Case ID: or-app_108/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted on record and briefs June 17,
    reversed and remanded August 21, 1991
    LEE HEILLER, Appellant, v. Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Respondent.
    
    (90-C-11842; CA A66914)
    814 P2d 1097
    Hari Nam S. Khalsa, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.
    Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Carol J. Fredrick, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this habeas corpus action, the trial court found that the harm alleged by plaintiff did not state a claim for relief and did not warrant a hearing. Plaintiff appeals the judgment dismissing the writ.

Defendant’s returns do not allege facts that would defeat plaintiffs allegations. They only controvert them. Defendant now concedes that plaintiffs allegations, if true, state a basis for relief, because he alleges severe pain for which defendant has refused treatment and a denial of diagnoses and treatment by a specialist that was recommended by defendant’s own doctors. We accept the concession. Because plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, the trial court improperly dismissed the writ. Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562, 566, 770 P2d 909 (1989); Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or App 37, 806 P2d 166 (1991).

Reversed and remanded.