The 9th Circuit has been asked to ignore the statue of limitations set by the District of Oregon’s Bankruptcy Court because an alleged victim of priest abuse wants to revive his case lodged against the Portland archdiocese and archbishop, as reported by the Courthouse News Service.
The first Roman Catholic diocese in the U.S. to file for bankruptcy was the Archdiocese of Portland in 2004. The diocese allegedly filed for bankruptcy protection due the costs it has faced from several sexual abuse claims.
The plaintiff, referred to as John Doe in the suit, has accused Rev. M.G of sexual abuse while he presided at St. Charles Church of Portland, Ore., and the victim was a parishioner.
The abuse allegedly occurred in the 1950s.
The archdiocese made a formal apology when it settled a lawsuit with 25 alleged victims of M.G. in 2000.
John Doe contends that he was not a part of the 25 because though he suffered with depression his “epiphany” didn’t occur until late 2007 or early 2008, and that is when he came to terms with M.G.’s abuse.
Doe, at age 63, filed his suit in June 2008. By that time the a “claims bar date” had been set three years prior by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon – in 2005.
These are the only exceptions that do not apply to the 2005 cut-off date: Claimants who are minors; who had repressed their abuse memories; or who knew they were sexually abused as children, but have “not discovered the (resulting) injury or the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse, nor in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the injury or the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse.”
Doe’s claim falls under the last category but the Diocese still holds firm that he should have known of the “connection between the injury and the child abuse” prior to January 2005.
The church contended that Doe was aware of other instances of abuse allegations made against M.G. prior to his epiphany: Doe had read about the lawsuits in the late 1990s, had received a notice in the mail of the bankruptcy imposing a cutoff date for lawsuits, and his own brother had filed an abuse lawsuit in 2001.
U.S. District Judge Paula Papak, in agreeing with the diocese’s argument, said, “a reasonable person” would have looked into the time bar before pursuing a lawsuit.
Attorney Kristian S. Roggendorf has appealed Judge Papak’s decision. She is asking a three-judge panel to reinstate the case, arguing that whether or not an alleged victim “should have” discovered an injury is a “quintessential jury question.”
According to Roggendorf, Doe’s therapist had found that “the very abuse (Doe) suffered prevented the discovery of his claim.”
Judge Ralph Beistline asked Roggendorf why her client failed to file a claim after his brother had. Roggendorf replied that Doe felt neither “harmed” nor desiring of filing a “fraudulent claim.” She then added, “Maybe that's not good enough. But even if it's not, that is a question for the jury.”
Being sexually abused by a member of the clergy is grounds for a sexual abuse lawsuit. Contact a personal injury lawyer to best help you gain some relief.