Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, Health, and Hospital Services v. Russell
Oregon Supreme Court
867 P.2d 1377 (1994)
- Written by Sarah Larkin, JD
Facts
Russell (defendant) was injured while at work. Russell was unsure who his employer was at the time of his injury and, therefore, filed four separate workers’ compensation claims. A workers’ compensation referee determined that one of the employers, insured by Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna), was the employer for workers’ compensation purposes. Russell and Aetna sought review of that decision. In the meantime, the four possible employers and their insurers, including Aetna, entered into a Disputed Claim Settlement (DCS) agreement with Russell, which was approved by the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board). Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, Health, and Hospital Services (St. Joseph) (plaintiff) provided medical care for Russell’s injuries. St. Joseph filed suit against Russell and Aetna for the medical expenses. St. Joseph claimed, among other things, that it was a third-party beneficiary to the DCS agreement. At trial, among other things, Russell testified that St. Joseph’s treatment saved his life. The jury returned a verdict for St. Joseph’s on its claim against Aetna. Aetna appealed. The court of appeals reversed. St. Joseph appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Graber, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.