Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Claimant Crystal DeLeon sought workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury to her back, neck and one shoulder. SAIF Corporation, her insurer, accepted the claim but awarded only temporary partial disability; the insurer did not award Claimant permanent partial disability. Claimant sought reconsideration, and the Department of Consumer and Business Services awarded her an eleven percent permanent partial disability for her shoulder. The insurer appealed the Department's award; the ALJ agreed with the insurer and reduced the permanent partial disability award to zero. Claimant appealed the ALJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board. The board reversed the ALJ and reinstated the eleven percent disability determination, and awarded attorney's fees. The issue on appeal concerned the authority of the Workers' Compensation Board to award attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Board indeed has statutory authority to award attorneys' fees.

In opposing petitions for writs of mandamus, both challenged a trial court order that allowed a release to the press and public over one thousand redacted versions of "ineligible volunteer" files that belonged to Defendant Boy Scouts of America (BSA). The petitions arose from a tort action brought against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the BSA by six former scouts who alleged sexual abuse by their scout leaders. The files in question contained information regarding child sexual abuse complaints against BSA volunteers from 1965 to 1985. The trial court had admitted the files, and BSA's actions in response to those complaints, into evidence in the jury trial. Following the verdict, plaintiffs moved to vacate the protective order so that they could release the ineligible volunteer files to the public. Six media entities had previously had moved to intervene and also asked the trial court to release the trial exhibits, including the 1,247 ineligible volunteer files, for immediate public access. The trial court vacated the protective order and ordered the redaction of the names of others who reported the alleged abuse. The trial court concluded that Article I, section 10, required the release of the ineligible volunteer files, reasoning that Article I, section 10, encompassed "the right of the public and the press to know what evidence is presented in Court proceedings and is available for consideration by the jury in reaching its verdict." In regard to the mandamus petition of the BSA, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's reasoning in deciding that Article I, section 10, required the court to dissolve its protective order concerning the lists of names of alleged child sexual abuse victims and reporters of suspected child sexual abuse. The Court concluded the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion in all the circumstances. Thus, there was no basis to grant relief in mandamus to the BSA. In regard to the mandamus petition of plaintiffs and intervenors, the Court concluded that the open courts provision in Article I, section 10, did not require the trial court, at the end of a trial, to order the release of exhibits that were subject to an earlier protective order requiring that the parties maintain their confidentially at the close of trial. "The court had discretion to order, on good cause shown, the release of those documents subject to the redaction of names set out in the exhibits to protect victims of child sexual abuse and reporters of child sexual abuse from embarrassment, retaliation, or other harm." The court in this case properly exercised that authority. Additionally, the court did not violate Article I, section 10, by staying the effectiveness of its disclosure order pending appellate review.

Plaintiff David Eads underwent surgery performed by a Defendant Dr. Timothy Borman, a physician whose office was in a building that Defendant Salem Hospital, a limited liability company (LLC), leased to medical providers. The surgeon performed the surgery negligently, causing Plaintiff permanent and disabling injuries. Plaintiff brought this malpractice action against the LLC landlord, as well as the surgeon and others involved in his medical treatment. Plaintiff pursued the action against the LLC on a theory of apparent agency. Specifically, Plaintiff's theory was that, through the signage on the building and other representations, the LLC created the appearance that the building housed a group medical entity of which Plaintiff's surgeon was an agent. The trial court granted summary judgment for the LLC, concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to hold the LLC vicariously liable for the surgeon's negligence on an apparent agency theory. The Court of Appeals agreed, and affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition for review to resolve when a nonnegligent person or entity may be held vicariously liable on an apparent agency theory for physical injuries negligently inflicted by a medical professional. The Court concluded that, for such liability to arise, the injured party must have dealt with the negligent medical professional based on a reasonable belief, traceable to the putative principal's conduct or representations, that the medical professional was the principal's employee or was otherwise subject to the principal's right of control in providing the medical services that caused the injured party's injury.

The issue in this case was whether a healthcare provider could be held liable for damages when the provider's negligence permitted the theft of its patients' personal information, though the information was never used or viewed by the thief or any other person. Plaintiffs Laurie Paul and Russell Gibson (individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals) claimed economic and noneconomic damages for financial injury and emotional distress that they allegedly suffered when, through Defendant Providence Health System-Oregon's alleged negligence, computer disks and tapes containing personal information from an estimated 365,000 patients (including Plaintiffs') were stolen from the car of one of Defendant’s employees. The trial court and Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs had failed to state claims for negligence or for violation of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that, in the absence of allegations that the stolen information was used in any way or even was viewed by a third party, Plaintiffs did not suffer an injury that would provide a basis for a negligence claim or an action under the UTPA.

The issue before the Supreme Court pertained to ORCP 44 C and whether it required Plaintiff "A.G." to deliver to Defendants Robert Guitron and Aerobic & Dancewear Shoppe, LLC, at Defendants' request, a copy of all written reports of examinations related to the psychological injuries for which Plaintiff sought recovery, including the report of an examination by a psychologist retained by Plaintiff's counsel for the purpose of the litigation. Because Pefendants requested and plaintiff failed to deliver that report, the trial court entered an order precluding the psychologist from testifying at trial, and Defendants ultimately prevailed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Finding that the "search for truth and justice" to be paramount and Oregon case law required plaintiffs to produce on request, the reports of the experts who examine them for purposes of litigation as well as for treatment, the Supreme Court concluded that in this case, the trial court was correct that Plaintiff was required to produce the psychologist's report. The Court therefore affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the trial court.

The primary question in this case was whether a workplace injury that Plaintiff Nancy Petock characterized as an aggravation or worsening of an earlier compensable injury can give rise to a new three-year period in which she could demand reinstatement or reemployment. The trial court held that it could not and granted Defendant Asante's (dba Asante Health System) summary judgment motion. Although the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that an aggravation of an earlier injury cannot give rise to new reinstatement rights, it concluded that there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff had sustained a "new and separate injury" in 2005 that would give rise to those rights, and remanded the case. On review, Plaintiff argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that an aggravation of an earlier injury cannot give rise to a right to reinstatement under ORS 659A.043 or a right to reemployment under ORS 659A.046. Though the Supreme Court disagreed with some of the appellate court's reasoning, it affirmed the decision to reverse the trial court for further proceedings: "Even if defendant were correct that the same facts cannot give rise to an aggravation claim and a compensable injury claim (a proposition with which [the Court] noted our disagreement), [the Court] fail[ed] to see the relevance of that proposition in the context of defendant's summary judgment motion. On this record, Plaintiff was free to argue that her 2005 injury was a compensable injury."

The issues presented to the Supreme Court in this case concerned evidentiary and pleading questions that arose in the trial of a multi-defendant negligence case. Plaintiff Clarence Lasley (the decedent's father) brought this case against defendants Combined Transport, Inc. (Combined Transport) and Judy Clemmer (Clemmer). On the day that decedent died, a truck owned and operated by Combined Transport lost part of its load of large panes of glass on the freeway. During the clean-up, traffic backed up and decedent was stopped. Clemmer drove into decedent's pickup, causing leaks in its fuel system. The ensuing fire killed decedent. Combined Transport denied that it was negligent and that its conduct foreseeably resulted in decedent's death. Clemmer admitted that she was negligent in driving at an unreasonable speed and in failing to maintain a proper lookout and control. Clemmer also admitted that her negligence was a cause of decedent's death. Based on the pleadings, the trial court granted Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence that Clemmer was intoxicated at the time of the collision. The jury rendered a verdict against both defendants, finding Combined Transport 22 percent at fault and Clemmer 78 percent at fault for plaintiff's damages. Combined Transport appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court had erred in excluding the evidence of Clemmer's intoxication. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that evidence of Clemmer's intoxication was not relevant to the issue of whether Combined Transport's negligence was a cause of decedent's death but was relevant to the issue of apportionment of fault. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the judgment of the circuit court, and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

This case concerned the proper application of stare decisis and required the Supreme Court to decide whether "Collins v. Farmers Ins. Co." was still good law. In "Collins," the Court held that an exclusion in a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that purported to eliminate all coverage for a claim by one insured against another insured under the same policy was unenforceable to the extent that it failed to provide the minimum coverage required by the Financial Responsibility Law (FRL). The exclusion, however, was enforceable as to any coverage beyond that statutory minimum. In this case, Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Company issued an insurance policy to Defendant Tosha Mowry that contained an exclusion identical to the exclusion in "Collins". Defendant was injured in an accident in which her friend -- a permissive user and thus an insured person under the policy -- was driving. Plaintiff brought this action seeking a declaration that Defendant had $25,000 available in coverage under her policy -- the minimum coverage required by the FRL for bodily injury to one person in any one accident. Defendant argued that her coverage was $100,000, the insurance amount stated on the declarations page of her policy. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted Plaintiff's motion and denied Defendant's. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a per curiam opinion that cited "Collins." The Supreme Court concluded that Defendant "advanced no argument that this court has not previously considered for reaching a different result from that in 'Collins.' Defendant failed to carry the burden for overturning a fully considered precedent of this court."

Plaintiff Mark Strawn filed a class action suit against Defendants Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Truck Insurance Exchange (collectively, Farmers). Plaintiff alleged that Farmers had breached contractual duties and committed fraud by instituting a claims handling process that arbitrarily reduced payments for reasonable medical benefits owed under its automobile insurance policies. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, and awarded damages totaling approximately $8.9 million. Farmers appealed, and the appellate court concluded that the punitive damages awarded by the trial court exceeded constitutional limits, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. Both parties sought the Supreme Courtâs review. Farmers challenged the damages award, arguing that it should be lower. Plaintiff argued that the original award should be reinstated. The Supreme Court rejected Farmersâ arguments, and concluded that the appellate court should not have reached Farmersâ constitutional challenge to the amount of the punitive damages award. Consequently, the Court affirmed part, and reversed part of the appellate decision, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.