Recognizing that the courts have a vital and sometimes harmful role in Wisconsin’s litigation climate, the Wisconsin Civil Justice Council (WCJC) established its Appellate Program. WCJC monitors and reports on Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions. As needed, WCJC will determine it is appropriate to file non-party briefs with the Wisconsin appellate courts. These briefs are prepared by outside counsel under our supervision.
WCJC has filed briefs in the following cases:
Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority – The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Wisconsin law did not permit a health care provider to charge any fee to a patient’s attorneys for providing an electronic copy of her health care records. WCJC’s brief argued the Legislature created no such limitation, yet the court of appeals and supreme court held that health care providers must produce electronic records for free, shifting costs to other consumers. WCJC argued that this is a question for the Legislature, not the judiciary, and that the statute’s silence on fees for electronic records did not constitute a prohibition.
___
Yandoli v. REV Group, Inc. – WCJC has filed a brief in Yandoli v. REV Group, Inc. arguing the Waukesha County Circuit Court erred by denying the defendants’ motion to stay the court proceeding in a securities class action lawsuit when an identical class action case was filed first in federal court. The brief argues that the circuit court’s decision not to stay the state level proceedings will harm Wisconsin businesses by allowing for meritless duplicative securities litigation and would contravene the purpose of the Commercial Court Pilot Project to increase efficiency and predictability in business litigation in Wisconsin.
___
Ascaris Mayo, et. al. v. Wis. Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund, et. al. – In June 2018, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision upheld Wisconsin’s $750,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. Importantly, the Court reversed its 2005 decision, Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, which held unconstitutional Wisconsin’s previous limit on noneconomic damages.
WCJC had filed an amicus brief on Aug. 10, 2017, asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to grant the appeal petition to clarify the applications of rational basis review of statutes and as-applied challenges to statutes’ constitutionality.
___
Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc. – On April 22, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that $1 million in punitive damages against a title insurance company was excessive and therefore a violation of due process under the Constitution.
WCJC, Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, and WMC filed an amicus brief arguing that the $1 million award of punitive damages was unconstitutional. In addition, the parties pointed to recent legislation adopted by the Legislature (2011 Wisconsin Act 2) — which capped punitive damages at two times compensatory damages or $200,000 — as evidence that the $1 million in punitive damages was not in line with the $29,738 awarded in compensatory damages in this case.
___
MercyCare Ins. Co. et al. v. Wis. Commissioner of Ins. – In this case, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance claimed the “general rule” in Wisconsin is that courts should accord great weight deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute. Given agencies are administering an ever-growing and intrusive book of laws, such deference would be highly detrimental to the regulated community.
In our brief, WCJC asked that the Wisconsin Supreme Court reject this assertion and otherwise clarify the level of deference to be accorded to an agency’s interpretation of a statute.
In its July 16, 2010, decision, the Court rejected the broad application of great weight deference and clarified all three levels of deference, generally consistent with WCJC’s position.
___
Casper, et al. v. American Int. South Ins. Co., et al. – This case involved three issues – judicial discretion for refusing to enter default judgment, interpretation of the direct action statute, and corporate officer liability.
While briefing all three issues, WCJC was most interested in reversing the Court of Appeals decision pertaining to officer liability.
In its July 19, 2011, decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and found the corporate officer’s actions “too remote to provide a basis for personal liability.”
___
Rasmussen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al. – The issue before the Wisconsin Supreme Court was whether Wisconsin’s personal jurisdiction statute, Wis. Stat. § 801.05, allows for general or specific jurisdiction over a foreign parent corporation based on an agency theory.
WCJC’s brief argued that the court maintain the distinction between parent and subsidiary corporations, which limits personal jurisdiction.
In its July 1, 2011, decision, consistent with our brief, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that the statutory requirements for general personal jurisdiction were not met.