Legal Opinion

Thoens v. Safeco Insurance

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 22, 2015No. 091116530; A150983PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILSON, S. J.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment in an action for personal injury protection (PIP) and underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits arising from a motor vehicle collision in which plaintiffs car was rear-ended. After the collision, plaintiff complained of injuries and received medical care. Defendant, plaintiffs insurer, paid PIP benefits for some of plaintiffs medical care after the collision, but it cut off those benefits after an independent medical examiner concluded that additional treatment that plaintiff received was not reasonable or necessary for injuries sustained in the collision.…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State v. RogersOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State v. O'KeyOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State v. MilbradtOregon Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Mall v. HortonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  2. State v. HenleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  3. Durette v. VirgilCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. State v. DyeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. Thoens v. Safeco Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2022

5 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