Moser v. Mark
Decision Date | 15 October 2008 |
Docket Number | 062389.,A135631. |
Citation | 223 Or. App. 52,195 P.3d 424 |
Parties | Gary D.E. MOSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Susan MARK and Legacy Clinic, LLC, In St. Helens, Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Kevin M. Glynn and Keating Jones Hughes, P.C. filed the brief for respondents.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's grant of defendants' ORCP 21 A(8) motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim. Plaintiff brought this pro se negligence action against Dr. Susan Mark and her employer, Legacy Clinic LLC, for damages alleged to have arisen from Mark's failure to properly treat and diagnose plaintiff's lower back condition. We review a trial court's ruling under ORCP 21 A(8), based solely on the allegations in the complaint. Beck v. City of Portland, 202 Or.App. 360, 364, 122 P.3d 131 (2005). In reviewing a trial court's grant of an ORCP 21 A(8) motion, we assume the truth of all allegations in the complaint and give the plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from those allegations. Mitchell v. The Timbers, 163 Or.App. 312, 317, 987 P.2d 1236 (1999). We affirm.
We take the following facts from plaintiff's amended complaint. In December 2003, plaintiff began experiencing severe pain in his lower back. An x-ray of plaintiff's back showed no abnormalities. Nevertheless, plaintiff's back pain persisted, and, in February 2004, he sought treatment from Mark. At some point in time, Mark diagnosed plaintiff with chronic back pain related to muscle strain; however, plaintiff's amended complaint does not allege when that diagnosis occurred.
Over the next 19 months, plaintiff saw Mark at least six more times. During those visits, plaintiff repeatedly told Mark that his medication was not controlling his pain and asked her to increase his medication of three doses of Vicodin per day. Initially, Mark refused plaintiff's request, but, after a year and a half, she allowed plaintiff to take an additional 10 Vicodin per month. Also, plaintiff repeatedly asked Mark whether additional tests could be performed to determine the source of his pain, and he twice asked her whether a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could be performed. Mark refused his requests.
Eventually, plaintiff decided to change physicians, and, in December 2005, he saw Dr. Christopher Richie. Richie immediately scheduled an MRI for plaintiff and prescribed six doses of Vicodin per day. A little over a week later, Richie informed plaintiff that his severe back pain was caused by three bulging discs, a degenerative disc, foraminal stenosis, and arthritis.
In August 2006, plaintiff filed this action against Mark and Legacy Clinic. Before trial, defendants moved for, among other things, an order to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim. The trial court, in a letter opinion, granted defendants' motion to dismiss:
The trial court then entered judgment in defendants' favor.
On appeal, plaintiff assigns error to the trial court's ruling granting defendants' ORCP 21 A(8) motion. ORCP 21 A provides:
"Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: * * * (8) failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim * * *."
We review a trial court's grant of an ORCP 21 A(8) motion for errors of law. Hansen v. Anderson, 113 Or.App. 216, 218, 831 P.2d 717 (1992). In Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or. 647, 653-54, 871 P.2d 1006 (1994), the Supreme Court described the elements that must be pleaded and proved in a medical malpractice claim: (1) a duty that runs from the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a resulting harm to the plaintiff measurable in damages; and (4) a causal link between the breach and the harm.
Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meyer v. State
...if the "complaint * * * contain[s] factual allegations that, if proved, establish the right to the relief sought." Moser v. Mark , 223 Or. App. 52, 57, 195 P.3d 424 (2008). When undertaking that task, we assume "all well-pleaded facts" in the complaint "are true and give plaintiff[s] the be......
-
Worman v. Columbia County
... ... " In response to that question, plaintiffs marked "Unknown." However, in response to a later question—"Suspected cause or source of damage (mark all appropriate)"—plaintiffs marked boxes for "[g]round application"; "[n]eighbor spraying"; and "[o]ther." Next to "[o]ther," plaintiffs wrote ... ...
-
Son v. Ashland Cmty. Healthcare Serv.
...a resulting harm to the plaintiff measurable in damages; and (4) a causal link between the breach and the harm." Moser v. Mark, 223 Or.App. 52, 55-56, 195 P.3d 424 (2008) (citing Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or. 647, 653-54, 871 P.2d 1006 (1994)). When a physician-patient relationship exists, the do......
-
Schutz v. La Costita Iii, Inc.
...American Fed. Teachers, 345 Or. at 18, 189 P.3d 9, we nonetheless review the ruling itself for errors of law, Moser v. Mark, 223 Or.App. 52, 55, 195 P.3d 424 (2008). The distinction is important in addressing plaintiff's first argument, because it revolves around the assertion in her compla......