgment and dismissing P’s claims for wrongful discharge and false
imprisonment.

Legal Reasoning:

Teichmiller v. Rogers Memorial Hospital Inc., is like Herbst v. Wuennenberg

(political canvassers enter building that D occupies, D stands in front of enterence of
building door. D never threatens or intimidates P and P never asked permission to
leave the building or made any attempt to leave.) Court found in Wuennenberg that it
was speculation to believe that D would have refused to move if P had requested and
that P was never screamed at by D, P outnumbered D 3 to 1 and there was no evidence
that they were frightened by D or that they feared harm from D. P never submitted to
apprehension of force.

Just like in Herbst, P never asked to leave the manager’s office and P was
eventually able to leave after her third attempt.