Case Name: Laurie VOLM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEGACY HEALTH SYSTEM, an Oregon non-profit Corporation; Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, an Oregon Corporation; Lusanne Wisecaver, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-22
Citations: 91 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 03-35087
Parties: Laurie VOLM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEGACY HEALTH SYSTEM, an Oregon non-profit Corporation; Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, an Oregon Corporation; Lusanne Wisecaver, Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, MCKEOWN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
Laurie VOLM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEGACY HEALTH SYSTEM, an Oregon non-profit Corporation; Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, an Oregon Corporation; Lusanne Wisecaver, Defendants—Appellants.
No. 03-35087.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 1, 2004.
Decided March 22, 2004.
Craig A. Crispin, Esq., Crispin & Associates, Shelley D. Russell, Esq., Crispin Employment Lawyers, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John F. McGrory, Jr., Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine, Robert D. Newell, Esq., Darleen Ortega, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: GOODWIN, MCKEOWN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Legacy Health System, Inc., Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, and Lusanne Wi secaver (collectively "Legacy") appeal from an adverse jury verdict and the district court's denial of the motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict that Wisecaver used improper means to interfere with Laurie Volm's economic relationships and caused Volm damages. The fact that the jury found in favor of two of the defendants does not alter our conclusion. Oregon Revised Statutes § 41.675 can not be read as broadly as Legacy advocates; as the district court held, the evidence at issue did not relate to information provided to any "peer review body." Or.Rev.Stat. § 41.675(1) (2001). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to use Legacy's proposed special verdict form. See Acosta v. City & County of San Francisco, 83 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir.1996). Legacy's challenges to the testimony of the damages expert either relate to the weight rather than the admissibility of the testimony or to testimony that was not prejudicial. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert's testimony.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publica tion and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except els provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.