Robinson v. Shipley, 80-1782-J-2

Decision Date18 November 1983
Docket NumberNo. 80-1782-J-2,80-1782-J-2
Citation64 Or.App. 794,669 P.2d 1169
Parties, 13 Ed. Law Rep. 1108 Connie Lynn ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Glen S. SHIPLEY, M.D., Respondent. ; CA A24706.
CourtOregon Court of Appeals

Larry J. Anderson, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Stanton F. Long, Deputy Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.

Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ.

WARREN, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this tort action against defendant, a physician at Southern Oregon State College Student Health Center, alleging negligent treatment. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the Oregon Tort Claims Act notice requirement, ORS 30.275(1), which at the relevant time provided:

"Every person who claims damages from a public body or from an officer, employe or agent of a public body acting within the scope of his employment or duties for or on account of any loss or injury within the scope of ORS 30.260 to 30.300 shall cause to be presented to the public body within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury a written notice stating the time, place and circumstances thereof, the name of the claimant and of his representative or attorney, if any, and the amount of compensation or other relief demanded. Claims against the State of Oregon or a state officer, employe or agent shall be presented to the Attorney General. Claims against any local public body or an officer, employe or agent thereof shall be presented to a person upon whom process could be served upon the public body in accordance with subsection 3 of ORS 15.080. Notice of claim shall be served upon the Attorney General or local public body's representative for service of process either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. A notice of claim which does not contain the information required by the subsection, or which is presented in any other manner than herein provided is invalid, except that failure to state the amount of compensation or other relief demanded does not invalidate the notice."

We affirm.

The alleged negligent treatment occurred on or about September 27, 1978. On March 15, 1979, plaintiff's attorney sent the following letter to defendant:

"Dear Dr. Shipley:

"This office has been retained to investigate the present condition of CONNIE LYNN ROBINSON resulting from care and treatment received while a student at Southern Oregon College of Education. The treatment in question occurred during the month of October, 1978.

"It is my understanding that you attended Miss Robinson professionally during that period of time. I would appreciate receiving a medical report from you setting forth your findings, diagnosis, prognosis, and causation of her resulting condition. Enclosed you will find a medical authorization signed by Miss Robinson for release of this information."

Defendant subsequently made a copy of the letter available to an agent of the Attorney General's office within the 180-day period required by ORS 30.275(1). Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, claiming the March 15, 1979, letter actually received by the Attorney General substantially complies with the written notice requirements in ORS 30.275(1).

The purpose of notice to public bodies under the Oregon Tort Claims Act is to give timely notice of the tort and to allow its officers an opportunity to investigate the matter promptly. Urban Renewal Agency v. Lackey, 275 Or. 35, 549 P.2d 657 (1976). In addition, notice serves to provide the public body with a full opportunity to settle all meritorious claims without litigation. Leonard v. State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Flug v. University of Oregon
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • 1 Noviembre 2000
    ...public body an opportunity to investigate a matter promptly and to settle all meritorious claims without litigation. Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or.App. 794, 797, 669 P.2d 1169, rev. den. 296 Or. 138, 674 P.2d 601 (1983). Where a communication relates to a variety of circumstances and events bu......
  • Or. State Univ. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Noviembre 2017
    ...giving rise to the claims. (Compare Dunn v. City of Milwaukie (2015) 270 Or.App. 478, 348 P.3d 301, 307 ; Robinson v. Shipley (1983) 64 Or.App. 794, 669 P.2d 1169, 1171 ; with Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 183, 200, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 ; Nelson v. S......
  • Margulies v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 8 Septiembre 2014
    ...litigation." Flug v. Univ. of Or., 170 Or. App. 660, 671, 13 P.3d 544, 551 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or. App. 794, 797, 669 P.2d 1169,1171 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)); accord Urban Renewal Agency, 275 Or. at 41, 549 P.2d at 660. A plaintiff satisfies the OTCA's notice req......
  • Redding v. Lane Cmty. Coll.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 19 Noviembre 2012
    ...allows its officers a chance to investigate the claim and, if the claim is meritorious, settle it without litigation. Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or. App. 794, 797 (1983). A plaintiff can satisfy the OTCA's notice requirements by: (1) formal notice; (2) actual notice; or (3) by bringing an acti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT