Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Liability Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers weigh bill to undo Oregon Supreme Court ruling that exposed hospitals to product‑liability suits
Summary
Representative Cyrus Javedy and health‑system advocates said House Bill 3324 would restore the pre‑Brown rule that hospitals and clinics are not treated as product sellers under Oregon product‑liability law; sponsors said the court’s Providence v. Brown decision expanded liability and could raise costs and insurance premiums.
Representative Cyrus Javedy told the House Committee on Behavioral Health and Health Care on March 13 that the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in Providence Health System v. Brown transformed hospitals and clinics into potential targets for product‑liability claims. He asked the committee to pass House Bill 3324 to restore the prior statutory understanding that health‑care providers are not sellers under Oregon’s product‑liability statute.
"Now, thanks to a ruling that defies both common sense and national precedents, Oregon hospitals and clinics can be sued under a strict product liability if they supply and charge for defective product even when they had nothing to do with designing, manufacturing, or even marketing it," Javedy said, citing ORS 30.902 as the statutory basis the court applied in its ruling.
Supporters including representatives of the Oregon Medical Association and the Oregon Liability Reform Coalition said the ruling removes the need to sue a manufacturer in many cases and subjects providers to strict liability that previously applied to sellers of consumer products. Mark Bonanno of the Oregon Medical Association urged the committee to include medical clinics along with hospitals in the statutory fix.
Questions from the committee focused on the bill’s scope and how it would treat intentional misconduct. Javedy and witnesses said the bill would not shield a provider that knowingly used or supplied a dangerous product; it is intended to prevent strict product‑liability claims against providers who merely used a product in treatment and did not manufacture or market it.
Providence submitted written testimony through counsel and said it supports legislative correction; Providence’s attorney indicated technical problems prevented live testimony but that written comments would follow.
No vote was taken; sponsors and advocates asked for the committee’s help passing statutory language that aligns Oregon with other states and that preserves malpractice remedies for negligent or intentional provider conduct.
