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.)
6. Waushara County, Wisconsin, claims $61,963.42 for reimbursement of local transportation aid payments withheld by the Department of Transportation to cover cost overruns on a highway construction project. The county believes the department wrongfully approved payment to private contractors for highway construction costs and overruns not within the terms of the construction contract or change orders. Waushara County claims it is only obligated to pay 20% of the construction contract price and that any payment over and above the contract price is prohibited by law. The DOT has stated that the county must also pay 20% of the extra costs: $61,963.42. The department has withheld a portion of Waushara County's local transportation aid payments to cover this amount. Waushara County believes any extra payment to contractors is prohibited by state law and requests reimbursement of the amount withheld from the county's local transportation aid payments. The Department of Transportation recommends denial of this claim. The department denies that it paid any extra compensation to contractors and states that the county agreed to pay the state all costs of the project which "exceed Federal/State financing commitments..." The department does not have the statutory authority to use state funds to pay the county's share and therefore withheld local aid payments to cover the amount owed by the county. 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.
7. Bradley Copeland of Highland Park, Illinois, claims $863.46 for medical bills and related expenses incurred as a result of an injury he received while participating in a UW Kendo class. Kendo is a form of Japanese swordsmanship which involves the use of the Kendo stick (shinai), which is made out of bamboo. The claimant believed the class was safe because the syllabus indicated that no one had ever been seriously injured while participating in class exercises. However, the claimant was accidentally struck in the hand in an area with insufficient padding. His hand was broken and he later required surgery. Without surgery, his hand would not have healed properly. The claimant requests reimbursement of his unpaid medical costs and the hotel expenses incurred by his parents when they came to visit him when he had his surgery. The University of Wisconsin recommends denial of this claim because the claimant's injury was not caused by the negligence of a state employe. Furthermore, prior to participating in the class, the claimant signed a statement which reads in part: "Any costs as the result of injury or illness connected with participation in these courses are solely the responsibility of the student." 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.
8. Jennifer Sargent of Charlotte, North Carolina, claims $220.00 for damage to scuba equipment which occurred during a UW course field trip. The claimant was a student in the class Zoology/Botany 460. Participation in the course included a field trip to Florida. Among other activities, students on the trip went SCUBA diving. The claimant brought SCUBA equipment, consisting of a new regulator rented from the Hoofers Club and a diving bag. On January 11, 1996, in preparation for a diving trip, the claimant placed her equipment behind the UW vehicle designated to take the students to the diving site. It was the usual practice to leave the diving equipment behind the vehicle for loading. The UW's authorized driver backed the UW van over the equipment, damaging the bag and the regulator. Both items were a total loss. The UW driver assured the claimant that he would take care of filing with UW Risk Management. In April, the claimant called Risk Management and was told the driver had never filed a claim. The claimant gave the information to a student hourly, who said she would follow up on the incident. The claimant did not hear anything and again called Risk Management in May. The student hourly who had been working on the case was not there and no file could be found. The claimant was then told that she could not file a claim because it had been over 120 days since the incident. The claimant requests $70.00 for replacement of the damaged dive bag, which was her personal property, and $150 for the damaged regulator. The regulator belonged to the Hoofers Club and the claimant has submitted a receipt showing that she paid them $150 to replace the regulator. The University of Wisconsin recommends payment of this claim. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $220.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the University of Wisconsin appropriation s.
20.285 (1)(a), Stats.
S152
9. Sarah Gallow-Czarnecki of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, claims $925.48 for car damage allegedly caused by a malfunctioning traffic gate. On October 19, 1995, the claimant was traveling on the 68th Street on-ramp to I-94 in Milwaukee. The claimant states there were no visible "closed" signs posted at the on-ramp and that she was one of many cars lined up to enter the ramp. The traffic gate rose and the claimant proceeded forward. As she passed under the gate, it abruptly lowered onto her car, damaging her hood and side mirror. The claimant believes the ramp should have been closed until repairs were made since the Department of Transportation knew the gate was not functioning properly. The claimant has received two estimates for repairing her vehicle, one for $925.48 and one for $1187.95. The claimant does not have insurance coverage for this damage. The department recommends denial of this claim due to the fact that the ramp was posted as "closed" during the time the claimant was using it. The gate arm is often damaged by motorists attempting to go around it when the ramp is closed. 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.
10. Matthew Steffens of Oconto Falls, Wisconsin, claims $748.66 for medical bills and lost wages related to an accident at the Green Bay Department of Motor Vehicles on January 26, 1996. The claimant was leaving the DMV when he slipped and fell on the icy sidewalk outside the building, dislocating his shoulder. The claimant incurred uninsured medical bills and was not able to work for a week. The claimant believes the sidewalk outside the building was not properly shoveled. He requests $236.50 for medical expenses and $512.16 for one week's lost wages. The department recommends denial of this claim. Department personnel had been shoveling and salting the walkway throughout the day. Two DMV employes who witnessed the claimant's fall stated that the snow accumulation on the sidewalk was minimal at the time of the accident. 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.
