Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Last week, the Oregon Court of Appeals said that the Lake Oswego School District could not be held responsible for the alleged child abuse by a fifth grade teacher that occurred more than 2 years ago. In Does 1-7 v. Lake Oswego School District and Judd Johnson, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court, which threw out the case based upon time limitations under Oregon's Tort Claims Act.

Seven men claimed that a fifth grade teacher molested them between the years 1967-1984. In other cases, against churches, for example, child molestation and sexual battery from decades ago has been the subject of sexual abuse lawsuits in Oregon. There's an exception to the general statute of limitations for child abuse cases if the victim did not comprehend the harm until recently. However, that exception did not win the day against the school, which is a public body protected by the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 and following).

The OTCA sets forth strict time limitations. First, the victim must notify the public body or government agency within 180 days of an injury. If the person is disabled or a child, then the time limit can be extended for an additional 90 days, to 270 days. The victim must file a lawsuit within two years. Both deadlines start at the time of discovery, which begiins when the person, or any reasonable person, would have been aware of (1) the injury, (2) who is the perpetrator, and (3) the cause of the injury.

The court held that when suing a school or public body, "injury" for sexual touching occurs at the time of the touching. All of the men knew they were touched inappropriately back in the fifth grade, even if they did not comprehend the full consequences of the touching. For that reason, the court held that they all missed the time deadlines under Oregon's Tort Claims Act.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Oregon's Professional Liability Fund insures all attorney members of the Oregon State Bar against legal malpractice. Recently, the PLF published its annual report. Here are some of the highlights:

In 2010, there were 938 new claims against Oregon attorneys. Cost per claim is rising, $19,500 is the average for the first half of 2011 compared to $19,000 for 2010. Speculation on the cause for the high rate of claims and the higher cost to settle them includes the fact that many recent graduates are starting practices and displaced attorneys, also, are starting their own practices. Some attorneys are probably stretching past their comfort zones, leading to mistakes, which leads to malpractice claims.

The top six areas of law leading to attorney malpractice claims are Personal injury (17%), Domestic relations / family law (16%), Bankruptcy (12%), Real Estate (11%), Estate Planning & Estate Tax (10%), and Business Transactions / Commercial law (9%).

What happens when a client makes a claim? From 2001 through 2010, claims resolved as follows:

• 19% of the time the PLF fixed or "repaired" the problem.

• 26% of the time the PLF settled before a lawsuit.

• 12% of the cases settled or were dismissed during litigation.

• 4% went to judgment.

• The remainder of the claims were abandoned (22%) or denied (17%).

And the bad news for me: the premiums for legal malpractice insurance are going up.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

This week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the whistleblower protection of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) does not protect leaks to the media. In Tides & Neumann v. The Boeing Company, employees Nicholas Tides and Mathew Neumann served as internal auditors for SOX compliance. They alleged pressure to rate internal SOX controls as "effective," despite some concerns over some issues and expressed those concerns within the company.

Then, a news reporter knocked on Mr. Neumann's door. Company policy required referring any media inquiries to Boeing's communication department. However, Mr. Neumann spoke the reporter and confirmed a draft of what she had written, despite knowing of the news-referral policy.

Mr. Tides contacted the reporter, himself, after receiving his performance evaluation, and provided her information.

Boeing discovered who the "whistleblowers" were and fired them. They filed suit under Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower provisions.

The Ninth Circuit felt this was an easy case. The SOX whistleblower section protects only disclosures to the following: (A) Federal regulatory or law enforcement agencies, (B) a Congress member or Congressional committee, and (C) the supervisor or other person working for the employer who has authority to deal with the misconduct. The list does not include blowing the whistle to the news media.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.