Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields, 277 Or. App. 811

Larisa’s Home Care, LLC (provider) operated a licensed residential adult foster care and contracted with Oregon SPD to accept Medicaid clients at a state-set (lower) rate; it also accepted private-pay residents at a higher rate.
Isabell Prichard lived at the facility from June 2007 until her death in November 2008; her son Gardner, acting under a power of attorney, applied for Medicaid and controlled her finances.
After Prichard’s death it was revealed Gardner made false statements on the Medicaid application and had depleted her assets; he was criminally convicted and waived inheritance rights.
Provider accepted Medicaid payments for Prichard’s care and later sued Prichard’s personal representative (estate) for unjust enrichment, seeking the difference between Medicaid and private-pay rates (~$48,477). The trial court awarded that amount.
On appeal defendant challenged sufficiency of the evidence to support unjust enrichment, arguing the provider was paid the full Medicaid-authorized amount and contractually barred from charging more; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court should have granted a motion to dismiss (ORCP 54 B(2)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff proved unjust enrichment so that estate must pay the difference between Medicaid and private-pay rates	Provider says estate was unjustly enriched because Medicaid eligibility (obtained by fraud) caused it to be paid less than it otherwise would have been; requiring payment prevents rewarding fraud	Estate argues provider received full contracted Medicaid payment and, as a matter of law, cannot claim additional payment when state determined Medicaid eligibility	Held: No unjust enrichment as a matter of law; provider bound by contract and statutory scheme that treats Medicaid rate as payment in full, so trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss
Whether defendant’s challenge was preserved despite being raised during closing argument	Plaintiff did not dispute preservation	Defendant argued the closing-argument challenge functioned as an ORCP 54 B(2) motion	Held: Court treated the closing-argument challenge as the functional equivalent of an ORCP 54 B(2) motion and reviewed sufficiency of evidence accordingly; issue preserved

Falk v. Amsberry, 290 Or. 839 (1980) (timely motion under ORCP 54 B(2) is essential to preserve sufficiency-of-evidence challenges)
Fowler v. Cooley, 239 Or. App. 338 (2010) (standard of review on appeal from denial of ORCP 54 B(2) motion)
Thorson v. Dept. of Justice, 171 Or. App. 704 (2000) (same)
Cron v. Zimmer, 255 Or. App. 114 (2013) (elements of unjust enrichment)
Wilson v. Gutierrez, 261 Or. App. 410 (2014) (distinguishing factual and legal aspects of unjust enrichment elements)
Jaqua v. Nike, Inc., 125 Or. App. 294 (1993) (three legal indicia of injustice for unjust enrichment claims)
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358 Or. 451 (2015) (equivalence of challenges in closing argument to formal motions under certain circumstances)
Edward D. Jones & Co. v. Mishler, 161 Or. App. 544 (1999) (considering statutory policies when assessing unjust enrichment)