Passage.
Ayes, 5 - Senators Moen, Breske, Moore, Wirch and Rosenzweig.
Noes, 1 - Senator Fitzgerald.
Senate Bill 99
Relating to: requiring insurance coverage of preventive pediatric health care services.
Introduction and adoption of Senate amendment 1.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Moen, Breske, Moore, Wirch, Rosenzweig and Fitzgerald.
Noes, 0 - None.
Passage as amended.
Ayes, 5 - Senators Moen, Moore, Wirch, Rosenzweig and Fitzgerald.
Noes, 1 - Senator Breske.
Senate Bill 117
Relating to: interest and penalty waivers for certain payments made to national guard technicians.
Passage.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Moen, Breske, Moore, Wirch, Rosenzweig and Fitzgerald.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 145
Relating to: increasing the limits, and authorizing occurrence or claims-made coverage, for health care liability insurance and granting rule-making authority.
Passage.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Moen, Breske, Moore, Wirch, Rosenzweig and Fitzgerald.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 153
Relating to: changing the term "assisted living facility" to "residential care apartments" and defining the term "stove" for the purposes of residential care apartments.
Introduction and adoption of Senate substitute amendment 1.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Moen, Breske, Moore, Wirch, Rosenzweig and Fitzgerald.
Noes, 0 - None.
Passage as amended.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Moen, Breske, Moore, Wirch, Rosenzweig and Fitzgerald.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 155
Relating to: bonding authority of the Wisconsin Health and Educational Facilities Authority.
Passage.
Ayes, 5 - Senators Moen, Breske, Moore, Rosenzweig and Fitzgerald.
Noes, 1 - Senator Wirch.
Senate Bill 156
Relating to: regulation of physician assistants and the authority of physician assistants to prescribe drugs and devices.
Passage.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Moen, Breske, Moore, Wirch, Rosenzweig and Fitzgerald.
Noes, 0 - None.
Rodney Moen
Chairperson
__________________
Senate Petition 5
A petition in the form of a resolution by the Rock County Board of Supervisors in support of an increase in the foster care reimbursement rate in the Wisconsin State budget.
By
Senator
Burke
.
To joint committee on Finance.
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
To the Honorable, the Senate:
Sincerely,
Douglas La follette
Secretary of State
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
May 1, 1997
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on April 11, 1997.
The amounts recommended for payment under $5,000 on claims included in this report have, under the provisions of s.
16.007. Stats., been paid directly by the Board.
The Board is preparing the bill(s) on the recommended award(s) over $5,000, if any, and will submit such to the Joint Finance Committee for legisaltive introduction.
This report is for the information of the Legislture. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and spreading of it upon the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
Edward D. Main
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State Claims Board conducted hearings at 119 Martin Luther King Jr., Blvd., Madison, Wisconsin on April 11, 1997, upon the following claims:
Claimant Amount
1. Irene D. Brown $927,232.46
2. Violet Thompson $1,768.77
3. Ralph & Caroline Kobb $13,580.38
4. Jerome L. Teeters $1,268.72
5. Kenosha County $334,031.66
6. Waushara County $61,963.42
S150
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
7. Bradley Copeland $863.46
8. Jennifer Sargent $220.00
9. Sarah Gallow-Czarnecki $925.48
10. Matthew Steffens $748.66
11. Sandra & Brian Swanson $2,500.00
12. Robert G. Wojcik, Sr $285.00
13. Antion Delarosa $63.96
14. Terry Holloway $309.20
15. Joyce M. Uhren $50.00
16. Raymond Collins $1,743.00
17. Tammy M. Leinen $360.47
18. Michael A. Stach $4,121.00
19. Clyde H. Lockard $396.19
In addition, a request for re-hearing was considered and decided without hearing for the following claim:
20. Robert & Suzanne Saletra $10,426.14
The Board Finds:
1. Irene Brown of New Berlin, Wisconsin, claims $927,232.46 for damages related to the payout procedure for a Wisconsin's Very Own Megabucks (WVOM) jackpot prize. The claimant wishes to be paid in 25 monthly rather than annual installments. All of the promotional and informational material available to the claimant stated that the jackpot payment would be made in "25 installments." None of that material, including the ticket itself, disclosed that the installments were annual. The claimant had no knowledge of the existence of the "Features and Procedures" document, which does refer to annual installments, and none of the promotional and informational material available to the claimant disclosed the existence of this document. Furthermore, the "On-Line Game Guide," which also references annual payments, was not available at the point of purchase as stated by the Department of Revenue. The claimant did not know that the On-Line Game Guide existed until she went to redeem her winning ticket at the Lottery office in Milwaukee and was given a copy of the Guide. The claimant believes that she has been a victim of deceptive advertising and a classic bait-and-switch scheme. All of the information available to her at the time she purchased the WVOM ticket led her to believe that a winning jackpot prize could be paid over any installment term, such as 25 months. The claimant believes that a prize payment of 25 annual installments would be a breach of contract. She further claims that the Lottery's failure to adequately disclose that payments were annual is a violation of s.
565.30 (2m), Stats., which requires the "number of years over which the prize shall be paid" to be stated on any informational material. The claimant requests compensation for her damages; the difference between the value of the jackpot as paid over 25 months rather than 25 years. The Lottery contends it has met the requirements of s.
565.30 (2m), which requires that informational material state the number of installments "if the prize...is payable in installments over a period of years." Therefore, the lottery is only required to publish the number of installments if the prize is paid in annual payments. The Lottery 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 employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
