Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.

“Claims subject to *** ORS chapter 656” under ORS 31.710(1) “most plausibly encompasses an exception” for claims against noncomplying employers and third parties, and the context of ORS 31.710(1), as part of “tort reform” enacted in 1987, does not indicate the damages cap “was intended to apply to … claims in ORS chapter 656.”

Defendant sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming judgment against Defendant that included $4.86 million in noneconomic damages awarded to Plaintiff. Defendant assigned error to the Court of Appeals interpretation that the remedy clause of Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution precluded reducing noneconomic damages to the statutory cap of $500,000 under ORS 31.710(1). Plaintiff also sought review and assigned error to the Court of Appeals decision to reject Plaintiff’s argument that the claim was exempt from the cap as it was “subject to” ORS chapter 656 concerning workers’ compensation because this chapter has provisions concerning “workers’ rights to recover tort remedies based on workplace injuries.” In response, Defendant argued a “claim” “subject to” ORS chapter 656 only includes one for insurance benefits from employers’ insurance. “Claims subject to *** ORS chapter 656” under ORS 31.710(1) “most plausibly encompasses an exception” for claims against noncomplying employers and third parties, and the context of ORS 31.710(1), as part of “tort reform” enacted in 1987, does not indicate the damages cap “was intended to apply to … claims in ORS chapter 656.” The Court found that “claim,” as defined in ORS chapter 656, is not necessarily limited to a request for workers’ compensation benefits from an employer’s insurer, but can also be a cause of action, such as one in tort for negligence. Thus, the Court held that ORS 31.710(1) excludes third-party claims by injured workers in the course of their employment from the noneconomic damages cap. Affirmed.