Case Title: Yvette M. Maurin v. Gordon Hall, M.D.

Citation: 2004 WI 129

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2004 WI 129 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-0072 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Yvette M. Maurin, as Personal  
Representative of the Estate of Shay  
Leigh Maurin, deceased,  
          Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, 
 
Yvette M. Maurin,, Individually and as  
Personal Representative of the Estate of  
Shay Leigh Maurin, and Joseph Maurin,  
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
Quad/Graphics, Inc.,  
          Plaintiff, 
 
     v. 
 
Gordon Hall, M.D., Physicians Insurance  
Company of Wisconsin, Inc., and Patients  
Compensation Fund,  
          Defendants-Appellants-Cross- 
Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
2004 WI 100 
Reported at:  ___ Wis. 2d ___, 682 N.W.2d 866 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 29, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed). 
CROOKS, J., joins dissent.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
2
 
2004 WI 129 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No. 00-0072    
(L.C. No. 
98CV000229) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Yvette M. Maurin, as Personal  
Representative of the Estate of Shay  
Leigh Maurin, deceased,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross- 
          Appellant, 
 
Yvette M. Maurin,, Individually and as  
Personal Representative of the Estate of  
Shay Leigh Maurin, and Joseph Maurin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
Quad/Graphics, Inc.,  
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
     v. 
 
Gordon Hall, M.D., Physicians Insurance  
Company of Wisconsin, Inc., and Patients  
Compensation Fund,  
 
          Defendants-Appellants-Cross- 
          Respondents. 
 
 
   
FILED 
 
OCT 29, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION for reconsideration.  Reconsideration denied.   
 
No. 00-0072 
   
 
2 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM. 
The 
motion 
for 
reconsideration 
is 
denied, with $50.00 costs. 
¶2 
The motion filed by the Litigation Section of the 
State Bar to file an amicus memorandum brief and statement in 
support of the motion for reconsideration is granted. 
¶3 
LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate. 
No.  00-0072.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶4 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I 
continue my dissent because in my opinion the court has not 
acted fairly or wisely.   
¶5 
The court's procedure in the present case goes 
directly to its institutional integrity.  As was stated in the 
concurrence to the majority opinion, the majority decided the 
case on an issue not raised, briefed or argued by the parties.   
¶6 
The motion for reconsideration is based on the public 
good derived from an appellate process that ensures a full 
hearing of adversarial perspectives.  The fair way to conduct 
judicial business is to allow the parties (and any amicus) an 
opportunity to dispute a rationale initiated and relied upon by 
the court.     
¶7 
If the adversarial appellate process is defective, and 
I think it was in the instant case, the process not only poses a 
threat to the adversarial system and to institutional integrity 
but also substantially increases the likelihood the court will 
reach a wrong decision on the merits.  The motion for 
reconsideration raises important considerations not contemplated 
in the majority opinion. 
¶8 
For the reasons set forth, I would set this case for 
re-argument.  I dissent from the denial of a motion for 
reconsideration. 
¶9 
I am authorized to state that Justice N. PATRICK 
CROOKS joins this dissent.     
 
No.  00-0072.ssa 
 
1