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.
2. Violet Thompson of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, claims $1,768.77 for lost property and car damage due to two incidents of vandalism and theft. The claimant is employed by the Department of Workforce Development at the Central City Initiative employment office in Milwaukee. In March 1996 someone entered her office, stole her car keys from her coat pocket and took items from her car. In July 1996 her car was vandalized, the window broken and items stolen from the car. In both instances the car was parked in the parking lot at her office. The claimant's total damages for lost property, car repair and car rental come to $7,681.60. Her insurance covered $5,912.83, leaving an uninsured balance of $1,768.77. The claimant did not file a claim with her homeowner's insurance. The department recommends denial of this claim due to the fact that the claimant's losses were caused by the criminal actions of third parties. 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.
3. Ralph and Caroline Kobb of Oak Creek, Wisconsin, claim $13,580.38 for refund of money seized by the Department of Revenue for nonpayment of 1989 income taxes. To the best of their knowledge, the claimants did file a 1989 state income tax return. They have never failed to file tax returns either before 1989 or since. The claimants' personal financial records for 1989 have been misplaced due to a family tragedy. The claimants' son was seriously injured in an automobile accident and required constant care while recuperating at home from January to October 1990. This incident disrupted the claimants' usually careful record keeping and resulted in the misplacement of their financial records. In June 1995 the DOR seized $15,139.47 for payment of the 1989 estimated assessment. The claimants filed another 1989 return in February 1996. This return showed a tax obligation of $4,669.04 of which $3,109.95 had been paid through payment withholding, leaving a balance of $1,559.09. The claimants believe that it is unconscionable for the DOR to seize $15,139.47 for a debt of $1,559.09. The claimants request a refund of the $13,580.38 overpayment, plus interest from the date of seizure, June 26, 1995. The department recommends denial of this claim. The claimants failed to respond to the department's request to file the return. The DOR had 16 contacts with the claimants or their attorney attempting to resolve the matter without success. 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.
4. Jerome L. Teeters of Two Harbors, Minnesota, claims $1,268.72 for money garnisheed from the his wages for a delinquent income tax assessment. The claimant asserts that he did not owe the state any taxes and that his returns had been filed on time and were not subject to any penalty. The claimant tried for a number of years to straighten out the situation and finally was able to prove to the department that he did not owe any tax. By that time, the department had issued an estimated assessment of $35,644.64 and garnished $1,268.72 from the claimant's wages. The claimant was notified in March 1995 that he would not be able to obtain a refund of the garnisheed amount because of the statute of limitations. The department recommends denial of this claim. The claimant's payment for his 1984 return was returned NSF and he also had a number of outstanding sales tax liabilities for 1985. The department attempted to resolve the delinquent account for seven years without success because the claimant refused to file the requested residency information. It was not until the department began garnishment that the claimant submitted the necessary documents. 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.
S151
5. Kenosha County, Wisconsin, claims $334,031.66 for unreimbursed operating costs for the County's assessment system. In 1972, Kenosha County created a county assessor system as authorized under then section 70.99 (12) of the Wisconsin Statutes. In adopting this system, the county relied upon those provisions of s.
70.99 (12), Stats., which provided for partial reimbursement of operating costs to any county adopting a county-wide assessing system. Kenosha County relied upon the state's assurances over the years that such reimbursement would continue at substantially the level that had been set in 1972. There were no substantial changes in the reimbursement formula from 1972 to 1994. Reimbursements to the county on claims for such operational costs were for costs that had been incurred in the calendar year prior to the date that the claim was made. In the 1995 Budget Bill, the legislature changed the law and drastically reduced funding for reimbursement effective July 2, 1996. The new formula provided for reimbursement equal to 50% of the prior level. In response to the funding reduction, Kenosha County dissolved it's county-wide assessment system, effective January 1, 1996. The county then filed a claim for $668,063.32, for costs incurred in 1995, prior to the effective date of the new law. The Department of Revenue paid the county $334,031.66 and denied the remainder of the claim. Kenosha County maintains that the change in the law did not take effect until July 2, 1996, a full year after its passage and, therefore, the county is entitled to reimbursement of its operating costs as set forth under the old formula. The law was changed after Kenosha County had appropriated, expended and/or committed money in reliance on the law that existed and was in effect as of January 1, 1995. Furthermore, the county could not cut off funding for, or dissolve, county assessing in mid-year. The county requests the unreimbursed portion of their 1995 operating costs: $334,031.66. The Department of Revenue recommends denial of this claim. The department did considerable research, with the assistance of State Budget office personnel, and concluded that the state was only obligated to pay the county 50%. 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. (Member Main not participating.)