The Oregon Supreme Court issued a decision Dec. 11 in *Stone v. Witt*, a complex medical malpractice case that involves multiple healthcare providers and raises questions about liability standards across integrated care networks.
Jerry C. Stone, serving as personal representative for the estate of Marika Jeanne Stone, brought the wrongful death lawsuit against a consortium of healthcare entities. The defendants include St. Charles Health Systems Inc., doing business as St. Charles Family Care; High Desert Personal Medicine LLC; Mosaic Medical; physician Kevin Rueter; and pharmacy chain Walgreen Co.
The case originated in Deschutes County Circuit Court under Judge Jack L. Landau and proceeded through the Oregon Court of Appeals before reaching the state's highest court. The Court of Appeals previously ruled in the case, issuing an opinion reported at 331 Or App 722, 548 P.3d 497 (2024).
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Jan. 9, 2025, with the case decided by an en banc panel of all seven justices. This procedural designation indicates the court viewed the legal issues as particularly significant for Oregon jurisprudence.
Hillary A. Taylor of Keating Jones Hughes argued for the healthcare provider petitioners, supported by co-counsel Ruth A. Casby and Janet M. Schroer of Hart Wagner LLP. Thomas F. Armosino Jr. of Frohnmayer, Deatherage, Jamieson, Moore, Armosino & McGovern also represented the medical defendants.
Kathryn H. Clarke, operating as a solo practitioner, represented the estate in opposing the providers' petition for review.
The case drew significant attention from medical and legal organizations, evidenced by multiple amicus curiae briefs. The Oregon Medical Association and American Medical Association filed a joint brief through attorney Alice S. Newlin of Lindsay Hart LLP, with assistance from Anne Wynn Decker. The brief likely addressed professional standards and liability concerns affecting physicians statewide.
The Oregon Trial Lawyers Association submitted a separate amicus brief through Elizabeth C. Savage, representing the interests of plaintiffs' attorneys in medical malpractice cases. This organization typically advocates for broader liability standards and patient protection measures.
The National Association of Chain Drug Stores also participated as amicus curiae, filing through Thomas M. Christ and David Schur of Sussman Shank LLP. This involvement suggests the case includes pharmacy-related liability issues, particularly relevant given Walgreen Co.'s inclusion as a defendant.
The involvement of such diverse healthcare entities - from hospital systems to independent medical practices to national pharmacy chains - indicates the case likely addresses coordination of care and potential gaps in treatment across different providers. Such cases often arise when patients receive care from multiple entities within an integrated network, raising questions about where liability lies when adverse outcomes occur.
The Supreme Court's decision to grant review suggests the legal issues presented could establish precedent affecting medical malpractice law throughout Oregon. Lower court decisions that prompt high court review typically involve novel legal questions, conflicting precedents, or matters of statewide importance.
Medical malpractice cases involving multiple defendants often center on questions of causation - which provider's actions or omissions caused the patient's injury or death. The complexity increases when care involves coordination between hospital systems, independent physicians, specialty clinics, and pharmacy services.
The case number sequence (CC 18CV14401) indicates the original lawsuit was filed in 2018, reflecting the lengthy litigation timeline common in complex medical malpractice cases. Such cases typically require extensive discovery, expert witness preparation, and multiple motions before reaching trial or resolution.
The Oregon Court of Appeals' 2024 decision in the case was apparently unfavorable to the healthcare providers, prompting their petition to the Supreme Court. The specific legal issues under review were not detailed in the available court documents, but the multi-defendant structure suggests questions about joint liability, apportionment of damages, or standards of care across different types of healthcare providers.
The Supreme Court's decision will likely provide guidance for future cases involving integrated healthcare delivery systems, where patients receive care from multiple affiliated or coordinated providers. As healthcare continues consolidating into larger networks, questions of liability distribution become increasingly important for both providers and patients.
The case also reflects ongoing tensions in medical malpractice law between protecting patients' rights to compensation for medical errors and avoiding excessive liability that could impact healthcare access or drive up costs.
With the decision now issued, the case will provide precedent for Oregon courts handling similar multi-defendant medical malpractice cases. The ruling may affect how healthcare providers structure their operations and coordinate care to minimize liability exposure while maintaining quality patient treatment.