Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-0064 Setunsky v. Gallagher, et al.

By: dmc-admin//March 4, 2002//

01-0064 Setunsky v. Gallagher, et al.

By: dmc-admin//March 4, 2002//

Listen to this article

Karen and Todd Setunsky appeal a summary judgment dismissing their damages claim against Claim Management Services, Inc. (“CMS”), Ansul Incorporated, Grinnell Corporation Medical and Dental Plan, Tyco Laboratories, Inc. and Employee Benefit Trust (collectively “the managed care defendants”). The Setunskys argue that the trial court erred by concluding that their claim against the managed care defendants is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. secs. 1001-1461 (ERISA).

We reject their arguments and affirm the judgment.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist III, Brown County, Bischel, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Jerome A. Hierseman, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Tamara H. O’Brien, Milwaukee; John M. Swietlik, Milwaukee; Ann M. Hetzel, Milwaukee

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests