Monday, October 29, 2012
One-Hundredth Regular Session
The Chief Clerk makes the following entries under the above date.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Office of Senator Julie Lassa
October 25, 2012
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am writing to inform you that the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Entrepreneurship and Biotechnology has reviewed WHEDA's report to the Legislature, Dividends for Wisconsin, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 234.165 (2)(b). This report was received by the committee on September 24, 2012.
No objections have been raised to this request. Therefore, the request is approved.
Sincerely,
julie lassa
Chair, Committee on Economic Development, Entrepreneurship and Biotechnology
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Reference Bureau
October
29
, 2012
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
The following rules have been published in the October 31, 2012 Wisconsin Administrative Register No.682:
Clearinghouse Rules Effective Date(s)
12-00911-1-2012
12-01011-1-2012
Sincerely,
BRUCE J. HOESLY
Senior Legislative Attorney/Code Editor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
October 15, 2012
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on September 26, 2012.
Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of ss.
16.007 and
775.05 Stats., have been paid directly by the Board.
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and publication of it in the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
gregory d murray
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
On September 26, 2012, at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, the State of Wisconsin Claims Board considered the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
The following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
B. The Board considered approval of draft minutes from its June 7, 2012 meeting. Motion to approve made by Member Hagedorn and seconded by Member Strachota. Motion to approve minutes passed.
C. Discussion regarding payment of damages that are or could be insured by claimant. The Board declines to set policy regarding payment of damages that are or could be covered by insurance at this time and will continue to consider insurance coverage of claims on a case by case basis. Motion made by Chairman Means, seconded by Member Taylor. Motion passed.
With respect to the claims, the Board finds:
S899
2. Richard Wood of Appleton, Wisconsin claims $6,347.00 for return of funds allegedly seized illegally by DCF. Firstly, the claimant points to the fact that in March 1995, DCF told the court that the claimant's child support arrearage was $1,315 and that, because his son turned 19 in January 1994, that amount equaled the claimant's total child support arrearage due. Secondly, the claimant states that during his 2006 court proceeding, he learned that DCF only assessed child support after a child turned 18 if that child was enrolled in high school or pursuing a GED. The claimant states his son dropped out of school at age 16. The claimant states that he was not able to confirm this fact until 2006 because the child's mother moved out of state in 1989. He states that he was unable to locate her and his son until his 2006 court proceeding. The claimant therefore believes that any child support amount calculated after his son turned 18 is illegal. The claimant disputes DCF's argument that it was his or his ex-wife's responsibility to notify them that the son was no longer in school as of age 18. The claimant states that the statutes do not place that burden on either the parents or DCF, but require a court order for child support beyond age 18. The claimant states that there was no such court order. The claimant further argues that this DCF policy does not have the force of law. Claimant also notes that DCF should have been aware of his son's status, because the agency would have conducted regular reviews to determine if his son was still eligible for benefits, such as BadgerCare. Thirdly, the claimant argues that DCF's collection of interest and fees shortly after he filed for bankruptcy was illegal. The claimant states that interest and fees are dischargeable in bankruptcy because a) there is no requirement that DCF pay the interest and fees to the child and, b) interest is not an obligation of support, it is a penalty assessed by DCF for not making child support payments on time. The claimant requests reimbursement of the $4,067 seized by DCF in February 2006 and the $3,595 seized in April 2006, minus the arrearage total testified to by DCF ($1,315) for a total claim of $6,347.
DCF recommends denial of this claim. DCF denies that the claimant's total child support arrearage as of March 1995 was $1,315. DCF states that this amount was the total arrearage calculated up to 1991, when the claimant began receiving social security disability benefits. DCF states that it calculated the arrearage up to this date because the disability benefits were the subject of the claimant's court action he was requesting that benefits received by his son be used to offset any unpaid child support payments accrued prior to his receipt of those benefits. DCF states that it assumed that the court would suspend the claimant's obligation for any child support due after he began receiving social security benefits but that the court never issued that order and therefore, the claimant's child support obligations continued to accrue. DCF disputes that it was the department's responsibility to receive a court order to continue support after his son turned 18. DCF's policy at the time was to send a notice to both the custodial and non-custodial parent 90 days prior to the child's 18th birthday, notifying them that the support order would continue unless DCF received verification that the child was no longer in school. DCF states that the department does not have access to this information. DCF also points to the fact that neither the claimant nor his ex-wife responded to this notice. DCF notes that had the claimant contacted the department and indicated that there was a question regarding his son's educational status, the department would have sought a court order to terminate support. Finally, DCF disputes the claimant's assertion that all interest and fees were dismissed in bankruptcy. DCF notes that the case law cited by the claimant only applies to fees but that none of the amounts collected by DCF subsequent to the bankruptcy discharge were applied to fees?the fees were expunged by the court in October 2006. DCF notes that the claimant cites no case law in support of his assertion that interest on child support is dischargeable in bankruptcy. DCF states that the claimant has made no overpayments and recommends denial of this claim.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
3. Kelle and Brian Dorn of Antigo, Wisconsin claim $6,638.25 for medical costs incurred due to allegedly improper notice that the claimant's BadgerCare benefits were terminated. The claimant states that BadgerCare rules require a 10 day notice prior to a "negative action", such as termination of benefits. The claimant states that she received notices in January and February 2011 regarding renewing her benefits prior to March 1, 2011. She called her county social services office and made an appointment to provide her caseworker with the documentation necessary to renew her benefits. The claimant states that the first available appointment was March 4, 2011, but that the county social services staff told her not to worry about the March 1 deadline, because she had called to make her appointment prior to that date. The claimant states she received a notice from the county on March 4th indicating that her BadgerCare benefits had not changed. On March 14th the claimant received another notice requesting payment of an unspecified premium by March 18th. The claimant called the county on March 16th requesting the amount of the premium and went to the social services office that day to pay the premium. She states that county staff told her she did not need to pay the premium and that her caseworker would provide further direction after she had finished processing the claimant's renewal paperwork. On March 25, 2011, the claimant received a notice stating that her BadgerCare benefits had terminated on March 1, 2011. The claimant believes this notice violates the 10 day notification rule. The claimant had received medical services on March 1, 2011. The claim for these services was not submitted by the health care provider until May, 2011 and the claimant was not aware that payment had been denied until she received a billing from the provider in July. She attempted to appeal the termination of her BadgerCare benefits at that time to the Division of Hearings and Appeals, however, her appeal was rejected as untimely because more than 45 days had passed since the claimant was notified of her benefit termination. The claimant states she would have canceled her medical procedure if she had been aware her benefits were not in force on March 1st, but that due to the multiple confusing notices and information provided by county social services staff, she was not aware of the termination until after the procedure. She requests reimbursement for the medical bills incurred.
S900
DHS recommends denial of this claim. On February 16, 2011, the claimant was sent a notice that her BadgerCare benefits would end on March 1st, which fulfilled the 10 day notification rule. The notice further stated that the claimant could appeal that decision until April 18, 2011. Towards the end of March the caseworker completed her review of the claimant's renewal application. DHS states that if the documentation had shown the claimant was eligible for BadgerCare benefits, her benefits would have been restored with no gap in coverage. However, the claimant was found not eligible for benefits because she exceeded the income limit and had access to employer provided insurance. A notice was sent to the claimant on March 25, 2011, that she had been found ineligible for benefits as of March 1st and that she had until May 10th to appeal that decision. The claimant's appeal to Hearings and Appeals was untimely.
The Board defers decision of this claim at this time in order to obtain additional information from DHS and the claimants.
4. Michael T. Davis of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $269.76 for value of property allegedly improperly destroyed by DOC. On 3/17/11 the claimant was transferred from Gordon Correctional Center to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). On 3/23/11 he received his property along with a list of items not allowed at WSPF. On 3/25/11 the claimant filed a complaint (ICE) with WSPF challenging the disallowed property. On 4/13/11 his ICE was dismissed by the complaint examiner and the dismissal was upheld by the warden on 4/14/11. On 4/21/11 the claimant appealed to the complaint examiner in Madison (CCE). On 6/10/11 the claimant received a letter from Madison stating that the time limit for deciding his CCE had been extended and that his administrative remedies had not been exhausted. On 8/5/11 the claimant received notice that his CCE appeal was dismissed. On 8/10/11 the claimant sent WSPF property staff a request to mail out his disallowed property. The property staff informed him that his property had been destroyed on 5/10/11. The claimant states that this was the first notice he received that his property had been destroyed. The claimant filed an ICE regarding the destruction of his property but the ICE was dismissed as untimely. The claimant believes DOC's destruction of his property prior to the decision from CCE in Madison violated his due process rights because he was not allowed to exhaust his administrative appeals before his property was destroyed. He also states that he was not notified that his property was destroyed until after his CCE was denied and that it is therefore unfair that his ICE related to the destruction of his property was denied as untimely. Finally, the claimant notes that he filed an ICE at Stanley Correctional Institution in 2007 and, after winning his CCE appeal two-and-a-half months later, his property was returned. He believes DOC should reimburse him for the value of his destroyed property.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC states that WSPF staff is required to keep inmate property for 30 days after an ICE denial or 10 days after the warden's decision. Pursuant to Department of Adult Institutions' (DAI) policy and the Wisconsin Administrative Code, property is not required to be retained while an inmate appeals to CCE. DOC states that the claimant was properly notified of not allowed and excess items when he received form DOC-237 on 3/23/11. He had the opportunity at that time to notify property staff regarding how he wished to handle these property items. Because he failed to do so, pursuant to DAI policy, the property was destroyed. DOC notes that the claimant was transferred to WSPF, a high-security facility, due to his own behavior and that he should have been aware that there are different rules regarding allowable property at high-security institutions. DOC points to the fact that federal courts have found a prisoner's property rights are "subject to reasonable limitation or retraction in light of the legitimate security concerns of the institution." DOC further notes that because state law does not provide prisoners with a property interest in possessing a specific amount of property, the due process clause is not implicated when prison administrators make decisions regarding the amount or type of property an inmate is allowed. DOC states that the claimant's property was handled properly, in accordance with WSPF rules, and that his claim should be denied.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
5. James Newson of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $32.03 for cost of typewriter wheel allegedly lost by DOC staff. The claimant is an inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI). On 3/11/11 he received a replacement typewriter wheel he had purchased from Access Corrections. The typewriter wheel was defective. On 3/18/11 the claimant gave CCI property staff a box containing the defective typewriter wheel with a pre-paid UPS return label for Union Supply. The claimant contacted CCI property staff on 4/8/11 indicating that he had inadvertently sent the package to the wrong company and requesting the UPS tracking number. CCI staff responded that their records showed UPS picked up the package on 3/23/11 but that they were unable to track packages sent on a UPS account other than CCI's. They told the claimant that he would need to contact Union Supply directly. On 4/18/11 the claimant wrote to Union Supply regarding the returned typewriter wheel and received no response. He phoned Union Supply on 4/26/11 and was told that items received belonging to another company or shipped to the wrong address were automatically returned to the sender. Union Supply also told him they kept no records of these returns and therefore could not confirm whether or not they had received his package. The claimant again contacted CCI property staff and requested UPS tracking info but was told they did not have that information. The claimant states that it is CCI's responsibility to maintain UPS tracking information and that their failure to do so is the sole cause of the loss of his property. He requests reimbursement for the cost of a new typewriter wheel.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC states that it has no policy that requires an institution to track or insure an inmate's package. DOC notes that the claimant admits that he returned the typewriter wheel to the wrong company. DOC believes that it was the claimant's responsibility to send the package to the correct company and that his error is the cause of the loss of his property.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
