Opinion ID: 1983283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: panel composition.

Text: Formal panels ordinarily consist of five members, only two of whom represent medical professions. Whenever a submission of controversy names both a physician and a nonphysician respondent, however, the Administrator considers sec. 655.03 (1), Stats., to require the appointment of a sixth member. Accordingly, he convened six-member panels to hear each of the claims involved in this action. Each panel consisted of an attorney, two public members, a tenured physician, a physician from the same field of medicine as a physician respondent and a member from the same health care field as a nonphysician respondent. Petitioners argue that the Administrator has misinterpreted the statute, and that the panels should be limited to five members. Sec. 655.001 (6), Stats., defines a [f]ormal panel as a 5-member patients compensation panel established under s. 655.03(1). Subsections (a), (d) and (e) of sec. 655.03 (1) provide that formal panels shall include a physician appointed for a six month term, an attorney and two lay members. These provisions are unambiguous and are not in question. Subsections (b) and (c) of sec. 655.03 (1) govern the selection of the remainder of the panel. They provide: (b) If any respondent in a panel hearing is a physician, one additional physician licensed to practice medicine in this state and who is engaged in the practice of medicine similar to that of the respondent and appointed at random by the administrator from a list submitted by the medical examining board. (c) If any respondent in a panel hearing is not a physician, then one person from the same field of health care as that of the respondent who is licensed in this state and appointed at random by the administrator from a list supplied by the appropriate state licensing board or by the department of health and social services. In the event that a claim involves more than one respondent, and that the respondents are specialists in different areas of medical practice, the administrator shall determine the specialty to be represented on the panel. (Emphasis supplied.) The meaning of the emphasized language is in dispute. When a claim is asserted against both a physician and a nonphysician, as in the instant action, is the Administrator empowered to choose between a physician member under subsection (b) and a nonphysician member under subsection (c)? Or is he required to appoint both a physician member under subsection (b) and a sixth, nonphysician, member under subsection (c), with his discretion limited to the selection of the field to be represented by each of these members? The Administrator has adopted the latter interpretation. This court has sometimes deferred to the practical construction accorded an ambiguous statute by the administering agency, where the legislature has acquiesced in that construction. The argument has much less weight when the construction is of recent origin, however. General D. & H. Union v. Wisconsin E. R. Board, 21 Wis.2d 242, 248, 249, 124 N.W.2d 123 (1963). The construction in question was first applied on April 11, 1976. Nor can it be said that the legislature has acquiesced in the administrative construction of the statute. This is particularly apparent in the instant case because since this case was argued the legislature has enacted ch. 131, Laws of 1977, published October 31, 1977. Sections 10 and 14 of this enactment, effective November 1, 1977, amend secs. 655.03 (1) (b) and 655.03 (2) (a) (3), (b) and (c), Stats. Any ambiguity as to the legislative intent in the original enactment has now vanished. The 1977 amendments make it clear that the legislature intended that the formal panels consist of five members and the informal panels of three members. We are satisfied the legislature intended to require the appointment of five-member formal panels. This construction of the statutes is supported by materials in the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, which materials are properly subject to judicial notice. Nekoosa-Edwards P. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm., 8 Wis.2d 582, 590, 591, 99 N.W.2d 821 (1959). These materials show that the disputed language of sec. 655.003(1) (c), Stats., is derived from an amendment drafted on June 27, 1975. The drafting attorney's notes include the following instructions: Multiple suitsonly 1 additional M Dsec'y of reg & lic. chooses specialty. [3] (As enacted, the Bill placed this power in the Administrator rather than the Secretary of Regulation and Licensing.) The Bill drafting file also includes the drafting attorney's notes of the deliberations of the conference committee which prepared the final version of the Bill. These notes show the following: Panel composition . . . Formal ... 5 people on these panels Formalct. admin. appoints 4 panels & chooses specialty if more than 1 rep. [4] In enacting the statute, the legislature had before it the advice of the legislative reference bureau that: ... These panels each have 5 members; a physician, an attorney (who is chairperson), a health care provider of the same type or specialty as the respondent (who serves for one case only), and 2 public members.... [5] [3] The statutory language was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. However, the legislative background materials, together with the prompt action of the 1977 legislature to clarify any existing ambiguity, lead us to conclude that the legislature intended to limit the formal panels to five members. The Administrator erred in appointing six-member panels.