A.G. v. Guitron, 351 OR 465 (2011)

Holding:   ORCP 44C requirement that “claimant shall deliver to the requesting party a copy of all written reports * * * relating to the injury” (emphasis mine) was not limited to the reports of treating physicians, but included reports prepared by medical experts hired as litigation experts.

1)   Rules of Civil Procedure are subject to the usual method of statutory construction, meaning “we look to its context as well as its text, and * * * to the extent we deem appropriate, we may also consider legislative history.” at p. 471.

2)   The context of a specific ORCP includes the statutes that form the predecessors to the rule. at p. 471.

3)  Where the state bar drafted the language that, unchanged, became the statute, testimony of the bar’s representatives is a prime indicator of the legislature’s intent. at pp. 473-478.

4)   Unless the legislature amends the relevant portion of the ORCP upon enactment, it is the intent of the Council on Court Procedure that governs the interpretation of the rule. at p. 479.

5)   “The words of statutes and rules of civil procedure are the best indication of the intent of those who promulgate them.” Accordingly, contextual clues and legislative history must be strong to overcome unambiguous language like “all written reports * * * relating to the injury” (emphasis mine). at p. 484.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!