Mark Meyer
Chairperson
__________________
State of Wisconsin
May 16, 2001
The Honorable, The Senate:
This letter is to respectfully request that I be added as a cosponsor to Senate Bill 171, authored by Senator Wirch and relating to funeral establishment permits.
Sincerely,
Jeff Stone
State Representative
State of Wisconsin
Joint Legislative Council
June 7, 2001
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am pleased to transmit to you the following report to the 2001 Legislature on legislation introduced by the Joint Legislative Council:
RL 2001-9 Legislation on Conservation Laws
Enforcement
(2001 Assembly Bills 300 and 301)
I would appreciate your including this letter in the Journal for the information of the membership. Additional copies of this report are available at the Legislative Council Staff offices, One East Main, Suite 401, or from our web page at
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/report_by_topic.htm.
Sincerely,
Terry C, Anderson
Director
State of Wisconsin
Ethics Board
June 12, 2001
The Honorable, The Senate:
The following lobbyists have been authorized to act on behalf of the organizations set opposite their names.
For more detailed information about these lobbyists and organizations and a complete list of organizations and people authorized to lobby the 2001 session of the legislature, visit the Ethics Board's web site at
http://ethics.state.wi.us/
Broydrick, William Extendicare Health Services, Inc.
Brozek, Michael International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association
Hazelbaker, Mark Town of Madison
Linton, Barbara International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association
McIntosh, Forbes Extendicare Health Services, Inc.
Nierzwicki, Christine Fortis Insurance Company
Petak, George Rime Management Group Inc
Reid, William S Eli Lilly and Company
Theo, Michael Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
Thimke, Mark A Mercury Marine, Division of Brunswick Corporation
Also available from the Wisconsin Ethics Board are reports identifying the amount and value of time state agencies have spent to affect legislative action and reports of expenditures for lobbying activities filed by organizations that employ lobbyists.
Sincerely,
Roth Judd
Director
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
June 7, 2001
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on May 18, 2001.
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 legislative introduction.
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and spreading of it upon the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
John E. Rothschild
Secretary
The State Claims Board conducted hearings in the State Capitol, Grand Army of the Republic Memorial Hall, Madison, Wisconsin, on May 18, 2001, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
The Board Finds:
S221
1. Lois A. Endres
of Madison, Wisconsin claims $2,074.32 for lost wages and sick time caused by a fall that allegedly occurred at the State Capitol Building. The claimant states that on January 1, 2001, she was exiting the State Capitol when she slipped on ice and fell, landing on her left side. The claimant states that her companion took her immediately to the hospital, where she was treated for fractured ribs. The claimant alleges that the day was clear and sunny and that she encountered no other icy areas during her walk from Brittingham Park to the Capitol Building. The claimant believes that the state was negligent for failing to clear ice from the walkway. The claimant alleges that her injuries caused her to miss significant amounts of work. She requests reimbursement for 74.75 hours of sick time used and 11.25 hours of lost wages (after her sick time was used up). She also requests payment for $25 in medical bills and $96.48 for four hours of time to attend the Claims Board meeting. At her hearing, the claimant stated that she probably exited on the South or Southwest side of the Capitol and that she slipped on smooth glare ice.
The Department of Administration recommends denial of this claim. The claimant did not file a police report or contact anyone at the Capitol Building at the time of the accident and has presented no proof that the accident actually occurred at the Capitol Building.
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 not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
2. Anjelika Johnson of Madison, Wisconsin claims $3,580.20 for lost wages. The claimant works as a Registered Nurse providing home health care for Medical Assistance patients. The claimant states that she is paid by the Department of Health and Family Services through its fiscal agent, EDS and that she is required to have a number of approvals in place before she can be paid. She states that she did not realize that one of her authorizations had expired on April 21, 2000, and that the renewal date had simply slipped her mind. EDS would not honor the claimant's request for payment of services delivered May 5 through June 12. The claimant states that she processed her renewal paperwork as soon as she found out her authorization had lapsed but that EDS would not backdate payments and could not pay her for the work performed after the expiration date. The claimant believes that there should be some allowance made for a simple mistake. She points to the fact that the work she performed was authorized by the budget and by EDS. The claimant believes that it would be helpful if reminders of authorization renewal dates could be sent to providers in order to keep a simple mistake from causing such harm. At her hearing, the claimant stated that she continued to provide home health service during the period when her authorization had expired. This was not disputed by DHFS.
The Department of Health and Family Services recommends denial of this claim. DHFS states that there was no negligence on the part of any state employee and does not believe there is an equitable basis for the claim. DHFS states that under the Wisconsin Administrative Code, all Medical Assistance providers are required to receive reimbursement authorization approval prior to provision of services. DHFS points to the fact that the claimant is not alleging that she was unaware of this requirement but that she forgot to submit her authorization renewal. DHFS points to HSF 107.03 (3)(c), which states that if prior authorization is not obtained "reimbursement shall not be made except in extraordinary circumstances such as emergency cases where the department has given verbal authorization for a service." The DHFS does not believe that the claimant's situation of forgetting to renew her authorization falls under this section. Finally, DHFS points to HSF 106.02 (9)(e), which states that the provider is solely responsible for prior authorization requests and also to HSF 106.03 (4) and HSF 107.11 (5)(e), which specifically state that services provided without the required authorizations are not covered if the authorization is not in place prior to the date of service.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $2,000.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Health and Family Services appropriation s.
20.435 (4)(a), Stats.
3. Arthur Polk of Montello, Wisconsin claims $535.00 for restitution he never received. The claimant owns a warehouse that was damaged when Anatoly Nepscha broke into the building by driving his vehicle into the warehouse door. Mr. Nepscha was convicted of two counts of felony burglary and received four years of probation on both counts. The claimant states that he submitted a repair bill for his door to the court and that the court ordered Mr. Nepscha to pay restitution to the claimant in the amount of $535. The claimant states that he contacted the Adams County District Attorney's Office at the end of Mr. Nepscha's probationary period and claims that they told him they had made an error and failed to collect restitution from Mr. Nepscha.
The State Prosecutors Office (SPO) originally filed a response for this claim stating that the claim should be more properly brought against the Department of Corrections. The SPO advised that restitution was ordered for the claimant by means of a stipulation filed in Juneau County (where the claimant was convicted). The SPO states that the Juneau County DA's Office stated that they sent a copy of the restitution order to Mauston Probation and Parole Department (Juneau County). Mr. Nepscha's actual probation supervision occurred in Adams County and would have been overseen by a Probation and Parole Office in that county.
The Department of Corrections recommends denial of this claim. The DOC alleges that the Juneau County Clerk of Court's Office never sent the Department's agent's office the order of restitution pertaining to the claimant. Consequently, no restitution was collected for the claimant. DOC states that when the claimant contacted them about the problem, the DOC wrote the court and asked that a civil judgement be issued against Mr. Nepscha on behalf of the claimant for $535. The court did so on June 27, 2000. Section
973.20(1), Stats., provides that after probation is terminated, restitution such as that ordered for the claimant "is enforceable in the same manner as a judgement in a civil action by the victim named in the order to receive restitution
…" The DOC believes that, since the claimant has received a civil judgement against Mr. Nepscha, he has the option provided for in the statute of going through the ordinary judgement enforcement process. The DOC states that the claimant has provided no evidence that he has attempted to enforce the judgement and therefore believes he has not exhausted all available legal remedies. Finally, the DOC states that it has not been shown that any Department employee or agent was negligent in the handling of this matter. The DOC states that most crime victims do not receive full restitution for the crimes committed against them and the DOC does not believe it would be wise to make the state a guarantor for restitution claims against criminals.
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 not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
