State v. Jordan, 249 Or. App. 93

Background

Defendant pled guilty to second-degree assault and DUII for driving under the influence and causing serious injuries to the victim.
Victim spent six months in the hospital and underwent multiple surgeries for brain injury; restitution was ordered in a supplemental judgment totaling $887,793.
Restitution included $204,426 to the victim and his spouse and $673,367 to Providence Health Plans to satisfy its lien for medical expenses.
Dispute centered on whether the state's evidence established economic damages under ORS 137.106 and ORS 31.710; the court defined economic damages and applicable exclusions.
Providence Health Plans’ lien ledger was challenged as fair evidence of reasonable charges necessarily incurred; the issue of insurer liens’ adequacy was undecided and not plain error.
The court also considered forecasted future expenses (Exhibit 2) and lost income, applying statutory standards for objectively verifiable and necessary incurred costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Providence lien sufficiency to support restitution	State contends lien ledger reflects reasonable charges necessarily incurred.	Jordan argues the lien amounts, especially a large item, are not shown as reasonable charges necessarily incurred.	Issue not plain error; ledger sufficiency undecided; court declines to rule on admissibility of the lien amount for restitution.
Forecasted economic damages are objectively verifiable	Exhibit 2 items (24 future expenses) are objectively verifiable and reasonably incurred.	Some items (naturopathic care, organic foods, conservatorship, etc.) are not reasonably incurred or objectively verifiable.	Some specific items preserved; trial court findings supported; generally reasonable and verifiable for those challenged.
Necessity and reasonableness of naturopathic/organic expenses	Evidence shows these expenses were necessary due to brain injury and supported as objectively verifiable.	Evidence insufficient to prove necessity or reasonableness of naturopathic/organic costs.	Court found evidence from victim's wife adequate to support necessity; appropriately upheld for those items.
Lost income as of the date of restitution determination	Victim’s lost income should be compensated up to determination date.	Lost income beyond the plea date may not be recoverable as economic damages.	Court rejected defendant’s broad challenge; restitution for lost income as of the court’s determination date was proper.
Timing and scope of restitution beyond the plea date	Full economic damages as determined by the court include items identified and assessed later.	Limit restitution to damages determined as of the plea date or within the agreed window.	Court held that full damages are determined by the court’s later determination; future losses up to the determination date are compensable.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Edson, 329 Or. 127 (Or. 1999) (establishes restitution framework: damages, pecuniary damages, causal link)
State v. Thompson, 231 Or. App. 193 (Or. App. 2009) (full restoration of economic damages unless victim consents to lesser amount)
State v. Steckler, 236 Or. App. 524 (Or. App. 2010) (necessity standard for expenses arising from crime)
State v. Carson, 238 Or. App. 188 (Or. App. 2010) (appellate deferential standard to trial court findings on restitution)
DeVaux v. Presby, 136 Or. App. 456 (Or. App. 1995) (objective verification standard for damages not needing meticulous itemization)
White v. Jubitz Corp., 219 Or. App. 62 (Or. App. 2008) (medical bills alone do not establish necessity of treatment for economic damages)
Ford v. SAIF, 7 Or. App. 549 (Or. App. 1972) (discussion of lost income vs. impairment of earning capacity)
Wyatt, 331 Or. 335 (Or. 2000) (plain error review and preservation standards on appeal)