439 P.3d 569
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple first-degree sexual offenses against three foster children; DHS referred the children to CARES for medical and forensic evaluations.
- CARES is a specialized child-abuse medical clinic that provides exams and recorded forensic interviews; it bills insurers when available and does not bill families who cannot pay.
- CARES's medical director testified CARES can incur an economic loss when insurers reimburse less than the cost of evaluation and believed the evaluations resulted from defendant's criminal activity.
- Trial court awarded $1,343.85 restitution to CARES on one count, implicitly treating CARES as a "victim" under ORS 137.103(4).
- The State argued CARES suffered economic damages (the unpaid portion of bills) and thus qualified under ORS 137.103(4)(b); defendant argued CARES was not a victim entitled to restitution.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the restitution award to CARES, concluding the State failed to identify a civil-theory by which CARES itself could recover economic damages from the defendant; other restitution awards to insurers were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CARES is a "victim" under ORS 137.103(4)(b) eligible for restitution | CARES suffered economic damages: the difference between service cost and insurer reimbursement | CARES did not suffer recoverable economic damages from defendant and thus is not a victim | Reversed: State failed to show a civil theory allowing CARES to recover from defendant, so CARES is not a victim under (4)(b) on this record |
| Whether restitution statute permits third-party service providers to recover unpaid costs from criminal defendant | State relied on analogy to medical-bill recovery principles (Jubitz) | Defendant argued civil law typically makes the patient, not the provider, the person with a recoverable claim against the tortfeasor | Held: Jubitz does not create a cause of action for providers; civil law ordinarily does not allow providers to recover directly from tortfeasor absent a cognizable theory |
| Whether trial court properly inferred civil-liability link because CARES billed insurers | Billing insurers shows only source of payment, not a civil right of recovery against defendant | Defendant disputed that billing creates a right to restitution from defendant | Held: Billing insurers is insufficient; legislature meant civil-law limitations on recoverable economic damages to apply |
| Whether other restitution awards to insurers should be disturbed | State sought reimbursement to insurers/subrogation entities for payments on behalf of victims | Defendant challenged some awards but not all on appeal | Affirmed: restitution awards to Family Care and Providence Health Plan were upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Herfurth, 283 Or. App. 149 (discussed statutory restitution requirements)
- State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581 (explaining restitution mirrors civil recoverable damages)
- White v. Jubitz Corp., 347 Or. 212 (clarifying source-of-payment does not alter plaintiff's recoverable medical damages)
- Hale v. Groce, 304 Or. 281 (noting limits on recovering purely economic loss for strangers to contractual duties)
- State v. Daniel, 109 Or. App. 680 (precedent rejecting restitution to medical center for victim's exam)