State v. Thompson, 908 P.2d 329 (Or. App. Ct. 1995)

Cases | State v. Thompson, 908 P.2d 329 (Or. App. Ct. 1995) | 2018

The defendant pleaded guilty to theft in the first degree, on the fact that she had accepted $7,785 in time-loss benefits from the SAIF Corporation while gaining income from other sources. At the restitution hearing, the defendant argued that she had been required by an administrative law judge (ALJ) at a workers’ compensation hearing to pay restitution to offset her benefits and that this hearing had settled the dispute; alternatively, she argued that because the restitution amount had been decided upon at the administrative hearing, the trial court lacked authority to adjust the amount of restitution. On appeal, the court of appeals held that the victim’s insurer had not agreed to settle the claim with the defendant and so the case was not “settled” by the worker’s compensation hearing. However, the court of appeals also held that because the amount of restitution had been previously adjudicated by the ALJ, “there could be no successful civil recovery by the victim.” Because issue preclusion would prevent any civil recovery, “the trial court was without authority to make the award.” The restitution order was vacated.