COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

December 2, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and 

RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2020AP1676 Cir. Ct. No. 2019CV1448

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

RYAN SEY,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

REGENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

 INVOLUNTARY-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

 V.

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

 DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: 

STEPHEN E. EHLKE, Judge. Affirmed. 

Before Blanchard, P.J., Kloppenburg, and Graham, JJ. 
No. 2020AP1676

2

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent 

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). 

¶1 PER CURIAM. Ryan Sey appeals the circuit court’s order approving 

a settlement agreement pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 102.29 (2019-20),1a statute that 

addresses third-party liability in the worker’s compensation context. The settlement 

agreement disposed of Sey’s claims arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Sey 

contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in approving the 

settlement. We disagree and affirm.

Background

¶2 In May 2016, while in the course of his employment, Sey was 

involved in a motor vehicle accident with another motorist. A physician assessed 

Sey as having a “concussion with brief (less than one hour) loss of consciousness,” 

and Sey received worker’s compensation benefits. In December 2016, the physician 

determined that Sey’s healing period had ended and that Sey had no permanent 

disability from the accident. 

¶3 In May 2019, Sey filed suit against the other motorist and her insurer, 

National General Insurance Company. Sey also named his employer’s worker’s 

compensation insurer, Regent Insurance Company, as an involuntary plaintiff. Sey 

alleged that the other motorist’s negligence caused him damages, including past and 

future medical expenses.2

 

1

 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise 

noted.

2

 Sey’s lawsuit was consolidated with a lawsuit filed by Regent. 
No. 2020AP1676

3

¶4 Regent moved the circuit court for approval of a settlement agreement 

pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 102.29. National General joined in the motion. Under the 

settlement, Sey would receive approximately $6,760, and Regent would receive 

approximately $9,800 as reimbursement for worker’s compensation benefits paid to 

Sey or on Sey’s behalf.3 As support for the proposed settlement, Regent and 

National General submitted police reports from the accident and portions of Sey’s 

medical records. Sey, who was proceeding pro se, objected to the settlement.4

¶5 The circuit court approved the settlement agreement over Sey’s

objection. The court found that there were disputed issues as to fault and causation. 

As to fault, the court noted that Sey claimed that he had a green light, but the other 

motorist claimed she had a yellow light. As to causation, the court noted that Sey 

had pre-existing injuries and had suffered numerous previous concussions. The 

court also found that the settlement appeared to provide Sey with nearly $7,000 in 

his pocket, which the court determined was reasonable under the circumstances. 

The court acknowledged that Sey had submitted a letter from a physician stating 

that he continued to experience dizziness and “cognitive concerns” relating to his 

head injury from the accident through at least March 2018. However, the court 

noted that the physician had not seen Sey recently, and the court determined that the 

letter did not change its conclusion that the settlement was reasonable. The court 

found that there was no indication that Sey had suffered any major injury. Finally, 

the court stated that, although not determinative of the value of Sey’s case, the fact 

 

3

 In addition, Regent’s attorneys would receive approximately $6,430. 

4

 Sey was represented by counsel for limited purposes earlier in the circuit court 

proceedings. Sey also has counsel in this appeal.
No. 2020AP1676

4

that an attorney had not taken the case supported the court’s conclusion that the case 

had a relatively low value. 

Discussion

¶6 Sey does not dispute that the circuit court had discretionary authority 

to approve the proposed settlement pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 102.29. Sey contends, 

however, that the court erroneously exercised its discretion. 

¶7 “A reviewing court will uphold a discretionary decision if the circuit 

court considered the relevant facts, properly interpreted and applied the law, and 

reached a reasonable determination.” Ness v. Digital Dial Commc’ns, Inc., 227 

Wis. 2d 592, 600, 596 N.W.2d 365 (1999). In the specific context of WIS. STAT.

§ 102.29, the court properly exercises its discretion by “defining the dispute, taking 

stock of the relative positions of the parties[,] and considering matters that impacted 

the fairness of the settlement.” See Adams v. Northland Equip. Co., 2014 WI 79, 

¶83, 356 Wis. 2d 529, 850 N.W.2d 272.5 

¶8 Sey argues that the circuit court failed to adequately take stock of his 

position by (1) cutting him off during the hearing on the settlement agreement, 

(2) failing to adequately consider Sey’s unpaid medical bills, and (3) failing to 

consider the expert medical opinion and medical records that Sey submitted. We 

are not persuaded.

 

5

 Sey argues that the guidelines set forth by the supreme court in Adams v. Northland 

Equipment Co., 2014 WI 79, 356 Wis. 2d 529, 850 N.W.2d 272, are insufficient, and that circuit 

courts need additional guidelines when considering whether to approve settlement agreements 

pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 102.29. However, we are bound by Adams, and for the reasons explained 

in the body of this opinion, we conclude that the circuit court reasonably exercised its discretion 

based on the guidelines set forth in Adams. 
No. 2020AP1676

5

¶9 First, the record shows that the circuit court allowed Sey to make 

extensive statements setting forth his position during the hearing on the settlement. 

The court interrupted Sey in two instances to point out that Sey was screaming or 

making accusations against other parties or attorneys, but in each instance the court 

allowed Sey to continue making statements regarding his case. Eventually, the court 

cut Sey off after Sey continued making accusations, but the court explained to Sey 

that it would continue the hearing to allow Sey additional time to obtain an expert 

medical report to support his claims. 

¶10 Second, Sey did not submit any medical bills for the circuit court to 

consider. Sey submitted medical records, but the records did not establish that Sey 

had unpaid medical bills. 

¶11 Third, as noted above, the circuit court considered the expert opinion 

letter from Sey’s physician, and the court determined that the letter did not change 

the court’s view that the settlement was reasonable.6 Although the court did not 

expressly reference the medical records that Sey submitted, we are not persuaded 

that the court failed to consider the records. Moreover, Sey does not point to 

anything in the records that undermines the circuit court’s reasoning. 

¶12 Sey next argues that the circuit court failed to adequately consider the 

fairness of the settlement agreement by (1) ignoring his unpaid medical bills and 

(2) failing to provide him with sufficient time to present his side of the case. This 

argument, like Sey’s previous argument, is not persuasive. As we have explained, 

Sey did not submit evidence of unpaid medical bills, and Sey does not now contend 

that he needed more time to obtain such evidence. Further, as we have noted, the 

 

6

 The circuit court read the letter out loud on the record. 
No. 2020AP1676

6

court continued the hearing on the settlement to allow Sey time to submit an expert 

opinion. 

¶13 Finally, Sey argues that the circuit court erred because, according to 

Sey, the court considered his pro se status to be “determinative” of the value of his 

case. We reject this argument. The court’s exact words on the topic were as follows: 

“Although it is not determinative on the question of the value of the case, the fact

that no attorney has taken this case lends support to my conclusion that Mr. Sey’s 

case is not worth an enormous amount or that much.” Sey acknowledges the “not 

determinative” qualification in the court’s statement, but he nonetheless argues that 

the court’s statement shows that the court failed to consider any factors other than 

his pro se status in assessing the value of his case. We disagree with Sey’s 

interpretation of the court’s statement. The court’s overall reasoning demonstrates 

that the court assessed the potential value of Sey’s claims based on a variety of 

factors, including the disputed issues as to fault and causation and the lack of 

evidence to show that Sey had unpaid medical bills.

¶14 In sum, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the circuit court’s order 

approving the settlement agreement that disposed of Sey’s claims. 

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE

809.23(1)(b)5.