 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barackman v. Anderson3/31/2005
En Banc
Argued and submitted January 6, 2005.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The issue in this case is whether a decision in a personal injury protection (PIP) arbitration should be given preclusive effect in a subsequent civil action. Plaintiff claimed dental injuries arising out of a vehicle collision and sought PIP benefits from her own insurer. An arbitration panel concluded that the collision did not cause plaintiff's dental injuries.
Plaintiff later sought compensation for those injuries in this civil action. Defendant, however, raised as an affirmative defense that the arbitration panel already had determined that issue adversely to plaintiff. The trial court refused to give the arbitration decision any preclusive effect and permitted the jury to determine liability and award damages for plaintiff's dental injuries. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had erred in granting plaintiff's summary judgment motion against defendant's affirmative defense asserting issue preclusion. We allowed review and now affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on the limited grounds described below.
The material facts are undisputed. Plaintiff and defendant were involved in a collision in which defendant turned his vehicle in front of plaintiff's vehicle in order to enter a driveway. Plaintiff maintained that, in the collision, she injured her back and neck and fractured two teeth. She sought compensation two ways -- initially filing for PIP benefits from her insurer and subsequently filing a personal injury action against defendant. After the insurer denied PIP benefits for the dental injuries, plaintiff requested arbitration. See ORS 742.520(6) (PIP disputes between insurers and beneficiaries shall be decided by arbitration "if mutually agreed to at the time of the dispute"). The arbitration panel concluded that the collision was not the cause of plaintiff's dental injuries and denied her PIP benefits for dental treatment.
Later, during this civil action, defendant asserted as an affirmative defense that the arbitration decision precluded plaintiff from seeking compensation for the injury to her teeth. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in response to that defense, and the trial court granted the motion. At trial, a jury awarded plaintiff damages that included compensation for the injury to her teeth.
Defendant appealed, arguing that the arbitration decision should have been accorded preclusive effect in the subsequent civil action. Plaintiff responded that the legislature did not intend issues decided in PIP arbitration proceedings to have preclusive effect and that accordingly the arbitration decision violated her right to a jury trial under Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution. The Court of Appeals disagreed with plaintiff's arguments and reversed the judgment. Barackman v. Anderson, 192 Or App 176, 84 P3d 830 (2004). We allowed plaintiff's petition for review to address the issue.
We begin with a brief discussion of the concept of issue preclusion, as that concept is recognized as an aspect of Oregon law. "Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding." Nelson v. Emerald People's Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103, 862 P2d 1293 (1993). Issue preclusion is a jurisprudential rule that promotes judicial efficiency. Id. (citing State v. Ratliff, 304 Or 254, 257, 744 P2d 247 (1987)). In Nelson, the court identified five require
Page 1 2 3 4 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|