Thorson v. Bend Memorial Clinic

The standard for judgment as matter of law states for a moving party, “that standard is satisfied when, viewing the evidence in the record and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in favor of the nonmoving party, no reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Chapman v. Mayfield, 358 Or 196, 204, 361 P3d 566 (2015).

Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s summary judgment for Defendants.Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s determination that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that created a dispute of fact as to whether Defendants breached the applicable standard of care. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the medical malpractice claims against Defendants did not require expert testimony, that the affidavit was sufficiently created a genuine issue of fact, or at a minimum, created a dispute of fact, and if the affidavit was not reliable, sufficient evidence was presented to show the required expert testimony. In response the trial court concluded Plaintiff’s claims were matters “beyond the experience of an ordinary lay juror,” and thus required expert testimony. The standard for judgment as matter of law for a moving party states, “that standard is satisfied when, viewing the evidence in the record and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in favor of the nonmoving party, no reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Chapman v. Mayfield, 358 Or 196, 204, 361 P3d 566 (2015). The Court of Appeals held that Plaintiff’s affidavit, a non-attorney acting as her own behalf, was not sufficient or adequate to deny the motion for summary judgment, and the submission provided by the expert testimony was insufficient in demonstrating competence; therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing Plaintiffs case. Affirmed.