Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Blanchard ex rel. Blanchard v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 30, 1992No. 901207984; CA A71314Published

1Concurrence

DURHAM, J.,

specially concurring.

I agree with the majority that the parties’ disagreement about whether the treatment plan describes a service that must be covered pursuant to ORS 743.706(2) cannot be resolved by a summary judgment. However, the majority applies an interpretive gloss to the statute that changes its clear meaning and that will undermine its proper application on remand. I do not agree with that construction.

ORS 743.706 provides:

“(1) The Legislative Assembly declares that all group health insurance policies providing hospital, medical or surgical expense benefits include…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Teeny v. Haertl Constructors, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Allen v. Pacific Hospital Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API