Title: Kathleen Jensen v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2001 WI 66 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-2774 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
Kathleen Jensen, Bradley Jensen and Erik Jensen 
(a minor),  
 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
State of Wisconsin, Department of Health and 
Family Services,  
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, David 
McPherson, M.D., and Lakeland Medical Center,  
 
Defendants-Respondents.  
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 19, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed). 
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2001 WI 66 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear 
in the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 99-2774 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN                    :  
  IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Kathleen Jensen, Bradley Jensen and Erik  
Jensen (a minor),  
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
State of Wisconsin, Department of Health  
and Family Services,  
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
     v. 
 
Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund,  
David McPherson, M.D., and Lakeland  
Medical Center,  
 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM (on motion for reconsideration).  The 
defendant-respondent, David McPherson, seeks clarification of 
our opinion to make clear that on remand the plaintiffs-
appellants do not have any right under Wis. Stat. § 801.58(7) to 
substitution of the original judge assigned to this case with 
respect to the Court's directive that the circuit court provide 
counsel (whose pro hac vice status was withdrawn) with notice 
and an opportunity to respond.  The motion is denied.  
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 99-2774  
 
 
2 
¶2 
State ex rel. J.H. Findorff v. Circuit Court for 
Milwaukee County, 2000 WI 30, 233 Wis. 2d 428, 608 N.W.2d 679, 
sets forth the applicable law relating to substitutions on 
remand, and the circuit court will apply the Findorff case 
should such a request for substitution be filed. 
 
 
No. 99-2774.ssa 
 
1 
¶3 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE (dissenting).  In 
my concurrence in State ex rel. J.H. Findorff v. Circuit Court 
for Milwaukee County, 2000 WI 30, ¶38, 233 Wis. 2d 428, 608 
N.W.2d 679, I concluded that this court should state in any 
decision mandating a remand whether the parties are entitled to 
seek substitution on the issue for which the cause was remanded. 
¶4 
After Findorff, the Director of State Courts on the 
recommendation 
of 
the 
Chief 
Judges 
and 
District 
Court 
Administrators filed a petition with this court requesting that 
we promulgate a rule requiring an appellate court remanding a 
case to a circuit court to state whether the parties have a 
right to request substitution of a judge.  This court denied the 
petition.  See Supreme Court Order No. 00-10 (March 7, 2001). 
¶5 
During the hearing on the petition, the State Bar of 
Wisconsin and the Litigation Section of the State Bar objected 
to the proposed rule because it did not give counsel in the case 
an opportunity to be heard on the right of substitution.  The 
representatives from the Litigation Section did, however, advise 
this court that they preferred that an appellate court, rather 
than the circuit court, decide the issue of the right of 
substitution and that after the appellate decision counsel may 
determine at the circuit court level whether to exercise that 
right. 
¶6 
I agree with the State Bar and the Litigation Section 
that counsel should be given an opportunity to be heard on the 
issue of substitution and that the appellate court rather than 
the circuit court should apply Findorff.  
No. 99-2774.ssa 
 
2 
¶7 
Accordingly, 
on 
reflection 
I 
conclude 
that 
my 
suggestion in the Findorff concurrence that this court decide 
the issue of substitution in every case mandating a remand was 
flawed because it failed to ensure that counsel would have an 
opportunity to be heard in the appellate court on the matter.  
¶8 
In this case, the record is still with this court, and 
counsel for all parties have had an opportunity to be heard on 
the issue of substitution.  I would therefore clarify our 
opinion in the present case and, applying the Findorff rule, I 
would 
state 
that 
the 
parties 
have 
a 
right 
to 
request 
substitution on the issue for which the case is remanded. 
¶9 
More importantly, we should keep this issue of 
substitution on remand in perspective, namely, that very few 
remands 
involve 
"merely 
discharging 
a 
ministerial 
duty," 
Findorff, 233 Wis. 2d at 432, in which no right of substitution 
exists.  
¶10 For the reasons set forth, I dissent. 
 
No. 99-2774.ssa 
 
1