Opinion ID: 857425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Borst Decision

Text: ¶92 Looking solely at the arbitration statutes, one perceives two sections that bear on discovery: Wis. Stat. §§ 788.06 and 788.07. All the attention has been focused on § 788.07, which reads: Depositions. Upon petition, approved by the arbitrators or by a majority of them, any court of record in and for the county in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting may direct the taking of depositions to be used as evidence before the arbitrators, in the same manner and for the same reasons as provided by law for the taking of depositions in suits or proceedings pending in the courts of record in this state. ¶93 The Borst court explained the factual background of that case when it interpreted Wis. Stat. § 788.07. Plaintiff Borst was injured in an accident with an uninsured motorist. Borst, 291 Wis. 2d 361, ¶5. The insurer believed that Borst was 50 percent liable for the accident. Id., ¶6. It requested that all medical records related to the plaintiff's claim be transmitted to it after Borst finished his treatment. Id. Borst provided these records as well as records of his wage loss. Id., ¶7. ¶94 After an arbitration panel was created, Allstate served Borst with a set of written interrogatories, a request 7 No. 2011AP2067.dtp for document production, and medical authorizations. Id., ¶10. These requests were resisted and challenged in a motion to the arbitration panel to quash the discovery. Id. Allstate then raised the stakes, asking the panel to approve a deposition and to authorize a release of records. Id. The panel ultimately ordered Borst to (1) give a deposition, (2) supply medical authorizations, and (3) cooperate with other appropriate discovery. Id. In its argument to the panel, Allstate relied heavily on the proof of claim provisions in the insurance policy. Id. ¶95 Borst refused to submit to a deposition, and Allstate elected not to press that issue, although it did not waive its right to a deposition of Borst. Id., ¶11. It did depose the other driver involved in the accident, while Borst provided a list of damages and confirmed the accuracy of all prearbitration discovery. Id. ¶96 The Borst court summarized the parties' arguments: Borst essentially contends that discovery in arbitration is the exception and not the rule. Borst argues that in an arbitration of a first party insurance claim, and absent extraordinary circumstances, the parties should simply submit their cases to the arbitrators. Unfettered discovery, Borst argues, defeats the general purposes of arbitration to be faster, less formal, and less expensive. . . . Furthermore, in this particular case, Borst maintains that there was no real need for discovery, given that there was no claim of permanent injury, the medical records and bills had been supplied, and Allstate claimed to have fully assessed liability before it made its offer [of $5,000 to settle the case]. Id., ¶54 (emphasis added). 8 No. 2011AP2067.dtp ¶97 Allstate argued that inasmuch as the legislature allowed for the taking of depositions during arbitration, it must have allowed for other less costly forms of discovery and that arbitrators should have discretion, based on their evaluation of the facts of the case, to determine the extent of the discovery permitted. Id., ¶55. ¶98 The Borst court then said: We conclude that arbitrators have no inherent authority to dictate the scope of discovery, and absent an express agreement to the contrary, the parties are limited to depositions as spelled out in Chapter 788. . . . In our view, arbitrators do not have the inherent authority to determine the necessity and scope of discovery allowed because, quite simply, there is no statutory authority providing for discovery outside of the procedures for depositions enumerated in Wis. Stat. § 788.07. Id., ¶¶56–57. ¶99 The court asserted that Wis. Stat. § 788.07 did not speak to interrogatories, requests for production, or medical authorizations. Indeed, even looking beyond this particular section, the Wisconsin Arbitration Act does not speak to any other form of discovery. Id., ¶58.3 3 Attorney Mark Frankel submitted an amicus brief in the Borst case on behalf of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin. After the Borst decision was issued, Frankel wrote an analysis of the case for the Wisconsin Lawyer, observing that Borst's holding that arbitrators have no inherent ability to determine the necessity and scope of allowable discovery was a surprise to many practitioners in the field of ADR. Mark A. Frankel, Borst Clarifies Arbitration Procedures, Wis. Law., Dec. 2006, at 8, 11. 9 No. 2011AP2067.dtp ¶100 There is no dispute that the Borst case is the controlling law in Wisconsin and applies here unless it is clarified, modified, or distinguished on the facts. In my view, this court should pursue all these options.