Summary
The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the application of Oregon's statutory noneconomic damages cap to a wrongful death action against a medical provider. The court held that the cap did not violate the Oregon Constitution's remedy guarantee or right to jury trial because wrongful death was not a common-law cause of action recognized in Oregon in 1857 and the legislature could define the remedy. The court also upheld application of the reduced statutory interest rate for judgments arising from professional negligence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether applying ORS 31.710's $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages to a wrongful-death award violated the Remedy Clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution.
- Whether applying ORS 31.710 to limit the jury's noneconomic-damages award violated the right to jury trial under Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution.
- Whether ORS 82.010(2)(f)'s special interest rate for judgments arising from professional negligence applied to a wrongful-death judgment.
- Whether applying the special interest rate violated Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.
Holdings
- Applying ORS 31.710's noneconomic-damages cap to plaintiff's wrongful-death claim did not violate Article I, section 10, because Oregon's common law in 1857 did not recognize the particular wrongful-death remedy plaintiff sought, and the statute therefore did not abolish a constitutionally protected common-law remedy.
- ORS 31.710's $500,000 cap did not violate Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution as applied to a statutory wrongful-death action.
- ORS 82.010(2)(f)'s special interest rate applied because the wrongful-death judgment sought damages for injuries, understood in the broad legal sense of violations of legal rights, resulting from professional negligence.
Key quotations
“The court announced that a claim under the Remedy Clause should be resolved in terms of two questions:” (344 Or. 147)
“Because the common law does not, and did not in 1857, recognize a right to unlimited damages in wrongful death actions, the only relevant source of substantive law respecting damages is the statutory law, which expressly places a cap on noneconomic damages.” (344 Or. 157)
“the legislature used the term “injuries” in ORS 82.010(2)(f) to refer to any violation of a legal right.” (344 Or. 159)
Factual background
Jill Marie Dieringer died while under the care of PeaceHealth medical providers. Her personal representative pursued a wrongful-death action alleging medical negligence. The jury awarded $1 million in noneconomic damages, but the circuit court reduced that award to the $500,000 statutory cap and applied the special judgment-interest rate for professional-negligence actions.
Procedural history
Plaintiff brought a wrongful-death action after her daughter died while receiving care from PeaceHealth medical providers. A jury awarded $1 million in noneconomic damages; the circuit court reduced the award to $500,000 under ORS 31.710 and applied the special interest rate in ORS 82.010(2)(f). The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court allowed review and affirmed the Court of Appeals and circuit court.