Ramirez v. Kornegay , 336 Or. App. 125 ( 2024 )

No. 807 November 6, 2024 125
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
Maricela RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joshua KORNEGAY, MD;
Sarah Gomez, MD; Adrienne Hughes, MD;
Lara Jesic, FNP; Matthew Noble, MD; Kevin Edwards, RN;
Lindsay Olson, RN; Sarah Davis, RN; Verda Dew, LLSW;
Susan Yoder, RN BSN; Greg Moawad;
Karyn Thrapp, RN BSN; Eric Brown;
Oregon Health and Science University;
Oregon Department of Justice, and State of Oregon,
Defendants-Respondents.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
21CV32417; A181031
Angela F. Lucero, Judge.
Submitted October 10, 2024.
Maricela Ramirez filed the briefs pro se.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondents Oregon Department
of Justice, State of Oregon, Karyn Thrapp RN BSN, and
Eric Brown.
Janet M. Schroer and Hart Wagner LLP filed the brief
for respondents Joshua Kornegay, MD, Sara Gomez, MD,
Adrienne Hughes, MD, Lara Jesic, FNP, Mathew Noble, MD,
Kevin Edwards, RN, Lindsay Olson, RN, Sarah Davis, RN,
Verda Dew, LLSW, Susan Yoder, RN BSN, Greg Moawad
and Oregon Health and Science University.
126 Ramirez v. Kornegay
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce,
Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 336 Or App 125 (2024) 127
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing her civil
claims against Oregon Health & Science University and
several of its employees (OHSU defendants) and the State
of Oregon, Oregon Department of Justice, and certain state
employees (state defendants).1 We conclude that the trial
court did not err in granting summary judgment based on
claim preclusion and, accordingly, affirm.
Plaintiff’s claims stem from a series of visits to the
emergency department at OHSU in April 2018 and January
2020.2 Plaintiff argues, among other things, that she was
discriminated against based on her race, that the OHSU
defendants denied her necessary medical care, and that the
state defendants failed to adequately investigate her com-
plaints. In February 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint in fed-
eral court alleging violation of her civil rights, civil conspir-
acy, breach of fiduciary duty, race discrimination, violation
of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
(EMTALA), and elder abuse. In July 2021, the federal court
granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed
plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
In August 2021, plaintiff filed this action in state
court, asserting claims for abuse of a vulnerable person, vio-
lation of the EMTALA, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of
equal protection, discrimination in a place of public accom-
modation, civil conspiracy, violation of the Social Security
Act, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional dis-
tress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing
that the claims were barred by the doctrine of claim pre-
clusion, that the claims were barred by the statute of lim-
itations, and that no genuine issue of material fact existed.
The trial court granted summary judgment based on claim
preclusion, without reaching the other grounds.
We review a grant of summary judgment for errors of
law and will affirm if there is no genuine dispute of material
1
Some defendants were dismissed earlier by limited judgment and are not at
issue in this appeal.
2
In responding to the summary judgment motion, plaintiff asserted that
there was additional tortious conduct on later dates, but the trial court properly
ruled on summary judgment based on the existing complaint.
128 Ramirez v. Kornegay
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a mat-
ter of law. Beneficial Oregon, Inc. v. Bivins, 313 Or App 275,
277, 496 P3d 1104 (2021). The record must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. ORCP 47 C;
Jennewein v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, 308
Or App 396, 400, 481 P3d 939 (2021).
The trial court correctly granted summary judg-
ment based on claim preclusion. That doctrine applies when
(1) the prior litigation involved the same parties, (2) the
claim arises out of the same factual transaction as the prior
litigation, (3) the case proceeded to a final judgment, and
(4) the claims in the second action could have been joined
in the first action. Rennie v. Freeway Transport, 294 Or 319,
323, 656 P2d 919 (1982). In determining whether a claim is
precluded by an earlier action, “our focus is on the transac-
tion at issue in the plaintiff’s claim, with claim preclusion
applying to all claims against the defendant that were avail-
able to the plaintiff arising from that transaction, whether
or not the plaintiff actually asserted them.” Eli v. Lampert
(A116201), 194 Or App 280, 285, 94 P3d 170 (2004), rev den,
338 Or 57 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted; empha-
ses added). Generally, “claim preclusion will bar a plaintiff
who litigates a federal claim in federal court from relitigat-
ing state claims that the plaintiff could have but did not
litigate in the federal action.” Ram Technical Services, Inc.
v. Koresko, 346 Or 215, 220, 208 P3d 950 (2009).
Here, plaintiff argues that claim preclusion does
not apply due to newly discovered evidence. See Hodges v.
Blazer Homes, Inc., 204 Or App 86, 94, 129 P3d 196 (2006)
(“[C]laim preclusion cannot apply if the party asserting a
second claim lacked actual or constructive knowledge of
its availability when the party asserted the first claim.”).
We disagree. Having reviewed the record, we agree with
the trial court that nothing presented as new evidence on
summary judgment prevented plaintiff from raising the
state claims in her federal action. Accordingly, we affirm
the grant of summary judgment based on claim preclusion
and the resulting judgment of dismissal. Given our disposi-
tion, we need not address the OHSU defendants’ arguments
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 336 Or App 125 (2024) 129
regarding the other asserted bases for summary judgment
that the trial court did not reach.
Affirmed.