Oregon Medical Board Withdraws Revocation Order on Appeal

Posted on March 1, 2023 by - Appellate, Licensure

Notice of Proposed Discipline and Request for Hearing

On September 13, 2019, the Oregon Medical Board issued a Notice of Proposed Discipline against a physician and, unfortunately, the physician missed the 21-day deadline to file her Request for Hearing.  The physician’s Request for Hearing was filed 11 days late.  The Oregon Medical Board found the physician to be in default and issued a Default Final Order refusing to grant the physician a hearing, and instead revoking the physician’s Oregon medical license (the physician was also licensed in Washington and California).

Request for Reconsideration by the Oregon Medical Board

On behalf of the physician, I petitioned the Oregon Medical Board to reconsider its revocation order, asking that the physician’s case instead be allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits of the case. The Oregon Medical Board allowed reconsideration, but did not change its opinion.  The Oregon Medical Board instead issued a Default Final Order on Reconsideration, affirming its earlier order revoking the physician’s medical license without a hearing.

Request for Judicial Review by the Oregon Court of Appeals

I next petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals for judicial review of the Oregon Medical Board’s Default Final Order on Reconsideration.  On December 21, 2021, I filed the physician’s opening brief in the Oregon Court of Appeals, raising the following questions:

                1.            Whether the physician’s 11-day delay in requesting a hearing should be excused due to the combination of circumstances confronting the physician, when those circumstances establish that her delay was reasonable;

                2.            Whether the Oregon Medical Board’s order revoking the physician’s medical license was legally insufficient when: (a) it was issued in the absence of a prima facie case; (b) it was not supported by substantial evidence; and (c) it was not explained by substantial reason;

                3.            Whether the Oregon Medical Board violated the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by revoking the physician’s medical license when: (a) the kinds of allegations against the physician did not result in revocation in other cases involving similar conduct in the preceding five years, and (b) the Oregon Medical Board failed to explain this inconsistency from its previous practice; and

                4.            Whether the Oregon Medical Board deprived the physician of due process when it revoked her medical license.

The Oregon Medical Board’s Response

Less than two months later, without ever filing a response brief, the Oregon Medical Board withdrew its order revoking the physician’s medical license for further consideration.  And two months after that, the Oregon Medical Board issued its second order on reconsideration, but this time the Oregon Medical Board ordered that the physician’s case proceed to a hearing on its merits.  The hearing is scheduled for summer of 2023, more than three years after the Oregon Medical Board issued its first order revoking the physician’s medical license, an order the Oregon Medical Board chose not to defend on appeal. 

Oregon Court of Appeals reverses trial court in my client’s favor – Attorney Fees

Posted on June 30, 2017 by - Appellate

This is a case I took up on appeal for another lawyer and won. I represented the plaintiff, the Marandas Family Trust. Plaintiff owns a cabin on Mount Hood. After plaintiff hired defendants to repair the roof of the cabin, plaintiff discovered that the defendants’ repairs were faulty, and the roof had leaked rainwater causing damage inside the cabin. Plaintiff sued. In court-annexed arbitration, plaintiff won almost all the money it sought for the damage to the cabin, plus costs and disbursements, but the arbitrator denied plaintiff’s attorney fees under ORS 20.080(1).  Plaintiff filed exceptions (objections) to the arbitrator’s decision in the circuit court, which the circuit court denied. I was hired to take the appeal. This was a fight over the right to recover statutory attorney fees, and the interpretation of the applicable state statute, ORS 20.080(1). Specifically, the issue was the interpretation of a new clause, added to the statute in 2009.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion

This appeal took four years to reach decision before the Court of Appeals published its detailed opinion, ruling in my client’s favor, and reversing the arbitrator and the Circuit Court below. See Marandas Family Trust v. Pauley, 286 Or App 381 (2017). This is a important win for my client, but it is also an important opinion for the general public and the courts statewide because it interprets and explains one of the 2009 revisions to ORS 20.080(1).

Remand to the Multnomah County Circuit Court

This appeal will now be remanded (returned) to the trial court for further proceedings, to award attorney fees to plaintiff, the Marandas Family Trust.

Oregon Court of Appeals reverses trial court in my clients’ favor – Wills and Estates

Posted on February 24, 2017 by - Appellate

Appeal and cross-appeal

This is a case I took up on appeal for another lawyer, and won a reversal – the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings in our favor and reversed the trial court’s rulings against us, a complete victory for our clients.

I represented the Knudsens, who had been sued by the Grimstads over an inheritance. Three key legal claims were at issue. The trial court awarded the Grimstads part of the Knudsens’ inheritance under claims of (a) unjust enrichment and (b) money had and received, but denied the Grimstads’ claim of (c) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

Both parties appealed, resulting in an appeal and cross-appeal. On June 9, 2015, after extensive legal briefing, the appeal and cross-appeal was argued to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion

One and one-half years after oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued a complex 29-page opinion, ruling in my clients favor and against the Grimstads on all claims. See Grimstad v. Knudsen, 283 Or App 28 (December 21, 2016). At the end of its opinion, the Court of Appeals favorably concluded as follows:

“In sum, we conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that the [Grimstads] proved a claim for unjust enrichment, because [the Grimstads] failed to show that they had any legal or equitable interest in the proceeds of the sale of the [real estate]. For that same reason, the trial court erred in concluding that [the Grimstads] proved their claim of money had and received. The trial court therefore erred in granting plaintiffs relief on those claims. On cross-appeal, [the Grimstads] failed to put forward evidence to create any genuine issue of material fact with respect to the improper means or purpose element of their intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim. The trial court therefore did not err in granting [the Knudsens’] motion for summary judgment [on that claim].”

See Grimstad v. Knudsen, 283 Or App 28, 58 (December 21, 2016) (reversing and remanding on appeal; affirming on cross-appeal).

Remand to the Washington County Circuit Court

This appeal and cross-appeal will now be remanded (returned) to the trial court for entry of a new judgment fully in my clients’ favor. As an aside, I predict this case and its opinion will become the new “name case” or “lead opinion” for claims of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Time will tell.

 

Physician wins! Oregon Court of Appeals reverses Medical Board in my client’s favor

Posted on August 5, 2016 by - Appellate, Licensure

This is a case I took up on appeal for another lawyer, and won. In this case, the Oregon Medical Board revoked a physician’s medical license by missapplication of complex procedural rules. In a unanimous decision, however, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the Oregon Medical Board in my client’s favor. See Yankee v. Oregon Medical Board, 280 Or App 1 (August 3, 2016) (remanding for further proceedings).

Appeals against the Oregon Medical Board are difficult to win

On appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, I argued that the Oregon Medical Board erred when it denied my client’s motion to reschedule his hearing, and revoked his medical license, without first holding a hearing on his motion before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), as required by administrative rule. The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed, and reversed the Oregon Medical Board, remanding the case for further proceedings.

This appeal was won on procedural grounds and, as experienced appellate lawyers know, this type of appeal can be difficult to win. I argued this case to the Oregon Court of Appeals in February of 2015, but the court did not decide the case until August of 2016, 18 months later, suggesting that the Court of Appeals needed significant time to decide this troubling case.

The Court of Appeals’ ruling: The Oregon Medical Board must follow prescribed procedure

The holding in this case is simple: The Oregon Medical Board must follow “prescribed procedure” when seeking to revoke a physician’s license:

“Having concluded that the [Oregon Medical] board procedurally erred when it did not provide [Dr. Yankee] with a hearing before the ALJ, we must remand this matter for further proceedings if “the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired” by that “failure to follow prescribed procedure.” ORS 183.482(7). Here, the fairness of the proceedings may have been impaired. [Dr. Yankee] was entitled to have a hearing before a neutral ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] on the reasons for his not appearing once the [Oregon Medical] board disputed the facts articulated by [Dr. Yankee]. Instead, the [Oregon Medical] board resolved those disputed factual issues in its own favor. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

See Yankee v. Oregon Medical Board, 280 Or App 1, 6 (August 3, 2016) (underscore added).

Ten year anniversary of U.S. Supreme Court opinion against DEA in favor of physicians and pharmacists

Posted on July 3, 2016 by - Appellate, DEA Prosecutions

This year marks ten years since the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon (406 KB), decided January 17, 2006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion (263 KB), which had earlier affirmed the federal District Court’s opinion (1.78 MB) enjoining former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft from prosecuting Oregon physicians and pharmacists.

Against the DEA, healthcare defense attorney seeks injunction

Normally, as a healthcare defense attorney, someone else, for example, a licensing Board or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), initiates the litigation. In this case, however, in order to protect physicians and pharmacists throughout the State of Oregon, it was necessary that I become the plaintiffs’ attorney. I sued former Attorney General John Ashcroft and the DEA in federal District Court on behalf of a physician and a pharmacist who were threatened with federal criminal investigations, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment. See Complaint (1.24 MB).

Important victory for physicians and pharmacists everywhere

The opinion by the United States Supreme Court is an important victory for physicians, pharmacists, and patients everywhere, because it establishes the precedent that the United States Attorney General may not define the scope of legitimate medical practice, and that the States, not the federal government, regulate the practice of medicine. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority of the Court, concluded his 28 page opinion writing:

“The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it. Gonzales v. Oregon (406 KB)(Kennedy, J.)”

This victory stands today – the injunction against the DEA is still in effect! This case is discussed in more detail on the appellate practice page of this website.

How to decide whether to file a notice of appeal

Posted on June 12, 2016 by - Appellate

My practice includes appellate litigation in state and federal courts. Most often, I am recruited to join the litigation team soon after a ruling or finding has gone awry. As such, I am the new lawyer on the team, at the start of the appeal, the occasional second half of litigation. There are always many questions, but the key questions concern the likelihood of success on appeal and whether to file the notice appeal in the first place.

Evaluating the merits of an appeal in an “easy” case

In an “easy” case, I can evaluate a single issue appeal in two to three hours, and then share my opinion with the trial lawyer and client. A decision can then be made to file the notice of appeal, or not. It is nice when it happens this way, but it only happens this way in a small percentage of the cases for the simple reason that most legal issues are not simple and most cases (or “records”) are much more complicated than a single legal issue.

Evaluating the merits of an appeal in an “hard” case

In a “hard” case, it can take ten to 20 hours before I will have an initial opinion to share with the trial lawyer and client.  Time permitting, this work can be completed to inform the decision to file the notice of appeal. It is nice when it happens this way, but it only happens this with advance planning.

Evaluating the merits of an appeal in a hard case, with a large record, multiple issues, and much at stake

In the hard cases, where there is much at stake, and the merit of the potential appeal is uncertain, sometimes all you can do before the deadline to appeal is to determine that the appeal is colorable, in good faith, and has sufficient merit to move forward. Then, after the notice of appeal has been filed to protect the deadline – and this next point is key – the decision to appeal can and should be revisited at each new phase of the work, until such time the decision to appeal is plainly justified, or not. In those cases where the decision to appeal turns out not to be justified, the appeal may be dismissed.

Moving forward one step at a time in a hard case with no answers for a good result

The best example I have of such a hard case, with far more questions than answers at the start of the appeal, is the case of O’Donnell-Lamont & Lamont (260 KB). In this appeal, I eventually won a unanimous 7-0 decision by the Oregon Supreme Court, in which the Oregon Supreme Court applied a recent holding from the United States Supreme Court and reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals in favor of my clients. At the start of this appeal, however, I did not know what I could accomplish and nothing was certain other than my client could not accept the loss in hand. By the end, however, this appeal was a big victory, restoring custody of two small children to my clients, the maternal grandparents. This unanimous 7-0 decision by the Oregon Supreme Court was also an important victory for children throughout Oregon because it established the legal precedent to be applied in third-party child custody disputes, affording more protection for the best interests of children.

There were also several key accomplishments along the way. Until this appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals had never granted reconsideration en banc, meaning by the full Court of Appeals, with all ten judges participating. Later, after the Court of Appeals denied my clients any relief in a split 5-5 decision, the Oregon Supreme Court accepted this appeal as the vehicle to resolve a number of similar third-party custody issues in Oregon. The other similar pending cases involving the same subject matter were placed into abeyance (on hold) pending the outcome of this appeal. So, in the end, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in my case, and the other cases too. All this from an appeal where, in the beginning, the merit of the appeal was uncertain and legal precedent was against us.

Another reason to retain an appeals attorney early in the process

Posted on April 3, 2016 by - Appellate

Orders versus judgments? When and what to appeal?

As an appeals lawyer, I am occasionally contacted by a trial lawyer on or near the last day to file a notice of appeal, anxious because he or she is uncertain whether a particular order is appealable. In these cases, the order is in hand, the time to file the notice of appeal is about up, and a judgment has not been entered yet. The trial lawyer’s question is usually something like this: Do I file a notice of appeal from the order, or do I wait for a judgment to be entered? What to do?  Time is short, any research would be rushed, and this is no time for uncertainty. If you wait for a judgment to be entered, the time to appeal the order will have passed, and if it turns out the order was the thing to appeal, you will have lost your chance to do so.

When and what to appeal? – the source of the problem

Notices of appeal are often due within 30 days after entry of a judgment or appealable order. Appellate lawyers know, however, that depending upon the circumstances of each case, there are shorter and longer periods of time to file a notice of appeal, so each appeal deadline must be independently evaluated and verified. Further complicating matters is the fact that sometimes there will be no judgment and, in these cases, the appeal will instead be taken from an order. This may occur, for example, when an order affects a substantial right and effectively determines an action so as to prevent entry of a judgment. This is just one example. There are many more, too numerous to list here. There are also important differences between state and federal appellate practice, and appeals from agency actions (administrative law). The important thing to know, however, is that much time, money, and grief can often be saved by taking early action to set the stage for your appeal, just another reason to retain an appellate attorney as soon as you suspect you might need an appeal.

As an appeals lawyer, here is one way I avoid the problem

Time permitting, in close-call cases, when it is uncertain whether the appeal will be from an order or a judgment, I will recommend that the trial lawyer pursue entry of a judgment within the appeal period of the order. Then, with both an order and judgment in hand, I can file a notice of appeal from both documents. This approach ensures that both the order and judgment are appealed, eliminating the need to file a “precautionary notice of appeal” from the order because time is about to run on an appeal from the order. This approach only works, however, when there is time to pursue a judgment within the appeal period for the order. This approach will not work when time is up to appeal from the order, yet another reason to retain an appeals lawyer as soon as you suspect you might need an appeal.

When to bring in an appeals attorney

Posted on December 26, 2015 by - Appellate

A recent win on appeal

I recently won a quick and good result on appeal. This case in particular illustrates the importance of making your record for appeal, a fact appellate lawyers know to their core. This recent victory also illustrates the importance of bringing in an appellate lawyer sooner, rather than later, to prepare for the appeal. An appellate lawyer can ensure that an legal error (or legal issue) is properly preserved for appeal. An appellate lawyer will also be familiar with the various standards of review applicable on appeal.

What was unusual about this recent case, is that the trial lawyer accurately predicted she could win three important but difficult rulings, and she associated me early on to help her make the best possible record in anticipation of the other side’s threatened appeal. Working together, we ensured that the proper law was applied for each legal issue, and we further furnished the trial court with concise and forceful, legal and factual arguments, on each legal issue, enabling the trial court to rule in our favor on all three difficult issues.

As expected, the other side appealed. Our response on appeal was (a) that the trial court applied the correct law when deciding each of the three legal issues raised on appeal, (b) the trial court record was inadequate to reach the other side’s first two legal issues, and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the third legal issue. In sum, we successfully defended all three key rulings in our client’s favor because we prepared for the appeal while we were still in the trial court. The appeal was won in great part because of what we did in the trial court. This is but one example of what an appellate lawyer can contribute while a case is still before the trial court.

Another case soon going up on appeal

I was recently retained in another new case, where the other side is attempting to set aside the parties’ judgment. The trial lawyer in this new case recommended to his client that I be added to the legal team, for at least three reasons. First, he wants to win, and he volunteered that appellate lawyers are more familiar with the legal standards applicable to set-aside motions. Second, he wants to make the best record possible, in anticipation of an appeal, because the other side is already threatening to appeal if they lose their motion to set aside the judgment. And third, if there is an appeal, he wants to defend it as the respondent on appeal, not file it as the appellant on appeal. As I write this, I know very little about this new case, but I well know my role as appellate attorney – here we go again – let’s win, and if not, let’s ensure we make the best record possible for appeal.

Associating an appeals attorney before there is an appeal

My point, of course, is that appellate lawyers can do more for you if we are involved sooner than you might think. Here are a few thoughts for your consideration:

Before and during trial

Occasionally, appellate attorneys will be working in the background during trial preparation and trial, as illustrated by the two cases discussed above. Appellate attorneys are also involved in larger cases, those with ample budgets, and the need for several attorneys just to get the case to trial. If there are several attorneys preparing your case for trial, it makes sense that one of them should have appellate experience, to round-out the team.

After trial, but before judgment

More often, appellate lawyers are brought in soon after a loss in the trial court, to help prepare the judgment, in anticipation of an appeal. I often characterize the preparation of the judgment as the interface between the trial and the appeal. By this point, the outcome of the trial is known, and remaining task is to reduce various trial court rulings and findings to a written judgment. There is much work to be done, and many considerations in anticipation of the appeal. The terms of the proposed judgment are extremely important, and any disagreements will be resolved by the trial court, creating one more opportunity to improve the record for appeal. If execution on the judgment (i.e., collection efforts) is a further concern, the timing of the entry of the judgment, and preparation and filing of the bonding to stay (prevent) execution on the judgment, is also important, if not urgent. An award of attorney fees may also be an issue and, if so, this presents another consideration for appeal. After trial, but before judgment, there is plenty to do, and this type of work is often done by, or with the assistance of, appellate lawyers.

After judgment

Most often perhaps, appellate lawyers are brought in after entry of judgment, to prepare the notice of appeal, before time runs out to do so. At this point, an appellate lawyer can handle the bonding necessary to stay execution of the judgment, and also take the case up on appeal, but the opportunity to improve the record and the judgment for appeal, will have passed.

How to evaluate when to involve an appeals attorney

Most cases will not go up on appeal, and experienced trial lawyers will quickly recognize these cases. Other cases, predictable in nature, and handled by experienced trial lawyers, may not justify or require an appellate lawyer. However, in those cases where an appeal is threatened, likely, or certain, the question is not whether to bring in an appellate lawyer, but when. Each case is different. Consult an appellate lawyer whenever an appeal is foreseeable, or likely. Most appellate lawyers will have this initial discussion with you at no cost, so make the call, to determine what will work best in your case.

Dr. Lawrence Wean, of Media, Pennsylvania, sentenced to prison

Posted on December 10, 2015 by - Appellate, DEA Prosecutions

Yesterday it was reported that 61 year-old doctor Lawrence Wean, of Media, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, was sentenced to prison for 10 to 20 years, and that he had earlier rejected a plea agreement that would have required less prison time. Experienced lawyers will know that rejecting a plea agreement and proceeding to trial is something of a gamble, and if you lose that gamble, you can expect to serve more time than what might otherwise been ordered after a plea, so a longer sentence for doctor Lawrence Wean comes as no surprise.

I have no personal knowledge of Dr. Lawrence Wean, or of his case, having only read about Dr. Wean’s case in the media. As I understand it from news reports, Dr. Wean sold prescription drugs to undercover officers, was convicted in October of writing unlawful prescriptions and filing false insurance claims, has been ordered to pay over $40,000 in fines and $62,000 in restitution, and was just sentenced to 10 to 20 years.

Too much exposure for physicians?

One of the things I have learned as an appellate lawyer defending physicians on appeal is that the additional time imposed at sentencing, after losing at trial, is disproportionately more time than anyone expected when measured against earlier plea offers or negotiations. In other words, the gamble for physicians facing drug diversion charges for prescription drug crimes, may be a larger gamble than the typical defendant might face when rejecting a plea agreement. Physicians, family members, and lawyers defending physicians for the first time, are genuinely surprised, something I have witnessed first hand.

Is there a better approach for some physicians?

One of the opportunities I would like to explore when the right case presents itself, is the idea of negotiating a very early and favorable plea agreement, followed by an quick sentencing and an early self-report to serve time, before the typical two-or-more years have passed, and extensive financial resources have been depleted, which is common when taking drug diversion charges to trial. Some might recall that this type of efficient resolution was Martha Stewart’s solution to her legal woes a few years back. She quickly negotiated a plea agreement, was sentenced, surrendered, served her time, and then got on with her life.

A unique physician will be necessary

This approach will require the right type of individual, and I have no way of knowing whether doctor Lawrence Wean was such an individual. Most physicians, it seems, are willing to postpone the start of trial as often as will be permitted, and they appear further willing to spend all that they have to avoid serving time. These tendencies appear to be true even after conviction, if the case is on appeal (although “bond” is seldom allowed on appeal, I have helped physicians remain free pending appeal). Nonetheless, for the right physician, I find the idea of a quick resolution and sentence intriguing. In the right case, a physician could enter a plea and serve his or her time in three years, at little financial cost, relatively speaking. In sharp contrast, however, at the end of three years, all many physicians will have to show for their efforts is one of more convictions and financial ruin, with a sentencing hearing, a prison term, and an uncertain appeal, on the horizon.

When in doubt, protect your right to appeal

Posted on December 9, 2015 by - Appellate

Sometimes the decision to appeal a verdict or judgment is an easy decision. In anticipation of an appeal, trial lawyers will often make a “record” in the trial court proceeding. Other times, when the legal issues are novel or complicated, both the parties and the trial court understand that the losing party will likely appeal the loss. In these cases, the decision to file an appeal – or correctly stated, the decision to file a “Notice of Appeal” – is a relatively easy decision. Other times, however, the decision to appeal is more complicated, and the time remaining to make such a decision can run quickly.

When time is short – file the Notice of Appeal to protect the right to appeal

As an appellate lawyer, I am occasionally contacted days before the appeal period will run. In these cases, there is not enough time to evaluate the merits of the appeal. In order to protect your right to appeal, it is sometimes necessary to file the Notice of Appeal and then sort out the legal issues in soon afterward. If the decision to file a Notice of Appeal turns out to have been the wrong decision, the appeal may then be dismissed. In these cases, where the legal issues are sorted out after the Notice of Appeal has been filed, it is necessary to act quickly, to ensure you have a basis to appeal.

When “appealability” is uncertain – file the Notice of Appeal to protect the right to appeal

As an appellate lawyer, I am occasionally contacted because it is unknown whether a particular document or ruling may be appealed. In close-call cases, when time is short, it is often necessary to file what I sometimes refer to as a “precautionary Notice of Appeal,” to protect the potential right to appeal. Immediately thereafter, it is necessary to resolve any legal issues regarding whether the document or ruling is appealable, as these same issues will no doubt be spotted and raised by staff lawyers at the Court of Appeals, or by the opposing appellate lawyer. In those cases where the doubt cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the next step may be to file a motion to determine jurisdiction, to obtain the court’s determination as to whether the particular document or ruling may be appealed.

When the merits of an appeal are unknown – file the Notice of Appeal to protect the right to appeal

As an appellate lawyer, I am occasionally asked to provide an independent assessment as to the likelihood of success on appeal, before the period to file a Notice of Appeal expires. This is doable in some cases, where the issues (claims of error on appeal) are known in advance. In other cases, if the trial court record is large and the basis for the appeal uncertain, it will again be necessary to file a Notice of Appeal to protect the right to appeal. The independent assessment will follow soon after, after transcripts, exhibits, etc., are gathered and reviewed. In one such case, I had to advise a family that had lost at the Oregon Court of Appeals that I had no idea what I could do to help them, other than file the Notice of Appeal, gather the record, and start work – if we had a basis for the appeal, we would go forward; if not, we would dismiss the appeal. Indeed, we had a basis to appeal. Sometime later, in a unanimous 7-0 opinion, we won a reversal from the Oregon Supreme Court. The point is that occasionally it is necessary to file a Notice of Appeal, to protect the right to appeal, and then sort the issues immediately thereafter.