Court Opinion

ID: 9734722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:44:12.252608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:50.817342
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). I dissent for two reasons: First, the cross-claim of Sabourin and Badger does not contain “a short and plain state*324ment of the claim, identifying the transaction, occurrence or event or series of transactions, occurrences, or events out of which the claim arises” as required by sec. 802.02(1), Stats. 1979-80. Accordingly I would vacate the decision of the court of appeals and would modify the order of the circuit court to grant Sabourin and Badger leave to replead. Second, even if I were to interpret the cross-claim as the majority does, I would conclude that the cross-claim states a claim upon which relief may be granted, and I would therefore reverse the court of appeals and remand the matter to the circuit court.
HH
The cross-claim is fully stated in paragraph 10 of Sabourin’s amended answer as follows:
“10. If in fact the Plaintiff sustained any injury on March 31, 1976, with resultant damages as he alleges, said damages were caused or contributed to by Briggs & Stratton in that Briggs & Stratton failed to exercise ordinary care in providing medical attention to the Plaintiff. If these Defendants are held liable to the Plaintiff, they will be entitled to indemnification or contribution from Briggs & Stratton according to law.”
This cross-claim is part of the answer which is a series of denials. Paragraph 10 read alone or read with the answer simply states that if Jenkins sustained any injuries they were caused or contributed to by the negligence of Briggs & Stratton in providing medical care to Jenkins.
Sec. 802.02(1), Stats. 1979-80, requires that:
“A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim, identifying the transaction, occurrence or event or series of transactions, occurrences, *325or events out of which the claim arises and showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .”
The cross-claim in the case at bar does not identify the transaction, occurrence or event or series of transactions, occurrences or events out of which the claim arises as required by sec. 802.02(1) and does not provide a sufficient basis on which to determine whether the pleader is entitled to relief.
Briggs moved to dismiss the cross-claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Sec. 802.06(2) (f), Stats. 1979-80. In ruling on such a motion this court, as well as the circuit court and the court of appeals, is bound by the pleadings and may not add facts to aid or defeat the allegations contained therein. Onderdonk v. Lamb, 79 Wis. 2d 241, 249, 255 N.W.2d 507 (1977). The majority, relying on facts presented in Sabourin’s and Badger’s briefs and inferences therefrom, constructs a pleading for Sabourin and Badger. The majority reads into the cross-claim the following allegations: Jenkins suffered a work-related injury; Briggs employed a nursing staff to furnish nursing care in its plant; Briggs’ medical staff rendered medical care to Jenkins; Briggs’ medical care was negligently administered and aggravated the work-related inj ury; and finally, Briggs does not render medical services to any person who is not an employee and who has not suffered a work-related injury. As will be demonstrated later, these facts form the basis of the majority’s decision; any change in the facts might alter the majority’s decision.
Because the facts upon which the majority relies do not appear on the face of the cross-claim, the question becomes whether it is reasonable to infer their existence and whether these are the only facts that can be inferred. I think it is reasonable to infer alternative facts such as, Jenkins’ injuries do not stem from a work-related injury but solely from another injury or from *326the medical care; Briggs’ medical staff (which I gather from the documents in the record includes at least one doctor as well as nurses) treats all employees at work whether or not the injury is work related; and Briggs’ medical staff treats the families of employees. If several alternative inferences are reasonable — and I think they are — to determine if the cross-claim states a claim upon which relief may be granted, all reasonable alternatives must be considered. This court has frequently stated that a pleading should be dismissed on the merits (i.e. as legally insufficient) “only if it is quite clear that under no conditions” can the party recover. Morgan v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co., 87 Wis. 2d 723, 731, 275 N.W.2d 660 (1979).
If the majority and I were to draw inferences from the cross-claim in the case at bar, we both would be pleading our own facts and then determining whether the facts plead state a claim. This court should take either the position urged by Briggs, namely that under any and all factual circumstances a non-physician employer cannot be liable in tort to its employees for medical malpractice, or the position urged by me, namely that the cross-claim is insufficient to enable a court to determine if it states a claim. I would, as stated above, vacate the decision of the court of appeals and would modify the order of the circuit court to grant Sabourin and Badger leave to replead the cross-claim.
II
Because the majority has not allowed Sabourin and Badger to replead, I must determine whether the majority’s reading of the cross-claim (see p. 325 of this dissent) sets forth a claim upon which relief may be granted. I conclude that it does. I reach this conclusion reasoning as follows: the injury suffered by the injured-*327on-the-job employee allegedly resulting from the negligent medical care provided by the nursing staff employed by Briggs at the Briggs plant does not arise out of the employment1 but arises from a second capacity occupied by the employer. When Briggs, the employer, directly furnishes medical services to the employee who suffers a work-related injury, Briggs enters into a sec*328ond legal relation with the employee — that of health care provider. As health care provider, Briggs has duties to the employee independent of the employment relation and is subject to tort liability for breach of these duties. Because the injury resulting from malpractice does not arise out of the employment, the injury does not fall within the worker’s compensation act, and the exclusivity-of-remedy provision of the worker’s compensation act2 does not bar the employee’s or Sabourin’s and Badger’s claim against Briggs.
In contrast, the majority concludes that Briggs acted only in its legal relation as employer, not in a distinct second legal capacity as health provider, in directly providing nursing care at the plant site.
The majority and I reach opposite conclusions although our analyses of the dual-capacity doctrine begin at the same place, namely with Professor Larson’s discussion of dual capacity as set forth in his treatise, Workmen’s Compensation Law. The dual capacity theory asks whether the employer was at one and the same time functioning not only as employer but in a second capacity which generates obligations independent of those imposed on him as employer. If the employer was functioning in a second capacity, it is liable in tort if it breaches any duties flowing from the second capacity.
*329Larson explains the essence of the dual-capacity doctrine as follows:
“In comparatively recent years there has appeared in various contexts what might be called the dual-capacity doctrine. Under this doctrine, an employer normally shielded from tort liability by the exclusive remedy principle may become liable in tort to his own employee if he occupies, in addition to his capacity as employer, a second capacity that confers on him obligations independent of those imposed on him as employer.”3
“The primary issue in this class of cases is: what is the test of true dual capacity ?
“One thing is clear. Dual capacity will not be found merely because the employer has a number of departments or divisions that perhaps are quite separate in their functions and operations. . . .”4
“The decisive dual-capacity test is not concerned with how separate or different the second function of the employer is from the first but with whether the second function generates obligations unrelated to those flowing from the first, that of employer. . . .”5
*330The majority uses two principal approaches to determine if the employer is functioning as employer or in a second capacity. First, the majority uses a “but for” test. The majority says that “[t]he basic question is whether the function of the medical department was undertaken because of the employment relationship and the obligation to injured workers which could be discharged in this way or whether the purpose of the department was to furnish medical attention aside and apart from the employer’s responsibilities to an injured employee.” Supra, p. 318. The majority’s answer is that the function of the medical department was undertaken because of the employment relation. The majority notes that the original injury would not have occurred but for Jenkins’ employment by Briggs and that Briggs would not have rendered medical treatment to Jenkins but for the fact that he was an employee and had a work-related injury. The majority then concludes that Briggs’ direct medical care is part of the employer’s responsibilities to the employee and is merely one facet of the employment relationship. The majority’s “but for” test is helpful in excluding or identifying any function of the employer which has absolutely no connection with the employment relation. The “but for” test is not, however, helpful in identifying those functions which have some connection with the employment relation but which should nevertheless be viewed as not arising from the employment.6
*331As the majority recognizes, the “but for” test sweeps too broadly. The dual capacity theory does not require that the employment relation be terminated or that the second legal capacity have no connection or relation whatever with the employment status. The dual capacity theory asks whether the employer was at one and the same time functioning not only as employer but also in a second capacity which generates obligations independent of those imposed on Briggs as employer.
Thus the majority uses a second approach to determine whether the employer is functioning as employer or is functioning in a second capacity. In this second approach the majority tries to delineate the function of an employer and the employer’s obligation to an employee which arise from the employment relation. This delineation is not an easy task. The majority concludes that providing medical service is a function of Briggs as employer, because Briggs has an obligation to provide medi*332cal care to an employee who has a work-related injury. The majority says that “under the Worker’s Compensation Act an employer is obligated to provide for medical treatment” (supra, p. 319), that “the obligation to a work-injured employee of the medical-service function, whether performed by the employer or by another, stemmed wholly from, and was a part of the employer’s function and is mandated by the Worker’s Compensation Act,” {supra, p. 319) and that “the function of .. . treatment of employees [is] an obligation mandated by the Worker’s Compensation Act itself.” (Supra, pp. 319, 320.)
I acknowledge that an employer may have a common-law duty as employer to render first aid and emergency assistance directly to an injured employee, but I disagree with the majority’s view that Briggs is fulfilling its obligation as employer when it maintains a medical facility at the plant site and renders extended and prolonged medical treatment to an employee injured at work.7
It is beyond dispute that medical benefits are a central concern of the worker’s compensation act. 2 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 61.00 (1981) ; National Comm’n on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws, Compendium on Workmen’s Compensation ch. 10 (1973). But the employer’s obligation in connection with this central concern may be satisfied in Wisconsin by the employer making available and paying for medical care. The employer need not render medical treatment directly to the employee in its own plant by its own employees in order to satisfy its obligations as employer under the worker’s compensation act.
The Wisconsin worker’s compensation act does not, *333contrary to what the majority intimates, mandate that the employer engage directly in a medical service function or that Briggs maintain a nursing staff to treat injured employees. The majority cites sec. 102.42(1), Stats. 1979-80,8 to support the statement that the legislature mandates the medical service *334or treatment. Sec. 102.42(1), Stats. 1979-80, specifies the treatment, medicine, devices, and training which an employer must supply as incidental compensation, Klein Industrial Salvage v. DILHR, 80 Wis. 2d 457, 462, 259 N.W.2d 124 (1977), but no party before us claims that Briggs has a duty to employ a medical staff to treat injured employees. The parties concede that Briggs has options under the worker’s compensation act. Briggs may, if it wishes, hire its own medical staff and thus personally provide medical treatment to the employee. Or Briggs may pay for the medical treatment provided by persons not employed by Briggs. The worker’s compensation act obligates the employer to furnish medical treatment in the sense of making medical treatment available to the employee and paying for the treatment; the act does not obligate the employer to engage directly in the delivery of medical care.
Briggs in its capacity as employer must make medical care available, but when Briggs voluntarily undertakes to render prolonged and extended medical treatment di*335rectly to its injured employee — whatever its motivation, e.g., to reduce costs or to provide a benefit to its employees — Briggs has undertaken a function which is not required by the employer-employee relation or by the worker’s compensation act and which is not an integral part of Briggs’ business of manufacturing and selling. The quid pro quo embodied in the worker’s compensation act was that the employer would compensate the employee for injury; the employee would receive scheduled amounts for injuries received in employment; and the common-law tort liability for injuries received in employment would be eliminated. By moving from payment for medical services to rendering the services directly, Briggs has moved outside the confines of the “compromise” of the worker’s compensation act. Borgnis v. Falk Co., 147 Wis. 327, 337, 354, 133 N.W. 209 (1911); Anderson v. Miller Scrap Iron Co., 169 Wis. 106, 116, 170 N.W. 275 (1919); Guse v. A.O. Smith Corp., 260 Wis. 403, 407, 51 N.W.2d 24 (1952).
The legal rules governing the responsibilities of health care providers are different in quality and range from the rules governing the responsibilities of a manufacturer or seller to its employees. Even though Briggs may not provide medical treatment to the public, it has in my view, by directly rendering medical treatment, become a separate distinct legal persona, a health care provider.9 Briggs is performing in a capacity which generates the obligations of due care in medical treatment, obligations which are independent of those imposed on Briggs as employer.
Larson suggests that the key to determining whether the employer’s medical service function generates obligations unrelated to those generated by the employment *336relation lies in the difference between providing services in the sense of paying for them and providing services in the sense of directly performing them. Larson explains the payment-performance test for dual capacity in the medical treatment cases as follows:
“The doctor-patient relation, with all the legal obligations that it entails, does not spring up as the result of an essentially financial act — paying the doctor’s bill. But it does spring up as the result of undertaking to perform the medical treatment directly.10
“ [P] aying for services and physically performing them . . . have a crucial difference. It is virtually impossible to cause physical injury by writing a check. It is very possible to cause physical injury by administering medical treatment to a patient . . . .”11
To Larson the key question then is whether the employer performed, that is controlled, the medical care that caused the injury as distinguished from making it available or paying for it. If the employer controlled the medical care that caused the injury, the employer has acted in a second capacity.12 Since the majority reads the cross-claim as alleging that Briggs controlled the medical care, I conclude Briggs acted in a second capacity.
My conclusion that Briggs acted in a second legal capacity is not determinative, however, of the question of whether Briggs should be liable in a tort action. As Larson points out, there remains the question of which of the two capacities should control.13 I suggest that *337to determine which capacity controls, the court should focus on whether the injury in question is within the risks to which the employee is exposed by employment in the industry.14 It is only these risks which the legislature intended to be covered by the worker’s compensation act.
The employer’s capacity as employer should control— and the compensation remedy should be exclusive — when the injury arises out of a risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in the performance of his job. The employer’s second capacity should control — and the compensation remedy should not be exclusive — when the injury arises out of a risk or hazard which is not one to which the employee is exposed in the performance of his job. Focusing on the risks of employment from the employee’s perspective comports with the theory of the worker’s compensation act and the intent of the legislature. The compensation statute was not intended to immunize an entity which happens to be an employer from any and all liability to a person who happens to be an employee. The legislature intended the worker’s compensation act remedy to be exclusive only as to injuries resulting from the risks to which work in the industry exposes the employee.
When Briggs took direct control over medical care instead of writing a check for medical care, it was subjecting the employee to a risk that was outside the risks contemplated by the worker’s compensation act. Briggs subjected its employee to risks that do not arise simply as a result of the employee being employed in the work force. Injury from malpractice flows not from the work *338place but from Briggs’ undertaking a separate and distinct relationship with an employee.15 In my view, the majority has, in this case, by immunizing Briggs from a tort suit, extended the scope of the worker’s compensation act beyond that intended by the legislature.
For the reasons set forth, I dissent.

 An employer is liable under worker’s compensation if five conditions concur: (1) the employee sustains an injury; (2) at the time of the injury both the employer and the employee are subject to the Act; (3) at the time of the injury the employee is performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment; (4) the injury is not intentionally self-inflicted; and (5) the accident or disease causing injury arises out of this employment.
Sec. 102.03(1), Stats. 1977, provides as follows:
“102.03 Conditions of liability. (1) Liability under this chapter shall exist against an employer only where the following conditions concur:
“(a) Where the employe sustains an injury.
“(b) Where, at the time of the injury, both the employer and the employe are subject to the provisions of this chapter.
“(c) 1. Where at the time of the injury, the employe is performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment. Every employe going to and from his employment in the ordinary and usual way, while on the premises of his employer, or while in the immediate vicinity thereof if the injury results from an occurrence on the premises, shall be deemed to be performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment; so shall any employe going between an employer’s designated parking lot and the employer’s work premises while on a direct route and in the ordinary and usual way; and so shall any fireman or municipal utility employe responding to a call for assistance outside the limits of his city or village, unless such response is in violation of law. The premises of his employer shall be deemed to include also the premises of any other person on whose premises service is being performed.
“(d) Where the injury is not intentionally self-inflicted.
“(e) Where the accident or disease causing injury arises out of his employment.”

 Sec. 102.03(2), Stats. 1979-80, provides as follows:
“(2) Where such conditions exist the right to the recovery of compensation under this chapter shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer, any other employe of the same employer and the worker’s compensation insurance carrier. This section does not limit the right of an employe to bring action against any coemploye for an assault intended to cause bodily harm, or against a coemploye for negligent operation of a motor vehicle not owned or leased by the employer, or against a coemploye of the same employer to the extent that there would be liability of a governmental unit to pay judgments against employes under a collective bargaining agreement or a local ordinance.”

 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 72.80 at 14-112 (1974).

 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 72.80 at 14-115 (1974).

 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 72.80 at 14-117 (1974).
For discussions of dual capacity, see e.g., Warwick v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Co., Inc., 303 So. 2d 701 (Fla. App. 1974); Trotter v. Litton Systems, Inc., 370 So. 2d 244 (Miss. 1979); Hanna, Exclusivity of Workmen’s Compensation Remedy in Relation to Further Injury Resulting From Carrier’s Non-Medical Investigation of Extent of Employee’s Industrial Disability, 5 S.W.U.L. Rev. 118 (1973); Comment, Workmen’s Compensation and Employer Suability: The Dual-Capacity Doctrine, 5 St. Mary’s L.J. 818 (1974) ; Note, The No-Duty Rule in New York: Should Company Doctors Be Considered Co-Employees?, 9 Hofstra L. Rev. 665 (1981); Note, Dual Capacity Doctrine: Third-Party Liability of Employer Manufacturer in Products Liability Litigation, 12 Ind. L. Rev. 553 (1979).

 This “but for” test is tied to the general notion that worker’s compensation benefits are not based on the acts or omission of the employer but on status, i.e. on the existence of the employment relationship. As the United States Supreme Court said in Cudahy Packing Co. v. Parramore, 263 U.S. 418, 423 (1923):
“Workmen’s Compensation legislation rests upon the idea of status, . . . that is, upon the conception that an injured workman is entitled to compensation for an injury sustained in the service of an industry to whose operation he contributes his work as the owner contributes his capital — the one for the sake of the *331wages and the other for the sake of the profits. The act is based not upon any act or omission of the employer, but upon the existence of the relationship which the employee bears to the employment because of and in the course of which he has been injured.”
The “but for” test leads the majority to focus on whether Briggs incurred obligations to the employee or to the public. Supra, p. 319. It is on this basis that the majority seeks to distinguish Duprey v. Shane, 39 Cal. 2d 781, 249 P.2d 8 (1952) (the chiropractor case), and Reed v. Yaka, 373 U.S. 410 (1965) (the stevedoring case). The majority appears to conclude that when the employer’s function gives rise to duties to the general public, as well as to the employee, there may be a second legal persona.
The “but for” test also leads the majority to focus on the original injury being work related. Compare Garcia v. Iserson, 42 A.D.2d 776, 346 N.Y.S.2d 572 (1973), in which the court held that injury caused by the employer’s negligent medical care of a non-work related illness was compensable exclusively under worker’s compensation.

 According to the briefs, which are not supposed to supply facts not of record, Briggs’ staff of nurses gave treatment to Jenkins twice a day for a couple of months.

 Sec. 102.42, Stats. 1979-80, provides in part as follows:
“102.42 Incidental compensation. (1) Treatment op employe. The employer shall supply such medical, surgical, chiropractic, podiatric and hospital treatment, medicines, medical and surgical supplies, crutches, artificial members, appliances, and training in the use of artificial members and appliances, or, at the option of the employe, if the employer has not filed notice as provided in sub. (4), Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical treatment, medicines and medical supplies, as may be reasonably required to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury, and to attain efficient use of artificial members and appliances, and in case of the employer’s neglect or refusal seasonably to do so, or in emergency until it is practicable for the employe to give notice of injury, the employer shall be liable for the reasonable expense incurred by or on behalf of the employe in providing such treatment, medicines, supplies and training. Where the employer has knowledge of the injury and the necessity for treatment, the employer’s failure to tender the necessary treatment, medicines, supplies and training constitutes such neglect or refusal. The employer shall also be liable for reasonable expense incurred by the employe for necessary treatment to cure and relieve the employe from the effects of occupational disease prior to the time that the employe knew or should have known the nature of his or her disability and its relation to employment, and as to such treatment subs. (2) and (3) shall not apply. The obligation to furnish such treatment and appliances shall continue as required to prevent further deterioration in the condition of the employe or to maintain the existing status of such condition whether or not healing is completed.
“(2) Choice op practitioner, (a) Where the employer has notice of an injury and its relationship to the employment the employer shall offer to the injured employe his or her choice of any physician, chiropractor or podiatrist licensed to practice and practicing in this state for treatment of the injury. By mutual agreement, the employe may have the choice of any qualified *334practitioner not licensed in this state. In case of emergency, the employer may arrange for treatment without tendering a choice. After the emergency has passed the employe shall be given his or her choice of attending practitioner at the earliest opportunity. The employe has the right to a 2nd choice of attending practitioner on notice to the employer or its insurance carrier. Any further choice shall be by mutual agreement. Partners and clinics are deemed to be one practitioner. Treatment by a practitioner on referral from another practitioner is deemed to be treatment by one practitioner.
“(b) The employer is not liable for the expense of unreasonable travel to obtain treatment.
“(3) Practitioner choice unrestricted. If the employer fails to tender treatment as provided in sub. (1) or choice of an attending practitioner as provided in sub. (2), the employe’s right, to choose the attending practitioner is not restricted and the employer is liable for the reasonable and necessary expense thereof.”

 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 72.80 at 14-118; sec. 72.90 at 14-153 (1974).

 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law see. 72.80 at 14-118 (1974). For further discussion of the doctor-employer relation Larson refers the reader to his discussion of the insurer as third party. See note 11 and text. Briggs was self insured.

 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 72.90 at 14-153 (1974).

 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 72.80 at 14-151-155, 161 (1974).

 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 72.80 at 14-122 (1974).

 Larson also suggests that if a court adheres to the well-established rule that doubts as to statutory interpretation should be resolved in favor of preserving rather than abolishing an individual’s valuable rights the non-employer capacity should control. 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 72.80, at 14-122-23,14-164 (1974).

 The majority intimates that because under the worker’s compensation act the employer compensates an employee for injuries caused by the conduct of a physician who treats an injured employee, the injury from the malpractice is an industrial injury compensable under the act and the employer is immune from tort responsibility for the act of the physician. Supra, p. 316.
The majority appears to be saying that if the aggravation of the injury is compensated for under the act, the aggravating event must by definition arise out of the employment. Injury arising from medical malpractice is not an injury compensable under worker’s compensation; the original work-related injury is the injury covered under worker’s compensation. There is a distinction between the injury covered under the act and the elements of damage compensable for an injury covered under the act. See Coleman v. American Univ. Ins. Co., 86 Wis. 2d 616, 621, 273 N.W.2d 220 (1979); 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law sec. 65.10 (1974). The damages resulting from acts of the health care provider are in the “chain of causation” and enhance the compensable award for the original work-related injury. Selleck v. Janesville, 100 Wis. 157, 163, 164, 75 N.W. 975 (1898); Pawlak v. Hayes, 162 Wis. 503, 507, 156 N.W. 464 (1916); Fisher v. Milwaukee, E. R. L. Co., 173 Wis. 57, 60, 180 N.W. 269 (1920); Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Pugh, 206 Wis. 62, 66, 67, 238 N.W. 872 (1931).
Sabourin and Badger, in their reply brief to this court (p. 2), set forth this theory as follows:
“. . . There is no contradiction in holding an employer, in his employer capacity, liable for Worker’s Compensation benefits for the initial injury and for any aggravation of that injury and also holding him liable in his capacity as a provider of medical services, as a third party, for the injury which is caused by his negligence in providing medical services. This construction would be in harmony with the Worker’s Compensation Act, which allows such a double recovery from negligent outside medical care providers.”
The majority’s opinion in effect deprives the employees of the common-law remedy against the health care provider, a remedy which, as the legislative history shows, the legislature has care*339fully protected in the worker’s compensation law. Prior to 1917, the employee had to elect whether to seek worker’s compensation from the employer or to sue the third party (including the physician) in tort. In 1917, the legislature provided that the employee could collect worker’s compensation and could also pursue a tort claim against the physician for medical malpractice. Laws of 1917, ch. 624, sec. 2394-24. It was not until 1931 that the legislature provided that the employee could collect worker’s compensation and pursue a tort claim against third parties. Laws of 1931, chs. 132, 403, 469. The legislature has also provided that the employer could share in a third party award unless the third party was a specified health care provider. Sec. 102.29(3), Stats. 1979-80. Thus it is apparent from this legislative history that the legislature deliberately adopted a policy of allowing the employee to sue specified health care providers for malpractice regardless of the benefits the employee received under the worker’s compensation act and allowing the employee to recover “double damages” for injury from malpractice, i.e. worker’s compensation and tort damages. Sec. 102.29(3), Stats. 1979-80.