Chase v. Schleuning

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Chase v. Schleuning

729 P.2d 14, 83 Or. App. 149

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 17, 1986

DocketA8506-03464; CA A38129

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 729 P.2d 14 (Chase v. Schleuning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chase v. Schleuning, 729 P.2d 14, 83 Or. App. 149 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this medical malpractice case, defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted, because defendant was an employe of the Oregon Health Sciences University and was in the course and scope of his employment at the time when he performed the allegedly negligent surgery on plaintiff and plaintiff had not given the notice required by ORS 30.275. Plaintiff contends that that notice requirement violates the Equal Privileges provision (Article I, section 20) of the Oregon Constitution.

We decided that question adversely to plaintiffs position in Brown v. Portland School Dist. # 1, 48 Or App 571, 617 P2d 665 (1980), rev’d on other grounds 291 Or 77, 628 P2d 1183 (1981). In addition to the equal privileges argument, Brown also involved the question of whether the plaintiffs notice complied with the statute. We held that it did not. On review, the Supreme Court held that the notice substantially complied with the statute and reversed on that ground, without reaching the equal privileges question.

Plaintiff argues that we should overrule the portion of our Brown decision deciding that the tort claims notice provision does not violate Article I, section 20. We decline to do so.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

In this medical malpractice case, defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted, because defendant was an employe of the Oregon Health Sciences University and was in the course and scope of his employment at the time when he performed the allegedly negligent surgery on plaintiff and plaintiff had not given the notice required by ORS 30.275. Plaintiff contends that that notice requirement violates the Equal Privileges provision (Article I, section 20) of the Oregon Constitution.

We decided that question adversely to plaintiffs position in Brown v. Portland School Dist. # 1, 48 Or App 571, 617 P2d 665 (1980), rev’d on other grounds 291 Or 77, 628 P2d 1183 (1981). In addition to the equal privileges argument, Brown also involved the question of whether the plaintiffs notice complied with the statute. We held that it did not. On review, the Supreme Court held that the notice substantially complied with the statute and reversed on that ground, without reaching the equal privileges question.

Plaintiff argues that we should overrule the portion of our Brown decision deciding that the tort claims notice provision does not violate Article I, section 20. We decline to do so.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 P.2d 14, 83 Or. App. 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-schleuning-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack