49 Trial Lawyer • Winter 2023 Between the Sheets Lisa T. Hunt Cody Hoesly Nadia Dahab By Cody Hoesly, OTLA Guardian By Lisa T. Hunt By Nadia Dahab, OTLA Guardian DECISIONS OF THE OREGON SUPREME COURT Medical expenses sufficiently proven as reasonable and necessary where paid at worker’s compensation rates and where common sense shows that the victim would receive medical treatment as a result of the defendant’s assault. State v. Fox, 370 Or 456 (2022); Walters, C.J. The state was represented by Jeff Payne. Travis Eiva filed the OTLA amicus brief. The defendant struck the victim with a metal chain, causing significant injury. The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal assault, and the court ordered the defendant to pay restitution to the Crime Victim Services Division (aka Crime Victims’ Compensation Program) for medical expenses incurred by the victim. The defendant appealed, arguing the state had not proven the medical expenses were reasonable and necessary — a civil law concept that applies equally to restitution proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed, saying the expenses were reasonable (at or below the market rate) because CVSD pays at workers’ compensation rates when the victim is uninsured, and the services were necessarily incurred because the defendant hit the victim with a metal chain and, “[g]iven that circumstance, the [trial] court could rely on common sense to conclude that it was necessary for [the victim] to be transported by ambulance to the hospital to receive medical treatment such as x-rays and a CT scan and that she would need follow-up care. [The] testimony [of a CVSD representative who had no medical expertise] outlined each of those services and identified the charges associated with each service.” On review, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed without further discussion. The case also involved another issue regarding attorney fees in restitution cases, which is the issue the Supreme Court wrote on. A claim under Oregon’s Vulnerable Person Act is available against a public body through the Oregon Tort Claims Act, but the Legislature did not intend to create a statutory private right of action to address violations of the duties that Oregon’s child-abuse reporting statutes plausibly impose on public officials. E.J.T. v. Jefferson County, 370 Or 215 (2022); Flynn, J. The plaintiff was represented by Erin Olson. Ashley Vaughn filed an amicus brief on behalf of OTLA. The plaintiff brought an action in U.S. District Court against Jefferson County, a Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff and aWarm Springs police officer, alleging the plaintiff had suffered catastrophic brain damage at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend after the defendants failed to take certain actions required by Oregon’s mandatory child-abuse-reporting statutes. The plaintiff also alleged a claim under Oregon’s Vulnerable Person Act (VPA), which creates a statutory private right of action for enhanced damages against a person who has caused, or permitted another person to engage in, financial or physical abuse of a vulnerable person. The Jefferson County defendants contended the plaintiff had failed to state See Sheets 50
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==