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2021 - Unpublished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review, SVA seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court 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