Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences University

Supreme Court of Oregon
175 P.3d 418 (Or. 2007)


Facts

Jordaan Clarke underwent surgery at the Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) (defendant), a state entity, when he was three months old. Due to the negligence of OHSU’s employees, the surgery caused permanent brain damage, rendering him disabled. Clarke’s guardian (plaintiff) brought suit against OHSU and its employees, seeking $17 million. Oregon had a law capping tort damages against the state at $200,000. The employees moved to dismiss the claim against them based on the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) which, as amended, provided that the only cause of action available for victims of torts committed by public employees is an action against the public entity the employees work for. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to Clarke against OHSU, and granted the OHSU employees’ motion to dismiss. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment against OHSU, but reversed the judgment for the employees, holding that the exclusive remedy provision in OTCA combined with the damages cap violated Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution (Remedy Clause). The Remedy Clause provided that while the state legislature is entitled to alter and perhaps abolish old remedies, it may not deny a remedy entirely.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (De Muniz, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Balmer, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 200,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.