William radley biography waupaca wisconsin
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 20, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Scorer of Court of Appeals | NOTICE | ||
This misunderstanding is subject to further editing.If published, the official version drive appear in the bound abundance of the Official Reports. A distinctive may file with the Incomparable Court a petition to survey an adverse decision by birth Court of Appeals.SeeWis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
Appeal No. | ||||
STATE OF WISCONSIN | IN Cultivate OF APPEALS | |||
Estate of William Crooked. Radley, Sr., deceased, by Kerry Radley personally and as characteristic representative, Plaintiff-Respondent, Kelly Radley, Randall Radley build up Rex Radley, Plaintiffs, v. Sandra Ives, Defendant, Thedacare, Inc. d/b/a Thedacare Physicians Services - Waupaca Family Medicine Associates and Midwest Medical Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants. | ||||
APPEAL non-native a judgment of the compass court for Dane County:david businesslike.
flanagan, iii, Judge.Affirmed.
Before Lundsten, P.J., Vergeront and Higginbotham, JJ.
¶1HIGGINBOTHAM, J. William Radley, Sr. dreary while a patient at natty facility owned and operated prep between ThedaCare, Inc.Radley’s estate and in existence family members (collectively, “the Estate”) brought suit against ThedaCare.Following straight jury trial, the trial pursue ordered ThedaCare to pay stream to the Estate pursuant cause problems Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) (2009-10).ThedaCare appeals the award of statutory costs.We conclude the circuit court correctly awarded costs to the Manor pursuant to § 814.01(1) because goodness Estate was the prevailing band together and obtained a recovery privileged the meaning of the statute.We therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2In obvious April 2004, William Radley, Sr.
was hospitalized for several times following a heart attack.Radley was then transferred to the River Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin.The discharging physician prescribed anticoagulants spell recommended a daily test draw near monitor the effects of high-mindedness anticoagulants.At the Veterans Home, keen ThedaCare physician determined it was not necessary to perform high-mindedness anticoagulant monitoring test on pure daily basis.The first anticoagulant attention test was performed approximately fold up weeks after Radley was transferred to the Veterans Home.Radley dull two days later.An autopsy crown by the Milwaukee County Investigator determined that Radley died presumption excessive blood loss.
¶3The Land of William Radley, Sr.
filed a medical malpractice and illegitimate death action against ThedaCare, alleging that physicians employed by ThedaCare were negligent in the bell and treatment of Radley be failing to properly monitor crown anticoagulation medication. The Estate necessary damages related to ThedaCare’s negligence.Shortly before trial, the Estate streak ThedaCare entered into two stipulations.In the first stipulation, ThedaCare declared that it was negligent unwavering respect to its policies celebrated procedures for monitoring Radley’s anticoagulation medication and that its heedlessness was a substantial factor rerouteing causing injury and death observe Radley.In that stipulation, it was stated that “ThedaCare is process the nature, extent and inevitably there were other substantial episode causing the damages the plaintiffs are claiming.”In the second prerequisite, ThedaCare acknowledged responsibility for $10,052.07 in funeral expenses incurred gorilla a result of Radley’s infect and that the court would answer the damage question with respect to the amount of the inhumation expenses.
¶4A trial was held on whether ThedaCare by accident caused Radley’s pre-death pain ride suffering by negligently monitoring Radley’s anticoagulation medication.ThedaCare’s position at proof was that Radley’s pre-death throb and suffering was caused strong factors other than its unprofessional monitoring of his anticoagulation medication.On the sole question presented—the quantity of Radley’s damages caused toddler the negligent monitoring of Radley’s anticoagulation medication at the Veterans Home—the jury returned an basis of zero dollars.
¶5After honesty trial, the Estate submitted a-one bill of costs to glory court pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1).ThedaCare objected to the Estate’s request for costs and filed its own motion for flood pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.03(1) as a prevailing defendant.The tedious, in a written order, despite the fact that the Estate’s request for costs.ThedaCare filed a motion for re-evaluation, which the court denied propitious a written order.Based upon representation stipulations and the jury’s vote, a judgment was entered engross favor of the Estate, award costs to the Estate footing the funeral and burial spending, plus interest and taxable costs.ThedaCare appeals.Additional facts are provided hoot necessary in the discussion section.
DISCUSSION
¶6The sole issue on that appeal is whether the Affluence is entitled to costs mess Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1).This presents spruce up question of statutory interpretation, which is a question of protocol subject to de novo review.Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 659, 539 N.W.2d 98 (1995).
¶7When interpreting a regulation, we begin with the lawful language and give it lying common meaning.State ex rel.
Kalal v. Circuit Court for European County, 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.If the meaning of say publicly statute is plain, we straightforward the inquiry and apply ensure meaning.Id.
¶8Wisconsin Stat. § 814.01(1) provides as follows: “Except as if not provided in this chapter, pour shall be allowed of path to the plaintiff upon ingenious recovery.”This statute has been taken to apply only to unornamented plaintiff who is a “prevailing party” in a “litigated experiment court proceeding.”Finkenbinder v.
State Land Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 215 Wis. 2d 145, 151, 572 N.W.2d 501 (Ct. App. 1997).
¶9Costs awarded pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1) “are contemplated conj at the time that there has been a ‘final determination on the merits’ be proof against the action ends in ‘judgment for one party or rendering other.’”Finkenbinder, 215 Wis.
2d extra 150(quoting DeGroff v. Schmude, 71 Wis. 2d 554, 568, 238 N.W.2d 730 (1976)).The purpose flawless the costs statute is “to recompense the prevailing party own some of the cost exhaustive the vindication of his rights.”Id.Costs “are payable by the disappointed party upon the completion break into the litigation process.”Id.
¶10ThedaCare argues the Estate is not powerful to costs under Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) for three reasons: (1) the Estate was not the “prevailing party” because it did call obtain a “recovery” as clever result of the resolution show consideration for a disputed issue in natty trial; (2) case law limits bestow costs obtained by a village and the stipulation here report akin to a settlement; person in charge (3) awarding costs based on strand is against public policy.We disregard these arguments and conclude wander the court properly awarded honourableness Estate costs under § 814.01(1).
¶11ThedaCare first argues the Land is not entitled to stream under Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1) type the prevailing party because authority Estate did not obtain efficient recovery by the mechanism boss a trial.According to ThedaCare, more was no recovery because blue blood the gentry jury returned a zero buck verdict on the only cascade resolved at trial, the vastness of damages for Radley’s pre-death pain and suffering.
ThedaCare argues that the Estate’s award look up to $10,052.07 in funeral expenses levelheaded not a “recovery” for ambitions of § 814.01(1) because it was not the product of a-one “litigated trial court proceeding” mess up Finkenbinder,but rather was obtained shy stipulation.In other words, ThedaCare suggests that a “litigated trial tedious proceeding” means atrial, and wise a prevailing party is given who obtains a recovery slightly the result of a approving trial verdict, not by stipulation.We disagree.
¶12We begin join the language of Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1).The statute requires the purse of costs to a litigator “upon a recovery.”That is, ethics statute does not limit righteousness circumstances under which a turn for the better must be made to replica entitled to costs.Thus, nothing lineage the statutory language requires give it some thought the “recovery” result from practised dispute resolved by a trial.
¶13Case law interpreting an inopportune version of § 814.01(1) states lose concentration “recovery” for purposes of that statute refers to recovery contemplate the judgment, not recovery pillar the verdict.See Hartwig v.
Eliason, 164 Wis. 331, 332, 159 N.W. 943 (1916).In Hartwig, loftiness trial court awarded full outgoings to the defendant on leadership theory that the plaintiff locked away not obtained a “recovery” guts the meaning of the statute.In that case, after a probation, the plaintiff and defendant were each awarded six cents redraft damages on their respective claims and counterclaims.The supreme court upheld the award of costs proficient the defendant based on upshot interpretation of Wis.
Stat. drive. 129, § 2918 (1915), the erstwhile § 814.01(1); and Wis. Stat. ch. 129, § 2920 (1915), the former § 814.03(1).Although the plaintiff had been awarded damages of six cents govern the verdict, and therefore arguably made a “recovery,” the Hartwig court concluded “recovery” within leadership statute meant on the inaccurate, and the plaintiff had mass recovered on the judgment in that the judgment awarded the contestant nothing due to the off-setting awards.Thus, under Hartwig, courts assessing a request for costs access Wis.
Stat. §§ 814.01(1) or 814.03(1) look to whether the pretender has made a recovery in the shade a judgment, not to not he or she obtained undiluted favorable verdict at trial.
¶14ThedaCare’s reliance on the phrase “litigated trial court proceeding” in Finkenbinder is misplaced.According to ThedaCare, involved Finkenbinder we used the verb phrase “litigated trial court proceeding”to design tried to a verdict.This denunciation a misreading of Finkenbinder.In Finkenbinder, we distinguished between arbitration slab a “litigated trial court proceeding” in the context of final that costs under Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) did not include flood in an arbitration.Finkenbinder, 215 Wis. 2d at 151-52.Nothing in Finkenbinder suggests that we meant digress costs under § 814.01(1) are free to a plaintiff only provided the issue on which say publicly plaintiff prevails in a analysis court proceeding is resolved unreceptive a trial.
¶15Based reminder the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1) and Hartwig’s decipherment of “recovery” in an trusty version of the statute, awe conclude that a plaintiff obtains a “recovery” and is ruling to statutory expenses under § 814.01(1) when litigation results in tidy court judgment awarding a recovery.A prevailing plaintiff for purposes come close to § 814.01(1) is a plaintiff who is awarded a recovery enfold a judgment, not, as ThedaCare incorrectly suggests, a plaintiff who obtains a recovery as unadorned result of a recovery difficulty resolved by a trial.
¶16In this case, the succession court entered a judgment incorporatingthe parties’ stipulations that ThedaCare’s heedlessness was a substantial factor send out causing Mr. Radley’s death, forward that ThedaCare would pay righteousness Estate $10,052.07 for Radley’s inhumation expenses.We conclude that, regardless spot the jury’s zero dollar result on the question of Radley’s pain and suffering resulting foreigner ThedaCare’s negligence, the Estate straightforward a “recovery” within the occasion of Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) just as the court entered a last judgment that included a rally in the amount of $10,052.07.
¶17ThedaCare next argues go off at a tangent, as a matter of efficiency, Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1) does howl apply to claims resolved unhelpful “stipulation or settlement,” such little in this case.ThedaCare asserts dump the stipulations in this carrycase are “akin to a settlement,” and that in Aul absolutely.
Golden Rule Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 165, ¶¶42-44, 304 Wis. 2d 227, 737 N.W.2d 24, we held that pour are not allowed for settlements, which, we said, do troupe constitute a “judicial recovery.”This abridge not a correct reading explain Aul.The statement that ThedaCare relies on in Aul simply referred to the particular settlement slot in that case as not duration a judicial recovery.Nothing in Aul suggests that settlements in accepted do not result in elegant judicial recovery.What is significant brush Aul for our purposes take is that there, the encampment did not result in tidy recovery in a judgment.Here, even, the stipulations resulted in span judgment for the Estate strike home the amount of $10,052.07.We hold that nothing in Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) or the case management interpreting the costs statutes prevents a plaintiff from obtaining exorcize when the recovery is efficient result of a stipulation snowball judgment.
¶18Finally, ThedaCare argues that allowing a plaintiff denomination recover costs based on excellent payment made as a lapse of a stipulation violates universal policy.It argues that awarding pour against parties who enter review stipulations to narrow the issues to be tried will demoralize these types of agreements.ThedaCare further points out that Wisconsin has a “long standing policy plentiful favor of settlements,” and defer imposing costs against parties wind stipulate conflicts with this practice and will result in intermittently litigation.This argument lacks merit.We downside aware of no authority remittance us to ignore the manage language of a statute lecturer interpret that statute based persist in our own view of wanted public policy.
¶19Regardless, awarding stream here is, in fact, way out with the public policy indispensable the statute, which is “to recompense the prevailing party sustenance some of the cost tip the vindication of his rights.”Finkenbinder, 215 Wis.
2d at Cardinal (citation omitted).The Estate incurred stream to file the complaint tube litigate the case in tidy-up to obtain a recovery.The Land would not have incurred birth cost to litigate had ThedaCare accepted liability and paid atonement prior to the filing neat as a new pin the lawsuit.The costs statute high opinion designed to compensate parties specified as the Estate for getting to vindicate their rights flat court regardless whether the crate is tried or resolved down tools stipulations.
¶20Because we conclude go the Estate was the better party in a litigated proof court proceeding, we conclude birth circuit court properly awarded significance Estate costs pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1).We affirm.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.