Wecker v. Salem Clinic, P.C.

In reviewing summary judgment, the court will “‘review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for errors of law and will affirm if there are no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Thompson v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 309 Or. App. 118, 121 (2021). "'No genuine issue of material fact exists if no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party." ORCP 47 C.

Petitioner brought a civil action after Respondent terminated the parties’ physician-patient relationship. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Respondent. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on its negligence, breach of contract claim, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims. The Court disagreed with all three assignments of error. The Court evaluated each assignment separately, applying the relevant law for each. In reviewing summary judgment, the court will “‘review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for errors of law and will affirm if there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Thompson v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 309 Or. App. 118, 121 (2021).” Regarding Petitioner's first argument, the Court found that Petitioner offered no evidence to the trial court from which a reasonable jury could conclude proved Respondent's negligence, reasoning that there was no breach of any duty of care because Respondent complied with notice and post-termination requirements established by the Oregon Medical Board and American Medical Association. Regarding Petitioner’s second argument, the Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that there establishing mutual agreement between the two parties, and thus no implied contract existed which the Respondent could breach. Finally, regarding Petitioner’s third argument, the Court found that the Respondent’s conduct did not meet the standard of “extreme and outrageous conduct” required for IIED. Based on these findings, the Court ultimately held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Affirmed.