Dahlen v. Oregon Transfer Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Dahlen v. Oregon Transfer Co.

43 P.3d 1214, 180 Or. App. 599, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 541

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 10, 2002

Docket95-0402210; A90334

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 P.3d 1214 (Dahlen v. Oregon Transfer Co.) 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

Dahlen v. Oregon Transfer Co., 43 P.3d 1214, 180 Or. App. 599, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, her employer, for injuries she suffered at work. She alleged that she had filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and that the claim was denied as noncompensable. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that, under ORS 656.018(1), plaintiffs exclusive remedy was under the state workers’ compensation law. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

Meanwhile, in Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 23 P3d 333 (2001), the Supreme Court held that ORS 656.018(1) cannot constitutionally preclude recovery against an employer in tort when a workers’ compensation claim has been denied because of a failure to satisfy the statutory causation standard of major contributing cause. Plaintiff now argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint, because, as the court held in Smothers, workers’ compensation is not necessarily her only remedy. Defendant argues that Smothers applies only to cases in which the workers’ compensation claim was denied because of a failure to satisfy the statutory standard of causation, and, in this case, the complaint fails to allege that fact. Plaintiff replies that no such specific allegation is required.

We agree with plaintiff. As we held in Davis v. Surcamp, 86 Or App 310, 312, 738 P2d 1006 (1987), “[a] complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief if it contains allegations which permit the introduction of evidence which will satisfy the elements of the claim.” The allegations of plaintiffs complaint are sufficient under that standard.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, her employer, for injuries she suffered at work. She alleged that she had filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and that the claim was denied as noncompensable. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that, under ORS 656.018(1), plaintiffs exclusive remedy was under the state workers’ compensation law. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

Meanwhile, in Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 23 P3d 333 (2001), the Supreme Court held that ORS 656.018(1) cannot constitutionally preclude recovery against an employer in tort when a workers’ compensation claim has been denied because of a failure to satisfy the statutory causation standard of major contributing cause. Plaintiff now argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint, because, as the court held in Smothers, workers’ compensation is not necessarily her only remedy. Defendant argues that Smothers applies only to cases in which the workers’ compensation claim was denied because of a failure to satisfy the statutory standard of causation, and, in this case, the complaint fails to allege that fact. Plaintiff replies that no such specific allegation is required.

We agree with plaintiff. As we held in Davis v. Surcamp, 86 Or App 310, 312, 738 P2d 1006 (1987), “[a] complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief if it contains allegations which permit the introduction of evidence which will satisfy the elements of the claim.” The allegations of plaintiffs complaint are sufficient under that standard.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 P.3d 1214, 180 Or. App. 599, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dahlen-v-oregon-transfer-co-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack