Severance v. Howe

**What Happened** An employee named Severance filed a lawsuit against their employer, Howe, claiming battery and intentional harm. The case involved whether the employee needed to provide expert medical testimony to support their battery claim, which is typically required in medical malpractice cases in North Dakota. **What the Court Decided** The court dismissed the case but made an important legal clarification. It ruled that North Dakota's requirement for expert medical affidavits—which patients must provide when suing doctors or hospitals—does not apply to battery cases involving intentional harm. The court explained that battery occurs when someone intentionally causes harmful or offensive physical contact with another person, and this type of claim doesn't need the same expert medical proof that malpractice cases require. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling clarifies that workers who experience intentional physical harm at work (like being pushed, hit, or inappropriately touched) can pursue battery claims without needing expensive expert medical testimony. This makes it potentially easier and less costly for employees to seek legal remedies when they face intentional physical misconduct from employers, supervisors, or coworkers, as they won't face the same procedural hurdles required in medical malpractice cases.