Doyle v. City of Medford, 337 P.3d 797

Plaintiffs are retirees from the City of Medford who sought to continue the city’s health insurance coverage after retirement under ORS 243.303(2).
The statute requires local governments to make retiree coverage available “insofar as and to the extent possible.”
The circuit court awarded damages for a statutory violation and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding no private action exists for ORS 243.303(2).
This Court held the statute does not expressly or impliedly create a private right of action but may be enforced via declaratory relief; creation of a new common-law tort right is not warranted.
The Court reaffirmed Restatement 874A guidance and remanded for remaining issues; it clarified the statutory duty and the availability of declaratory relief under ORS Chapter 28.
The concurrence argues for recognizing a private tort remedy; the majority declines to create such a remedy and upholds declaratory relief as adequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does ORS 243.303(2) create a private right of action?	Plaintiffs argue the statute implies a civil remedy.	City contends no private action is implied and legislative intent to create one is absent.	No private right of action implied; declaratory relief suffices.
Should the court judicially create a common-law right of action to enforce ORS 243.303(2)?	Plaintiffs urge a judicially created tort remedy to enforce the duty.	City argues against judicial creation to avoid intruding on legislative authority.	Courts should not create a new tort right here; not necessary to effectuate the statute.
Is declaratory judgment relief adequate to enforce ORS 243.303(2)?	Declaratory relief with supplemental damages is insufficient to vindicate rights.	Declaratory relief plus supplemental relief can address the statutory duty.	Yes; declaratory judgment and supplemental relief adequately enforce the duty.

Cain v. Rijken, 300 Or 706 (1986) (statutory duty with common-law negligence framework in certain contexts)
Burnette v. Wahl, 284 Or 705 (1978) (courts may refrain from new statutory tort when legislative scheme is comprehensive)
Miller v. City of Portland, 288 Or 271 (1980) (statutory duties may give rise to civil liability; closely examined legislative intent)
Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. Roloff, 291 Or 318 (1981) (court may not create new private action if inconsistent with policy; considers legislative intent)
Scovill v. City of Astoria, 324 Or 159 (1996) (statutory liability or judicially provided action; discussed Restatement 874A and legislative intent)
Nearing v. Weaver, 295 Or 702 (1983) (implied statutory liability where statute protects a class; foreseeability not always required)