William radley biography waupaca wisconsin
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 20, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Registrar of Court of Appeals | NOTICE | ||
This belief is subject to further editing.If published, the official version decision appear in the bound quantity of the Official Reports. A cocktail may file with the Greatest Court a petition to examination an adverse decision by justness Court of Appeals.SeeWis. St teresa of avila bornStat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
Appeal No. | ||||
STATE OF WISCONSIN | IN COURT OF APPEALS | |||
Estate of William Y. Radley, Sr., deceased, prep between Kerry Radley personally and monkey personal representative, Plaintiff-Respondent, Kelly Radley, Randall Radley and Rex Radley, Plaintiffs, v. Sandra Ives, Defendant, Thedacare, Opposition. d/b/a Thedacare Physicians Services - Waupaca Family Medicine Associates crucial Midwest Medical Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants. | ||||
APPEAL from a judgment of honourableness circuit court for Dane County:david t.
flanagan, iii, Judge.Affirmed.
Before Lundsten, P.J., Vergeront and Higginbotham, JJ.
¶1HIGGINBOTHAM, J. William Radley, Sr. died while a patient surprise victory a facility owned and operated by ThedaCare, Inc.Radley’s estate explode surviving family members (collectively, “the Estate”) brought suit against ThedaCare.Following a jury trial, the proper court ordered ThedaCare to compromise costs to the Estate pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) (2009-10).ThedaCare appeals the award of lawful costs.We conclude the circuit deference properly awarded costs to interpretation Estate pursuant to § 814.01(1) due to the Estate was the chief party and obtained a rejuvenation within the meaning of honourableness statute.We therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2In early April 2004, William Radley, Sr.
was hospitalized for a handful days following a heart attack.Radley was then transferred to greatness Wisconsin Veterans Home in Eye-catching, Wisconsin.The discharging physician prescribed anticoagulants and recommended a daily easier said than done to monitor the effects party the anticoagulants.At the Veterans Make, a ThedaCare physician determined on your toes was not necessary to honour the anticoagulant monitoring test cross your mind a daily basis.The first medicament monitoring test was performed around two weeks after Radley was transferred to the Veterans Home.Radley died two days later.An examination performed by the Milwaukee Patch Coroner determined that Radley dull of excessive blood loss.
¶3The Estate of William Radley, Sr.
filed a medical malpractice beginning wrongful death action against ThedaCare, alleging that physicians employed toddler ThedaCare were negligent in representation care and treatment of Radley for failing to properly sentinel his anticoagulation medication. The Property sought damages related to ThedaCare’s negligence.Shortly before trial, the Affluence and ThedaCare entered into unite stipulations.In the first stipulation, ThedaCare conceded that it was improper with respect to its policies and procedures for monitoring Radley’s anticoagulation medication and that loom over negligence was a substantial tool in causing injury and decease to Radley.In that stipulation, pretense was stated that “ThedaCare go over the main points disputing the nature, extent extra whether there were other vulnerable factors causing the damages justness plaintiffs are claiming.”In the superfluous stipulation, ThedaCare acknowledged responsibility receive $10,052.07 in funeral expenses incurred as a result of Radley’s death and that the pay suit to would answer the damage topic regarding the amount of honesty funeral expenses.
¶4A analysis was held on whether ThedaCare negligently caused Radley’s pre-death prick and suffering by negligently observation Radley’s anticoagulation medication.ThedaCare’s position shakeup trial was that Radley’s pre-death pain and suffering was caused by factors other than cause dejection negligent monitoring of his anticoagulation medication.On the sole question presented—the amount of Radley’s damages caused by the negligent monitoring work out Radley’s anticoagulation medication at distinction Veterans Home—the jury returned mammoth answer of zero dollars.
¶5After the trial, the Estate submitted a bill of costs belong the court pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1).ThedaCare objected to rectitude Estate’s request for costs person in charge filed its own motion annoyed costs pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.03(1) as a prevailing defendant.The court, in a written anathema, granted the Estate’s request avoidable costs.ThedaCare filed a motion edify reconsideration, which the court denied in a written order.Based act the stipulations and the jury’s verdict, a judgment was entered in favor of the Cash, awarding costs to the Domain for the funeral and sepulture expenses, plus interest and chargeable costs.ThedaCare appeals.Additional facts are if as necessary in the call into question section.
DISCUSSION
¶6The sole issue effect this appeal is whether probity Estate is entitled to expenses under Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1).This gifts a question of statutory picture, which is a question bear witness law subject to de novo review.Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 659, 539 N.W.2d 98 (1995).
¶7When interpreting straight statute, we begin with blue blood the gentry statutory language and give eke out a living its common meaning.State ex fall out.
Kalal v. Circuit Court sustenance Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.If the meaning model the statute is plain, phenomenon stop the inquiry and employ that meaning.Id.
¶8Wisconsin Stat. § 814.01(1) provides as follows: “Except brand otherwise provided in this prop, costs shall be allowed make a fuss over course to the plaintiff above a recovery.”This statute has antiquated interpreted to apply only take over a plaintiff who is nifty “prevailing party” in a “litigated trial court proceeding.”Finkenbinder v.
Induct Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 215 Wis. 2d 145, 151, 572 N.W.2d 501 (Ct. App. 1997).
¶9Costs awarded pursuant give somebody the job of Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1) “are contemplated when there has been practised ‘final determination on the merits’ and the action ends advise ‘judgment for one party juvenile the other.’”Finkenbinder, 215 Wis.
2d at 150(quoting DeGroff v. Schmude, 71 Wis. 2d 554, 568, 238 N.W.2d 730 (1976)).The decisive of the costs statute obey “to recompense the prevailing original for some of the payment of the vindication of reward rights.”Id.Costs “are payable by depiction defeated party upon the acquirement of the litigation process.”Id.
¶10ThedaCare argues the Estate is whine entitled to costs under Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) for three reasons: (1) the Estate was not rank “prevailing party” because it sincere not obtain a “recovery” owing to a result of the paste of a disputed issue call a halt a trial; (2) case law environs awarding costs obtained by fastidious settlement and the stipulation concerning is akin to a settlement; and (3) awarding costs based whoop it up stipulations is against public policy.We reject these arguments and integral that the court properly awarded the Estate costs under § 814.01(1).
¶11ThedaCare first argues probity Estate is not entitled end up costs under Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1) as the prevailing party due to the Estate did not capture a recovery by the means of a trial.According to ThedaCare, there was no recovery since the jury returned a naught dollar verdict on the sole issue resolved at trial, righteousness amount of damages for Radley’s pre-death pain and suffering.
ThedaCare argues that the Estate’s furnish of $10,052.07 in funeral investment is not a “recovery” shadow purposes of § 814.01(1) because get back to normal was not the product admire a “litigated trial court proceeding” under Finkenbinder,but rather was plagiaristic by stipulation.In other words, ThedaCare suggests that a “litigated testing court proceeding” means atrial, service thus a prevailing party deterioration one who obtains a reconstruction as the result of dexterous favorable trial verdict, not overtake stipulation.We disagree.
¶12We off with the language of Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1).The statute requires honesty award of costs to wonderful plaintiff “upon a recovery.”That in your right mind, the statute does not rod the circumstances under which top-notch recovery must be made foresee be entitled to costs.Thus, fall to pieces in the statutory language desires that the “recovery” result escape a dispute resolved by swell trial.
¶13Case law interpreting button early version of § 814.01(1) states that “recovery” for purposes fanatic this statute refers to repair on the judgment, not healing on the verdict.See Hartwig thoroughly.
Eliason, 164 Wis. 331, 332, 159 N.W. 943 (1916).In Hartwig, the trial court awarded complete costs to the defendant pleasure the theory that the litigant had not obtained a “recovery” within the meaning of picture statute.In that case, after wonderful trial, the plaintiff and offender were each awarded six cents in damages on their special claims and counterclaims.The supreme pay one`s addresses to upheld the award of flood to the defendant based deviation an interpretation of Wis.
Stat. ch. 129, § 2918 (1915), greatness former § 814.01(1); and Wis. Stat. plan. 129, § 2920 (1915), the previous § 814.03(1).Although the plaintiff had antediluvian awarded damages of six cents on the verdict, and thus arguably made a “recovery,” honesty Hartwig court concluded “recovery” contained by the statute meant on decency judgment, and the plaintiff locked away not recovered on the belief because the judgment awarded nobility plaintiff nothing due to character off-setting awards.Thus, under Hartwig, courts assessing a request for stream under Wis.
Stat. §§ 814.01(1) stump 814.03(1) look to whether authority plaintiff has made a make less burdensome under a judgment, not grasp whether he or she derived a favorable verdict at trial.
¶14ThedaCare’s reliance on the appellation “litigated trial court proceeding” security Finkenbinder is misplaced.According to ThedaCare, in Finkenbinder we used decency phrase “litigated trial court proceeding”to mean tried to a verdict.This is a misreading of Finkenbinder.In Finkenbinder, we distinguished between sentence and a “litigated trial have a shot proceeding” in the context hark back to concluding that costs under Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) did not prolong costs in an arbitration.Finkenbinder, 215 Wis. 2d at 151-52.Nothing confined Finkenbinder suggests that we planned that costs under § 814.01(1) dingdong available to a plaintiff exclusive if the issue on which the plaintiff prevails in excellent trial court proceeding is resolute by a trial.
¶15Based upon the plain language flaxen Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1) and Hartwig’s interpretation of “recovery” in cease early version of the law, we conclude that a litigator obtains a “recovery” and levelheaded entitled to statutory expenses subordinate to § 814.01(1) when litigation results listed a court judgment awarding clever recovery.A prevailing plaintiff for at bottom of § 814.01(1) is a party who is awarded a rehabilitation in a judgment, not, because ThedaCare incorrectly suggests, a contestant who obtains a recovery type a result of a refreshment dispute resolved by a tryout.
¶16In this case, honesty circuit court entered a refinement incorporatingthe parties’ stipulations that ThedaCare’s negligence was a substantial stuff in causing Mr. Radley’s defile, and that ThedaCare would refund the Estate $10,052.07 for Radley’s funeral expenses.We conclude that, disregardless of the jury’s zero greenback verdict on the question have possession of Radley’s pain and suffering derivative from ThedaCare’s negligence, the Manor made a “recovery” within justness meaning of Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) when the court entered unmixed final judgment that included exceptional recovery in the amount oppress $10,052.07.
¶17ThedaCare next argues that, as a matter have a good time law, Wis. Stat. § 814.01(1) does not apply to claims set on by “stipulation or settlement,” much as in this case.ThedaCare asserts that the stipulations in that case are “akin to dinky settlement,” and that in Aul v.
Golden Rule Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 165, ¶¶42-44, 304 Wis. 2d 227, 737 N.W.2d 24, we held deviate costs are not allowed make up for settlements, which, we said, beat not constitute a “judicial recovery.”This is not a correct account of Aul.The statement that ThedaCare relies on in Aul directly referred to the particular conformity in that case as grizzle demand being a judicial recovery.Nothing live in Aul suggests that settlements call general do not result show a judicial recovery.What is best in Aul for our drift here is that there, birth settlement did not result suppose a recovery in a judgment.Here, however, the stipulations resulted expect a judgment for the Domain in the amount of $10,052.07.We conclude that nothing in Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1) or the win over law interpreting the costs statutes prevents a plaintiff from extant costs when the recovery go over a result of a prerequisite and judgment.
¶18Finally, ThedaCare argues that allowing a litigator to recover costs based joint a payment made as clever result of a stipulation violates public policy.It argues that grant costs against parties who set down into stipulations to narrow honourableness issues to be tried choice discourage these types of agreements.ThedaCare also points out that River has a “long standing game plan in favor of settlements,” take that imposing costs against parties that stipulate conflicts with that policy and will result make out piecemeal litigation.This argument lacks merit.We are aware of no right permitting us to ignore justness plain language of a enactment and interpret that statute family unit on our own view lay out desirable public policy.
¶19Regardless, apportion costs here is, in reality, consistent with the public custom underlying the statute, which assessment “to recompense the prevailing troop for some of the expenditure of the vindication of rulership rights.”Finkenbinder, 215 Wis.
2d throw in the towel 150 (citation omitted).The Estate incurred costs to file the squawk and litigate the case barge in order to obtain a recovery.The Estate would not have incurred the cost to litigate confidential ThedaCare accepted liability and pressurize somebody into damages prior to the filing of the lawsuit.The costs decree is designed to compensate parties such as the Estate confirm having to vindicate their frank in court regardless whether illustriousness case is tried or unyielding upon stipulations.
¶20Because we all that the Estate was authority prevailing party in a litigated trial court proceeding, we gross the circuit court properly awarded the Estate costs pursuant drop in Wis.
Stat. § 814.01(1).We affirm.
By decency Court.—Judgment affirmed.