ENTRY FORM

CALENDAR STATUS: Active
SC Number:
S060604
CA Number:
A144045
Case Title:
Antonio Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc.
Date:
04/30/2013
Time:
09:00 AM
Location:
Supreme Court Case 1
Attorneys:
Janet M. Schroer and Matthew J. Kalmanson on behalf of Swanson Group Inc.
J. Randolph Picket, Robert K. Udziela and Peter O. Hansen on behalf of Antonio Cortez
Comments:
Statement of Issues:
Antonio Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc. (S060604) (A144045) (appeal
from Multnomah County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 248 Or App 435, 274 P3d 202 (2012)).

Defendant, Swanson Group, Inc., has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed in part the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant on the ground that it is exempt from liability under the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law, ORS 656.018; the Court of Appeals held that the exclusive remedy provision does not apply to members of an LLC employer.

On review, the issues are:

Issues raised by defendant Swanson Group, Inc.:

(1) Does ORS 63.165, which limits the liability of members and managers of a limited liability company (LLC), bar a claim by an employee of an LLC against the managing member of the LLC, in its capacity as such, for neglecting to require the employer to take safety precautions that might have prevented a workplace accident?

(2) Does the workers' compensation law's exclusive remedy provision, ORS 656.018, bar a claim by an employee of an LLC against the managing member of the LLC, in its capacity as such, for neglecting to require the employer to take safety precautions that might have prevented a workplace accident?

Issues raised by plaintiff Antonio Cortez:
(3) Did plaintiff present a jury question on his Employers' Liability Law (ELL) claim, if the evidence showed that defendant Swanson exercised actual control in advising and ensuring that its own safety policies be followed by employees of Sun Studs, plaintiff's employer?

(4) If defendant Swanson's employees had the right to implement safety policies and procedures to be followed by the entity that employed the worker, did it retain control sufficient to be subjected to liability under the ELL?

The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating:


Last Revised: 04/05/2013