Appellate counsel disputes need for medical proof of emotional‑distress award in Christianson v. Searles

Appellant's counsel, Connor Rankin, told the panel the trial court awarded emotional‑distress damages under a negligence theory but without medical records or expert testimony showing objective symptomatology. "You would need objective symptomatology, a medical diagnosis, in order to present those types of damages for this type of case," Rankin said, arguing state precedent requires more than testimony alone in negligence contexts.

Respondent's counsel Stephen Smith replied that the trial court made detailed, unchallenged findings of physical harm and illness and that the negligence claim and the statutory landlord‑tenant duty were "hand in glove," with emotional and physical harms tied together. Smith recounted trial facts — an upstairs studio contaminated by leaking paint‑booth emissions — and said the record supported awarding emotional‑distress damages alongside physical injury awards.

The panel questioned whether the governing case law (cited by counsel) distinguishes negligence claims from negligent‑infliction claims and whether testimonial evidence alone suffices in a negligence context when physical injury findings exist. Counsel cited Balsma v. Burger King Corp., Kloeffel, and Bunch while debating whether statutory or common‑law frameworks should control the standard for emotional‑distress recovery.

The court did not rule at argument; counsel reserved time for reply. The dispute centers on whether appellate review should overturn an emotional‑distress award where the trial court made findings of physical harm but the record contains no medical expert testimony.