Title: Rave v. SVA Healthcare Services, LLC

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2022 WI 3 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP2236 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Timothy Rave, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
SVA Healthcare Services, LLC, 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 398 Wis. 2d 384,960 N.W.2d 631 
2021  - Unpublished 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 19, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Mary E. Triggiano   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by David J. Hanus, Corey J. Swinick and Hinshaw & 
Culbertson LLP, Milwaukee.  
 
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
Robert 
J. 
Welcenbach 
and 
Welcenbach 
Law 
Offices, 
S.C., 
Milwaukee; with whom on the brief was Scott C. Borison  and Legg 
Law Firm LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; with whom on the brief was 
Jon Craig Jones and Jones & Hill, LLC, Oakdale, Louisiana. 
 
 
 
2 
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin 
Hospital Association, Inc. and the Wisconsin Civil Justice 
Council, Inc. by Sara J. Maccarthy, Stephane P. Fabus, Heather 
D. Mogden and Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, P.C., 
Milwaukee. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin 
Association for Justice by William C. Gleisner, Brookfield. 
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 3 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP2236 
(L.C. No. 
2018CV609) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Timothy Rave, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
SVA Healthcare Services, LLC, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
FILED 
 
JAN 19, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This case is before the court on a 
petition for review filed by the defendant-appellant-petitioner, 
SVA Healthcare Services, LLC ("SVA").  In the underlying suit, 
plaintiff-respondent Timothy Rave alleged that SVA, a medical 
records vendor, charged him and others similarly situated a fee 
for copies of medical records that exceeded the fee restrictions 
in Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b) (2019-20).1  In its petition for 
review, SVA seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court 
of appeals, Rave v. SVA Healthcare Servs., LLC, No. 2019AP2236, 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2019-20 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2019AP2236   
 
2 
 
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2021), affirming a 
circuit court order that certified a class and appointed Rave as 
class representative.  The sole issue before us is whether the 
circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it granted 
Rave's motion for class certification.  See Wis. Stat. § 803.08. 
¶2 
On November 26, 2021, this court issued Townsend v. 
ChartSwap, LLC, 2021 WI 86, 399 Wis. 2d 599, 967 N.W.2d 21.  
There, we held that the fee restrictions in Wis. Stat. 
§ 146.83(3f)(b) apply only to "health care providers" as defined 
in § 146.81(1).  Id., ¶37. 
¶3 
Following the issuance of Townsend, Rave filed a 
motion to dismiss or alternatively stay this matter.  In the 
motion, Rave describes SVA as "a records retrieval company 
acting on behalf of a healthcare provider."  Rave states that 
"[a]lthough this appeal addresses another issue"——i.e., the 
propriety of class certification——"Rave recognizes that his 
underlying claims, which are identical to those alleged in 
[Townsend], ultimately fail based on this Court's recent ruling.  
As such, this appeal is moot."  Rave asks this court to dismiss 
the appeal, and further states that he "has agreed to dismiss 
the underlying action with prejudice."  Rave alternatively seeks 
a stay of this matter. 
¶4 
SVA Healthcare Services 
has responded to Rave's 
motion.  It writes that it "wholeheartedly agrees that this 
Court's decision in [Townsend] will ultimately be dispositive of 
Rave's claims against SVA in this action."  Nevertheless, SVA 
claims that, notwithstanding Townsend, this appeal is not moot, 
No. 
2019AP2236   
 
3 
 
and even if it were, this case falls within two of the 
established exceptions to the mootness doctrine given the number 
of other pending cases, challenging charges for medical records, 
in which the propriety of class certification is at issue.  See 
generally Portage County v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, ¶12, 386 
Wis. 2d 672, 927 N.W.2d 509 (listing five exceptions to the 
mootness doctrine, including when "the situation arises so often 
'a definitive decision is essential to guide the trial courts,'" 
and when "'the issue is likely to arise again and should be 
resolved 
by 
the 
court 
to 
avoid 
uncertainty'") 
(citation 
omitted). 
¶5 
We agree with Rave that Townsend renders this matter 
moot.  Rave does not argue that SVA is a health care provider, 
and nothing before us suggests that SVA meets the definition of 
a health care provider provided in Wis. Stat. § 146.81(1).  
Consistent with Townsend, then, Rave has not stated a plausible 
claim that SVA is directly liable for a violation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 146.83(3f)(b). 
¶6 
We note, too, that Townsend's holding applies equally 
to every other member of the class that Rave represents, which 
consists of individuals whom SVA billed for copies of medical 
records in amounts that allegedly exceeded the fee caps in Wis. 
Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b).  The effect is to moot the only question 
on appeal:  whether Rave's suit was properly certified as a 
class action.  Under Townsend, the answer is "no":  neither Rave 
nor any of the unnamed class members have a plausible claim that 
SVA is directly liable for a violation of § 146.83(3f)(b).  
No. 
2019AP2236   
 
4 
 
¶7 
It is true, as SVA points out in its response to 
Rave's motion, that we may overlook mootness when a case 
presents questions that are recurring or likely to recur, and 
that signal a need for guidance and certainty.  See J.W.K., 386 
Wis. 2d 672, ¶12.  But SVA does not meaningfully explain what 
essential guidance would be provided, or what uncertainty would 
be avoided, if we were to continue with this appeal and further 
discuss the propriety of class litigation of a claim made under 
a statute that does not, by its terms, apply to SVA, as Townsend 
makes clear and both parties now agree.  
¶8 
Given the above, we accept Rave's concession that our 
decision in Townsend makes this case moot.  We therefore grant 
Rave's motion to dismiss, and dismiss the petition for review.   
The review of the decision of the court of appeals is hereby 
dismissed.   
By the Court.——Appeal dismissed. 
 
 
No. 
2019AP2236   
 
 
 
1