Legal Opinion

Duncan v. Augter

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1979No. TC 76-218-L-3, SC 25390PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLinde, J.

By virtue of a 1971 statute, an otherwise untimely damage action arising from medical treatment may be commenced within two years of the actual or reasonable discovery of a "fraud, deceit, or misleading representation” that caused the action not to be timely brought. ORS 12.110(4). The issue before us is whether a surgeon’s statement that he removed plaintiff’s appendix was a "misleading representation” permitting a delayed commencement of an action against the surgeon, if the statement led plaintiff’s physicians not to suspect the cause of her subsequent abdominal illness.

The defendant…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. Gaston v. ParsonsOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Securities-Intermountain, Inc. v. Sunset Fuel Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Hoffner v. JohnsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Tomlinson v. GeorgeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Duncan v. AugterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API