Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2003AP1307 Haferman, et al. v. St. Clare Healthcare Foundation, Inc., et al.

By: dmc-admin//January 3, 2006//

2003AP1307 Haferman, et al. v. St. Clare Healthcare Foundation, Inc., et al.

By: dmc-admin//January 3, 2006//

Listen to this article

“We recognize, of course, as do the parties, that the legislature intended for §§ 893.16 and 893.56 to work together. See Storm, 265 Wis. 2d 169, 26 (‘[l]anguage in § 893.16 and in § 893.56 . . . strongly indicates that they are meant to apply in tandem’); id., 30 (‘the exception for minors in § 893.16(1) creates symmetry between these two statutes’).

“Unfortunately, however, reading the statutes together does not supply a plain-language answer to the question of whether the legislature intended for either § 893.16 or § 893.56 to apply in a case such as this one. In Aicher, the court previously noted the apparent gap with which we are now faced: ‘Aicher correctly reads Wis. Stat. § 893.56 to exclude the developmentally disabled, and she also correctly notes that Wis. Stat. § 893.16 does not provide the developmentally disabled with an extension for filing medical malpractice actions.’ Aicher, 237 Wis. 2d 99, 73.

“Accordingly, we decline to rewrite either § 893.16 or § 893.56. We determine that by the plain language of the statutes and their legislative history, neither § 893.16 nor § 893.56 applies to a negligence claim alleging injury to a developmentally disabled child caused by a health care provider.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Bradley, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: David J. Pliner, Madison, and Michael B. Van Sicklen, Madison

For Respondent: Jeremi K. Young, Dallas, TX; and Richard Schulz, 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