Background
In January 2021, Gerardo Jesus Trujillo-Torres shot and killed one victim (J) while J was driving, causing a crash, and shot surviving victim A in the head. A sustained serious injuries from both the gunshot and the resulting crash. Trujillo-Torres pleaded guilty to second-degree murder with a firearm and attempted first-degree murder with a firearm in Marion County Circuit Court.
At a contested restitution hearing, the state sought $407,400.94 on behalf of A, representing the difference between the total amount her medical providers charged ($543,660.77) and the amount actually paid under their Medicaid contracts ($136,259.83). The providers had contractually written off the $407,400.94 balance pursuant to their Medicaid agreements, meaning A was never billed for and bore no personal liability for that amount. The state argued the full billed amount was recoverable under the collateral source rule as articulated in White v. Jubitz Corp., 347 Or 212 (2009).
The trial court agreed with the state, reasoning that the itemized medical records were sufficient to establish the charges as presumptively reasonable economic damages under ORS 137.106(1)(c), and entered a second amended judgment ordering Trujillo-Torres and his co-defendant jointly and severally liable for $407,400.94 in restitution to A. Defendant appealed, arguing the state never proved A actually incurred those charges.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals (Judge Egan, joined by Presiding Judge Aoyagi and Judge Pagán) reversed and remanded the restitution portion of the judgment. The court held that the state failed to meet its burden of proving A “incurred” economic damages of $407,400.94 because there was no evidence that A was contractually liable for or subject to those charges. The billing records identified A as the patient but did not indicate she was responsible for the disputed amount, and A’s own counsel conceded at the hearing that the records were “not bills.”
The court distinguished White v. Jubitz Corp., on which the state relied. In White, it was undisputed that the plaintiff had contractually agreed to pay his providers’ full charges before Medicare wrote off a portion; the collateral source rule then allowed him to recover the full billed amount from the tortfeasor. Here, by contrast, no evidence showed A ever agreed to be responsible for the $407,400.94, and defendant actively contested that point. Without first establishing that the victim was liable or subject to the charges, the collateral source rule has no application.
The court also rejected the state’s argument that ORS 137.106(1)(c)’s presumption of reasonableness did the necessary work. That statute addresses only the reasonableness of documented charges—it does not substitute for proof that the victim incurred those charges in the first place. Because the record could not support a finding that A was subject to the $407,400.94, the restitution award was error. The convictions themselves were affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- To recover written-off medical charges as restitution, the state must first prove the victim was contractually liable for or subject to those charges—mere documentation of billed amounts is insufficient.
- The collateral source rule under White v. Jubitz Corp. permits recovery of charges a third party later paid or forgave, but only after the victim’s underlying liability for the charges is established; it does not create liability where none existed.
- ORS 137.106(1)(c)’s presumption of reasonableness goes to the amount of economic damages, not to whether economic damages were incurred at all—the two inquiries are distinct.
- A billing record that providers themselves label “not a bill” and that does not indicate patient responsibility is insufficient to prove a victim “incurred” the listed charges for restitution purposes.
Why It Matters
This decision draws a clear boundary around the reach of Oregon’s criminal restitution statutes in cases involving Medicaid or other contractual write-offs. Prosecutors seeking restitution for the gap between a provider’s gross charges and Medicaid’s contracted rate must come to the hearing with evidence—a signed patient-responsibility agreement, a direct bill, or equivalent documentation—showing the victim was actually exposed to those costs. Relying solely on itemized provider records or the collateral source rule, without first anchoring the victim’s personal liability, will not suffice.
For defense practitioners, the decision reinforces that the state bears a two-step burden: prove the victim incurred the loss, then establish its reasonableness. Challenging the first step—liability or exposure—remains a viable and independent line of attack even when medical records are voluminous and facially detailed.