Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences University
175 P.3d 418 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory scheme that eliminates a pre-existing common-law cause of action against individual public employees for their torts, and substitutes a claim against the public body with a statutory damages cap, violates the Remedy Clause of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, section 10) as applied to a plaintiff with catastrophic injuries, if the substituted remedy is so disproportionately small compared to the actual damages that it constitutes an "emasculated" remedy.
Facts:
- In February 1998, Jordaan Clarke was born with a congenital heart defect.
- In May 1998, Clarke was admitted to Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) for surgical repair of his heart condition.
- Following the surgery, while in the surgical intensive care unit, Clarke suffered prolonged oxygen deprivation due to the negligence of OHSU and certain of its employees and agents.
- As a direct result of the oxygen deprivation, Clarke sustained permanent brain damage, rendering him totally and permanently disabled.
- Clarke's projected lifetime health care expenses were estimated at $11,073,506, his lost future earning capacity at $1,200,000, and his noneconomic damages at $5,000,000.
- OHSU admitted its negligence caused Clarke's injuries and that his damages exceeded the monetary limitations of the Oregon Tort Claims Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Jordaan Clarke filed a lawsuit in an Oregon trial court against Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) and several of its individual employees.
- Upon motion by the defendants, the trial court substituted OHSU as the sole defendant, dismissing the claims against the individual employees pursuant to the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA).
- OHSU then moved for judgment on the pleadings, requesting that the court enter judgment against it for the OTCA's maximum liability of $200,000.
- The trial court granted OHSU's motion and entered judgment in favor of Clarke for $200,000.
- Clarke, as appellant, appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, with OHSU as the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the OTCA was unconstitutional as applied because it did not provide an adequate substitute remedy, and ordered the claims against the individual defendants reinstated.
- OHSU and the individual defendants, as petitioners, sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act, which eliminates a cause of action against individual public employees for negligence and substitutes a claim against their public employer with a statutory damages cap of $200,000, violate the Remedy Clause of Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution as applied to a plaintiff whose admitted damages exceed $17 million?
Opinions:
Majority - De Muniz, C. J.
Yes. The application of the Oregon Tort Claims Act's substitution and damages cap provisions violates Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution in this case because the substituted remedy against the public body is an emasculated version of the remedy that was available at common law. Applying the two-part test from Smothers, the court first determined that a cause of action against the individual negligent employees would have existed at common law in 1857, but a claim against OHSU itself would have been barred by sovereign immunity. The legislature is free to limit remedies against a sovereignly immune entity like OHSU. However, when the legislature abolishes a recognized common-law claim, as it did here against the individual employees, it must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute remedy. A remedy is not adequate if it is 'emasculated' or 'incapable of restoring the right that has been injured.' Here, the statutory remedy of a $200,000 maximum recovery for a plaintiff with over $12 million in admitted economic damages is not a substantial or adequate substitute for the common-law right to seek full recovery from the individual tortfeasors, and is therefore unconstitutional as applied.
Concurring - Balmer, J.
Yes. The statutory scheme deprives the plaintiff of a common-law remedy without providing an adequate substitute, thereby violating the Remedy Clause. The legislature should have addressed the arbitrarily low damages cap for medical malpractice claims long ago. The Remedy Clause does not prohibit the legislature from modifying common-law remedies or imposing damage caps, so long as the injured party is left with a 'substantial' remedy. The problem here is not the existence of a cap itself, but that a cap of $200,000 is not a substantial remedy for the catastrophic damages resulting from medical malpractice. This holding does not threaten other legislative schemes, such as workers' compensation, where the statutory trade-offs provide a constitutionally adequate substitute remedy.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the Oregon Tort Claims Act's (OTCA) grant of immunity to public employees is not absolute and can be unconstitutional 'as applied' in cases involving catastrophic injury. The decision clarifies the 'adequate substitute remedy' requirement under Oregon's Remedy Clause, holding that a substitute remedy becomes constitutionally infirm when the statutory cap is drastically disproportionate to the actual damages. This ruling places a significant constitutional check on the legislature's ability to immunize public employees from tort liability, requiring that any substituted remedy must be meaningful and not merely token. The case creates pressure on the legislature to reassess the OTCA's damages caps, particularly in the context of medical malpractice where potential damages are exceptionally high.
