967 N.W.2d 21
Wis.2021Background
- In 2016 Andrea Townsend requested certified medical records from Milwaukee Radiologists; ChartSwap, acting on behalf of Milwaukee Radiologists, supplied a one-page certified record and charged $35.87.
- Townsend sued ChartSwap claiming violation of Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b)'s fee limits and unjust enrichment, alleging ChartSwap acted as Milwaukee Radiologists' agent.
- The circuit court granted ChartSwap's motion to dismiss, holding the fee limits apply only to statutorily defined "health care providers" and that agency principles do not impose personal liability on an agent.
- The court of appeals reversed, reasoning §146.84(1)(b) (liability on "any person") and Wis. Stat. §990.001(9) (acts by agents) made ChartSwap personally liable.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals: it held ChartSwap is not a "health care provider" under §146.81(1) and §990.001(9) does not create personal liability for an agent merely because it performed the principal's statutory duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §146.83(3f)(b) fee limits apply to non–statutory "health care providers" (e.g., ChartSwap) | §146.84(1)(b) imposes liability on "any person" and purpose of §146.83 shows fees should be limited regardless who supplies records | §146.83(3f)(b) by its plain text limits fee caps to statutorily defined "health care providers"; ChartSwap is not one | Court: Plain text controls — §146.83(3f)(b) applies only to statutorily defined health care providers; ChartSwap is not one, so fee caps do not apply to it. |
| Whether Wis. Stat. §990.001(9) or agency law makes an agent personally liable for charging more than §146.83 permits | §990.001(9) means agent must comply "with equal force" and therefore can be personally liable | §990.001(9) codifies that an agent's acts are the principal's acts but does not impose independent personal liability on the agent absent a separate duty breach | Court: §990.001(9) embodies the common-law principle that an agent's acts are the principal's acts for fulfilling the principal's duty; it does not create personal liability for the agent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (governs Wisconsin statutory interpretation; start with plain meaning and context)
- RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639 (2012) (explains general/specific canon: specific terms prevail over general)
- Smith v. RecordQuest, LLC, 989 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2021) (recent Seventh Circuit decision addressing similar agency and §990.001(9) issues)
- Rosecky v. Tomaszewski, 225 Wis. 438, 274 N.W. 259 (1937) (interpreting predecessor to §990.001(9): an authorized agent's acts are the acts of the principal)