|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Ronald Doyle v. City of Medford|
|University of Oregon School of Law|
|Stephen L. Brischetto and George P. Fisher on behalf of Ronald Doyle, Robert Deuel, Benedict Miller and Charles Steinberg|
Robert E. Franz, Jr., on behalf of City of Medford and Michael Dyal
|*WILL NOT BE WEBCAST|
Statement of Issues:
|Ronald Doyle v. City of Medford (S061463) (A147497) (appeal from Jackson County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 256 Or App 625, 303 P3d 346 (2013)).|
Plaintiffs (Ronald Doyle et al.) filed an action to obtain group health insurance under ORS 243.303 from their former employer, defendant (City of Medford), after their retirement. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' second claim and resolved the remaining claims differently with respect to each plaintiff. Plaintiffs have been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed on appeal as to some plaintiffs and dismissed as moot the cross-appeal of other plaintiffs.
On review, the Court, under ORAP 9.20(2), has limited review to the following question:
Does Oregon law provide retired public employees a civil remedy for breach of the duty to make group health insurance coverage available to retirees under ORS 243.303?
In addition, the Court asked the parties to include a discussion of Scovill v. City of Astoria, 324 Or 159 (1996) as part of their arguments.
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: