Tag: appeal

Oregon Court of Appeals reverses trial court in my clients’ favor

Appeal and cross-appeal

This is a case I took up on appeal for another lawyer, and won a reversal – the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings in our favor and reversed the trial court’s rulings against us, a complete victory for our clients.

I represented the Knudsens, who had been sued by the Grimstads over an inheritance. Three key legal claims were at issue. The trial court awarded the Grimstads part of the Knudsens’ inheritance under claims of (a) unjust enrichment and (b) money had and received, but denied the Grimstads’ claim of (c) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

Both parties appealed, resulting in an appeal and cross-appeal. On June 9, 2015, after extensive legal briefing, the appeal and cross-appeal was argued to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion

One and one-half years after oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued a complex 29-page opinion, ruling in my clients favor and against the Grimstads on all claims. See Grimstad v. Knudsen, 283 Or App 28 (December 21, 2016). At the end of its opinion, the Court of Appeals favorably concluded as follows:

“In sum, we conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that the [Grimstads] proved a claim for unjust enrichment, because [the Grimstads] failed to show that they had any legal or equitable interest in the proceeds of the sale of the [real estate]. For that same reason, the trial court erred in concluding that [the Grimstads] proved their claim of money had and received. The trial court therefore erred in granting plaintiffs relief on those claims. On cross-appeal, [the Grimstads] failed to put forward evidence to create any genuine issue of material fact with respect to the improper means or purpose element of their intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim. The trial court therefore did not err in granting [the Knudsens’] motion for summary judgment [on that claim].”

See Grimstad v. Knudsen, 283 Or App 28, 58 (December 21, 2016) (reversing and remanding on appeal; affirming on cross-appeal).

Remand to the Washington County Circuit Court

This appeal and cross-appeal will now be remanded (returned) to the trial court for entry of a new judgment fully in my clients’ favor. As an aside, I predict this case and its opinion will become the new “name case” or “lead opinion” for claims of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Time will tell.


Physician wins! Oregon Court of Appeals reverses Medical Board

This is a case I took up on appeal for another lawyer, and won. In this case, the Oregon Medical Board revoked a physician’s medical license by missapplication of complex procedural rules. In a unanimous decision, however, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the Oregon Medical Board in my client’s favor. See Yankee v. Oregon Medical Board, 280 Or App 1 (August 3, 2016) (remanding for further proceedings).

Appeals against the Oregon Medical Board are difficult to win

On appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, I argued that the Oregon Medical Board erred when it denied my client’s motion to reschedule his hearing, and revoked his medical license, without first holding a hearing on his motion before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), as required by administrative rule. The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed, and reversed the Oregon Medical Board, remanding the case for further proceedings.

This appeal was won on procedural grounds and, as experienced appellate lawyers know, this type of appeal can be difficult to win. I argued this case to the Oregon Court of Appeals in February of 2015, but the court did not decide the case until August of 2016, 18 months later, suggesting that the Court of Appeals needed significant time to decide this troubling case.

The Court of Appeals’ ruling: The Oregon Medical Board must follow prescribed procedure

The holding in this case is simple: The Oregon Medical Board must follow “prescribed procedure” when seeking to revoke a physician’s license:

“Having concluded that the [Oregon Medical] board procedurally erred when it did not provide [Dr. Yankee] with a hearing before the ALJ, we must remand this matter for further proceedings if “the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired” by that “failure to follow prescribed procedure.” ORS 183.482(7). Here, the fairness of the proceedings may have been impaired. [Dr. Yankee] was entitled to have a hearing before a neutral ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] on the reasons for his not appearing once the [Oregon Medical] board disputed the facts articulated by [Dr. Yankee]. Instead, the [Oregon Medical] board resolved those disputed factual issues in its own favor. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

See Yankee v. Oregon Medical Board, 280 Or App 1, 6 (August 3, 2016) (underscore added).

How to decide whether to file a notice of appeal

My practice includes appellate litigation in state and federal courts. Most often, I am recruited to join the litigation team soon after a ruling or finding has gone awry. As such, I am the new lawyer on the team, at the start of the appeal, the occasional second half of litigation. There are always many questions, but the key questions concern the likelihood of success on appeal and whether to file the notice appeal in the first place.

Evaluating the merits of an appeal in an “easy” case

In the “easy” cases, I can evaluate a single issue appeal in two to three hours, and then share my opinion with the trial lawyer and the client, A decision can then be made to file the notice of appeal, or not. It is nice when it happens this way, but it only happens this way in a small percentage of the cases for the simple reason that most cases (or “records”) are much more complicated than a single legal issue.

Evaluating the merits of an appeal in a hard case, with a large record, and much at stake

In the hard cases, where there is much at stake, and the merit of the potential appeal is uncertain, sometimes all you can do before the deadline to appeal is to determine that the appeal is colorable, in good faith, and has sufficient merit to move forward. Then, after the notice of appeal has been filed to protect the deadline, the decision to appeal can and should be revisited at each new phase of the work, until such time the decision to appeal is plainly justified, or not. In those cases where the decision to appeal turns out not to be justified, the appeal may be dismissed.

Moving forward one step at a time on appeal for a good result

The best example I have of such a hard case, with far more questions than answers at the beginning of the appeal, is the case of O’Donnell-Lamont & Lamont (260 KB). In this appeal, I eventually won a unanimous 7-0 decision by the Oregon Supreme Court, in which the Oregon Supreme Court applied a recent holding from the United States Supreme Court and reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals in favor of my clients. At the start of this appeal I did not know what I could accomplish. In the end, this appeal was a big victory, restoring custody of two small children to my clients, the maternal grandparents. This unanimous 7-0 decision by the Oregon Supreme Court was also an important victory for children throughout Oregon because it established the legal precedent to be applied in third-party child custody disputes, affording more protection for children.

As if that were not enough, there were several key accomplishments along the way. Until this appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals had never granted reconsideration en banc, meaning by the full court, with all ten judges participating. Later, after the Court of Appeals denied my clients any relief, the Oregon Supreme Court chose this appeal as the vehicle to resolve a number of similar third-party custody issues in Oregon. The other similar pending cases involving the same subject matter were placed into abeyance (on hold) pending the outcome of this appeal. So, in the end, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in my case, and the other cases too. All this from an appeal where, in the beginning, the merit of the appeal was uncertain.

Another reason to retain an appeals attorney early in the process

Orders versus judgments? When and what to appeal?

As an appeals lawyer, I am occasionally contacted by a trial lawyer on or near the last day to file a notice of appeal, anxious because her or she is uncertain whether a particular order or ruling is appealable. In these cases, the order is in hand, the time to file the notice of appeal is about up, and a judgment has not been entered yet. The trial lawyer’s question is usually something like this: Do I file a notice of appeal from the order, or do I wait for a judgment to be entered? This is no time for uncertainty. If you wait for a judgment to be entered, the time to appeal the order will have passed, and if it turns out the order was the thing to appeal, you will have lost your chance to do so.

When and what to appeal? – the source of the problem

Generally speaking, in both state and federal courts, a notice of appeal is often due within 30 days after entry of a judgment. Appellate lawyers know, however, that depending upon the circumstances of each case, there are shorter and longer periods of time to file a notice of appeal, so each appeal deadline must be independently evaluated and verified. Further complicating matters is the fact that sometimes there will be no judgment and, in these cases, the appeal will instead be taken from an order. This may occur, for example, when an order affects a substantial right and effectively determines an action so as to prevent entry of a judgment. This is just one example. There are many more, too numerous to list here. There are also important differences between state and federal appellate practice. The important thing to know is that often, much time, money, and grief can be saved by taking early action to set the stage for your appeal, just another reason to retain an appellate attorney as soon as you suspect you might need an appeal.

As an appeals lawyer, here is one way I avoid the problem

Time permitting, in close-call cases, when it is uncertain whether the appeal will be from an order or a judgment, I will recommend that the trial lawyer pursue entry of a judgment within the appeal period of the order. Then, with both an order and judgment in hand, I can file a notice of appeal from both documents. This approach ensures that both the order and judgment are appealed, eliminating the need to file a “precautionary notice of appeal” from the order because time is about to run on an appeal from the order. This approach only works, however, when there is time to pursue a judgment within the appeal period for the order. This approach will not work when time is up to appeal from the order, yet another reason to retain an appeals lawyer as soon as you suspect you might need an appeal.

Criminalizing medicine

Are some physicians being convicted and sentenced for “legal” prescriptions?

I say “yes,” and I have first hand experience defending physicians on appeal from such convictions and sentences. Perhaps the best example I have to offer is the case involving Drs. David and Randall Chube, two Gary, Indiana, physicians that I represented on appeal to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See US v. Chube II, 538 F3d 693 (7th Cir. 2008).

DEA attorneys confuse the legitimate medical purpose rule

The problem occurs when the criminal conviction standard and civil standard of care – two very distinct legal standards – are confused, substituted, and/or conflated by DEA investigators, DEA attorneys, federal prosecutors, the government’s expert witnesses, and the PSR writers. In my opinion, this legal error – i.e., criminalizing medicine – occurs too often, during key phases the criminal proceeding, which include the:

  • DEA investigation (leading to more counts in the indictment);
  • Federal prosecution (leading to more convictions at trial); and
  • Federal sentencing (leading to longer prison sentences).

In my experience, this legal error occurs when the civil and criminal standards are conflated through the misapplication of the rule against prescribing without a “legitimate medical purpose,” a subject that is discussed in more detail on the criminal violations page of this website, and numerous other pages as well.

Medical malpractice is neither criminal conduct nor relevant conduct

This point is key: A violation of the civil standard of care (usually called malpractice, or professional negligence) is, without more, not enough to prove a prescription drug crime, or the “relevant conduct” necessary to lengthen a prison sentence. The reason is simply. Malpractice alone, even when prescribing controlled substances, is not a crime, and malpractice alone is not enough to support a criminal conviction, or a finding of relevant conduct necessary to lengthen a prison sentence. Unfortunately for physicians, however, when the criminal conviction standard is conflated with the civil standard of care, the criminal conviction standard is lowered toward the malpractice standard, making multiple criminal convictions easier to win, and the relevant conduct necessary to lengthen a prison sentence, easier to find. Protect yourself – do not let this happen to you.

The legitimate medical purpose standard as applied in case of U.S. v. Chube II, 538 F3d 693 (7th Cir. 2008)

At the time of sentencing in the Chubes’ case, the federal prosecutor and the PSR writer seemingly counted every prescription written by the Chubes as “relevant conduct,” without first reviewing each prescription to determine whether “drug diversion” – which is the crime – had in fact occurred. Drug diversion includes unlawful prescribing, unlawful dispensing, or drug dealing, i.e,. it is criminal conduct. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, relevant conduct, which is essentially other criminal conduct, is applied at the time of sentencing to increase the length of a prison sentence. In the Chubes’ case, Dr. Randall Chube’s sentence was increased to five years and Dr. David Chube’s sentence was increased to fifteen years. In the Chubes’ case, however, it wasn’t relevant conduct because it wasn’t criminal conduct. Another way to look at it is that the DEA “criminalized” medical error. Criminalization occurs when there is an unchecked expansion of the law by over-aggressive law enforcement.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated both doctors’ prison sentences and “remanded” the case back down to the District Court for re-sentencing. The Seventh Court of Appeals explained that the District Court relied upon insufficient evidence to prove that the relevant conduct was in fact criminal conduct. See US v. Chube II, 538 F3d 693 (7th Cir. 2008). Shortly thereafter, the trial court released both physicians from prison pending re-sentencing, and both physicians served substantially shorter sentences once relevant conduct was correctly understood and applied.