Jordaan Clarke
Encyclopedia
Clarke v. OHSU was a 2007 decision of the Oregon Supreme Court
interpreting Oregon law on the potential tort
liability of public employees.
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings on OHSU's motion. OHSU did not dispute negligence and argued that the statutory liability limits for suits against state agencies applied. Clarke was awarded a total of $100,000 economic damages and $100,000 non-economic damages in accordance with the limits.
In 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court's ruling, holding that as to the individual defendants, the combination of applying the damage limits to claims against OHSU and allowing this substitution to supersede Clarke's common law
claims against the individual defendants, resulting in an award of less than two percent of Clarke's damages, was not a sufficiently substantial substitution of remedies. Therefore, the court held, the limits violated a provision in the Oregon Constitution
that "every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation." The Court of Appeals also held that the limits could constitutionally be applied to Clarke's claims against OHSU, reasoning that OHSU, as a public corporation, would have been entitled to governmental immunity from suit prior to enactment of the statute.
, and Clarke requested review of the Court of Appeals' ruling that the limits applied to OHSU. The Supreme Court granted the petitions for review, and, on December 27, 2007, affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The only significant distinction between the reasoning of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court did not directly base its ruling of insufficiency of the remedy against the individual defendants on the ratio of the limits. Instead, it held that the elimination of claims against the individual defendants, when coupled with the limited remedy against OHSU, resulted in "an emasculated version of the remedy that was available at common law." As a result, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings against the individual defendants.
Justice Balmer
, joined by Justice Kistler
, issued a concurring opinion to the Supreme Court decision, in which they called for the legislature to increase the statutory limits for damages against the government and indicated that they thought a less disproportionate limit might be constitutional.
Oregon Supreme Court
The Oregon Supreme Court is the highest state court in the U.S. state of Oregon. The only court that may reverse or modify a decision of the Oregon Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of the United States. The OSC holds court at the Oregon Supreme Court Building in Salem, Oregon, near the capitol...
interpreting Oregon law on the potential tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
liability of public employees.
Background
The plaintiff, Jordaan Michael Clarke, underwent successful heart surgery as an infant in 1998 at Oregon Health and Sciences University (OHSU) hospital, but suffered prolonged oxygen deprivation causing permanent and profound brain damage. His parents sued OHSU and the individuals treating him (several doctors, a respiratory therapist, and a nurse) on his behalf, seeking damages in excess of $17 million: $11,073,506 for lifetime medical and life care, $1,200,000 for lost earning capacity, and $5,000,000 for non-economic damages.The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings on OHSU's motion. OHSU did not dispute negligence and argued that the statutory liability limits for suits against state agencies applied. Clarke was awarded a total of $100,000 economic damages and $100,000 non-economic damages in accordance with the limits.
In 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals
Oregon Court of Appeals
The Oregon Court of Appeals is the state intermediate appellate court in the U.S. state of Oregon. Part of the Oregon Judicial Department, it has ten judges and is located in Salem...
reversed the trial court's ruling, holding that as to the individual defendants, the combination of applying the damage limits to claims against OHSU and allowing this substitution to supersede Clarke's common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
claims against the individual defendants, resulting in an award of less than two percent of Clarke's damages, was not a sufficiently substantial substitution of remedies. Therefore, the court held, the limits violated a provision in the Oregon Constitution
Oregon Constitution
The Oregon Constitution is the governing document of the U.S. state of Oregon, originally enacted in 1857. As amended the current state constitution contains eighteen sections, beginning with a bill of rights. This contains most of the rights and privileges granted in the United States Bill of...
that "every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation." The Court of Appeals also held that the limits could constitutionally be applied to Clarke's claims against OHSU, reasoning that OHSU, as a public corporation, would have been entitled to governmental immunity from suit prior to enactment of the statute.
Oregon Supreme Court decision
OHSU and the individual defendants requested discretionary review by the Oregon Supreme CourtOregon Supreme Court
The Oregon Supreme Court is the highest state court in the U.S. state of Oregon. The only court that may reverse or modify a decision of the Oregon Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of the United States. The OSC holds court at the Oregon Supreme Court Building in Salem, Oregon, near the capitol...
, and Clarke requested review of the Court of Appeals' ruling that the limits applied to OHSU. The Supreme Court granted the petitions for review, and, on December 27, 2007, affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The only significant distinction between the reasoning of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court did not directly base its ruling of insufficiency of the remedy against the individual defendants on the ratio of the limits. Instead, it held that the elimination of claims against the individual defendants, when coupled with the limited remedy against OHSU, resulted in "an emasculated version of the remedy that was available at common law." As a result, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings against the individual defendants.
Justice Balmer
Thomas A. Balmer
Thomas "Tom" A. Balmer is an American jurist in Oregon, United States. A native of Washington, he has served as an Associate Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court since 2001...
, joined by Justice Kistler
Rives Kistler
Rives Kistler is an American attorney and judge in the state of Oregon. After college and law school on the East Coast, he moved to Oregon where he worked in private practice before joining the Oregon Department of Justice...
, issued a concurring opinion to the Supreme Court decision, in which they called for the legislature to increase the statutory limits for damages against the government and indicated that they thought a less disproportionate limit might be constitutional.