Justices to hear oral arguments in lawyer-discipline, workers’ comp, contracts cases

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear three cases in March involving appeals in lawyer-discipline and workers’ compensation cases and a certified case involving contracts.

Oral arguments will be held starting at 9:45 a.m. on March 15 in the Supreme Court Hearing Room in the state Capitol.

First up will be Oklahoma Specialty Insurance Co. v. Mecum Auction Inc., an appeal the state Court of Appeals certified to the high court.

The case stems from a dispute over a 1971 Chevrolet Bel Air and 1961 Impala that were stolen off the auction block in Monterrey, Calif. The cars were supplied by Indiana-based Sam Pierce Chevrolet and Michigan-based World of Wheels Inc., both of which contracted with Walworth, Wis.-based Mecum Auction Inc. to sell the cars at the auction.

Their insurer, Oklahoma Specialty Insurance Co., paid $52,463.00 and $46,933.30 for the loss of the cars and sued Mecum to recover those amounts.

At issue in the case, according to the Appeals Court, is whether a public policy analysis that invalidated exculpatory clauses, or provisions that relieve a party from liability, involving personal injury claims in a recent case should be applied to the Mecum’s contract with Pierce and World of Wheels.

That contract included a provision saying that Mecum was not responsible for lost, stolen or damaged property.

At 10:45 a.m., the justices will hear oral arguments in the disciplinary case of Milwaukee attorney Mark Ruppelt, who was initially charged by lawyer-regulation authorities with five counts of misconduct. Six months later, the Office of Lawyer Regulation added 13 more charges, bringing the total to 18.

The OLR alleges that Ruppelt took $50,000 from a client’s trust account to purchase a new home and told the disciplinary office it would be used for “expert fees/trial testimony.”

The OLR sought a 15-month suspension of Ruppelt’s license and $10,000 in restitution, but later reached a stipulation with Ruppelt that instead asked for a year-long suspension.

However, Referee James Winiarksi instead recommended in September that Ruppelt’s license be suspended for 15 months. Ruppelt immediately appealed the decision.

He is arguing that the referee’s recommendation for the 15-month suspension does not follow the court’s precedent and contains conclusions that could not have been drawn from the stipulation the referee relied upon.

Ruppelt is also arguing that justices should instead adopt the year-long suspension suggested by the OLR because it has more knowledge about the facts of the case and it would encourage attorneys to enter time- and resource-saving stipulations.

The OLR is maintaining that a year-long license suspension is appropriate.

The last case the justices will hear for the day is slated for 1:30 p.m. and involves the denial of a workers’ compensation claim in Flug v. Labor and Industry Review Commission.

The case stems from back and shoulder injuries Wal-Mart Supervisor Tracie Flug says she sustained while repeatedly raising her right arm to scan boxes. She eventually had surgery.

Wal-Mart initially paid for her workers’ compensation benefits but later told her that she had healed from her injury and would neither pay for surgery and ensuing medical expenses, nor would it continue paying disability benefits.

Flug filed a workers’ compensation claim with the worker’s comp division of the state Department of Workforce Development, seeking the medical expenses and benefits Wal-Mart refused to pay for.

After a hearing in 2014, an administrative law judge concluded Flug was not entitled to the benefits. The Labor and Industry Review Commission agreed, and Flug appealed that decision to Chippewa County Circuit Court, where Judge James Isaacson affirmed the commission.

Flug appealed again, and this time the state Court of Appeals reversed Isaacson’s decision from last August, finding the commission should have considered whether Flug underwent the surgery in good faith. The case was remanded to the commission.

Wal-Mart and the commission appealed that decision, and the justices voted to hear the case in November. Follow @erikastrebel