Paul v. Providence Health System-Oregon
Oregon Supreme Court
273 P.3d 106 (2012)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Providence Health System-Oregon (Providence) (defendant) had stored personal information for approximately 365,000 patients (the patients) (plaintiffs) on computer disks and tapes. This information included the patients’ names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and health details. The disks and tapes were stolen from a Providence employee’s car. Providence notified the affected patients of the theft and recommended that the patients protect themselves from possible identity theft. The patients filed a class action against Providence for negligence and violation of the state Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). No patient alleged that any identity theft had actually occurred. The patients’ alleged harms were (1) having to pay for credit monitoring and fraud alerts and (2) being exposed to the risk of future identity theft. The trial court dismissed the claims because the patients’ alleged injuries were about possible future harm rather than actual, current harm. The patients appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal because the patients’ claims were purely economic and because Providence did not have a special relationship with the patients that would support a negligence claim for purely economic damages. The patients appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Balmer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.


