01-2046 Selaiden v. Columbia Hospital, et al.

Listen to this article

“Here, Sentry was named as a defendant in both the timely summons and the timely complaint. Additionally, Sentry was timely served with the documents. Thus, unlike the situation where an adverse party has only anecdotal knowledge of the appeal from the Commission’s determination, [Citations] Sentry not only had formal notice of the pendency of the appeal from the Commission’s determination in its favor, but it also knew the grounds upon which the appeal was based because those grounds were set out in the complaint. Thus, Sentry could appear, defend its position, and would be bound by any result.

“The only thing ‘missing’ from the original complaint was the allegation about Sentry’s corporate status and address. But this allegation added nothing to Sentry’s ability to defend its position; conversely, absence of this perfunctory allegation did not impede Sentry from defending its interests in the circuit court review. The failure to mention Sentry in the body of the complaint was, at the most, de minimis.”

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, White, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Michael H. Gillick, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Daniel L. Zitzer, Milwaukee; Roland C. Cafaro, Milwaukee; Jerome S. Schmidt, Madison