Severance v. Howe

**What Happened** A worker named Severance sued their employer Howe, claiming battery (unwanted physical contact) and medical malpractice. The employer argued that Severance's battery claim should be dismissed because North Dakota law requires an expert witness statement for medical malpractice cases, and they said this should apply to the battery claim too. **What the Court Decided** The court dismissed the case but made an important legal distinction. It ruled that battery claims are different from medical malpractice claims. When someone intentionally touches another person in a harmful or offensive way (battery), they don't need to provide an expert witness statement like they would for a medical malpractice case. The court said battery is an "intentional tort" that stands on its own, separate from professional negligence claims that do require expert testimony. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling clarifies that if a worker believes they were intentionally touched or harmed by someone at work, they can file a battery claim without needing expensive expert witnesses. This makes it potentially easier and less costly for workers to pursue legal action when they experience intentional physical contact that crosses the line, since they won't face the same procedural hurdles required for medical malpractice cases.