Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

York v. Paakkonen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

October 30, 2013

BILLIE JOE YORK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PRESTON PAAKKONEN, Defendant-Respondent.

Argued and submitted on June 12, 2013.

Multnomah County Circuit Court 100811414 Christopher J. Marshall, Judge.

Michael H. Bloom argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Michael H. Bloom, P.C.

Ralph C. Spooner argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Melissa J. Ward and Spooner & Much, P.C.

Before Nakamoto, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Egan, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Plaintiff brought a personal injury action and obtained a jury award for her economic damages. After judgment was entered, defendant filed a motion for partial satisfaction pursuant to ORS 31.555 in which he sought to reduce the amount of the judgment by the amount that defendant's insurance carrier had previously provided to plaintiff in personal-injury-protection (PIP) benefits. Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's order directing the court clerk to enter that partial satisfaction; she contends that the trial court erred under ORS 31.555(2). Plaintiff also seeks attorney fees. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff was riding in a vehicle driven by defendant when it struck another vehicle. Defendant's insurer, State Farm, paid plaintiff $25, 000 in PIP benefits. Those benefits, which were the maximum amount available under defendant's policy, were paid solely to cover plaintiff's medical expenses. Defendant also had liability protection under that same policy.

Plaintiff brought a negligence action against defendant, in which she prayed for $225, 000 in noneconomic damages, $50, 000 for future medical expenses, $45, 382.57 in medical bills that she had previously incurred, and $30, 000 for past and future loss of earning capacity. At trial, plaintiff proposed the use of a segregated jury verdict form, which would have specified the categories of damages as follows:

"2. What are the plaintiff's damages?

"ANSWER:
"Economic Damages:
"Past Medical Expenses (may not exceed $45, 382.57) ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.