Hines v. Resnick
807 N.W.2d 687
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dispute over how to interpret Wis. Stat. § 893.82(5)’s certified mail service requirement for notices of claim against state employees.
- State practice processes certified mail to the attorney general’s Main Street office regardless of whether addressed to capitol, Main Street, or PO Box 7857.
- Hines sent a certified-mail notice to the attorney general addressed to 17 West Main Street, PO Box 7857, Madison, WI 53707-7857.
- DOA drivers sign for certified mail at the Madison post office and deliver to the attorney general’s Main Street office.
- Circuit court held Hines’ notice complied with § 893.82(5); physicians appealed, contending capitol-addressing was required.
- Court remands for consideration of whether Hines complied with § 893.82(3)’s time-of-event requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of § 893.82(5) service | Hines argues service effective when mail reaches AG’s office via proper process. | Physicians argue literal capitol-address requirement; only capitol-addressed notices count as service. | Statute interpreted to allow service to capitol, Main Street, or PO Box. |
| Effect of the capitol-office phrase | Capitol-address requirement is unworkable given processing practice. | Capitol address must be literal fulfillment of § 893.82(5). | Phrase not literally enforceable; proper service includes any of the three addresses. |
| Statutory purpose and uniformity | Interpretation promotes time for investigation and avoids case-by-case disputes. | Literal reading preserves strict compliance of the statute. | Interpretation aligns with purposes of investigation time and uniform processing. |
| Surplusage and canons of construction | Literal surplusage concerns do not override practical administration. | Literal interpretation preserves all words’ meaning. | Court rejects surplusage concern; practical interpretation adopted. |
| § 893.82(3) time specification | Notice sufficiency may include time details; issues may be addressed on remand. | Time-of-event specificity is required; not resolved on appeal. | Not resolved on appeal; remand to address time requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation basics; plain meaning and avoidance of absurd results)
- State v. Delaney, 259 Wis. 2d 77 (Wis. 2003) (courts may avoid absurd or unreasonable results in interpretation)
- Lake City Corp. v. City of Mequon, 207 Wis. 2d 155 (Wis. 1997) (avoid interpreting statutes to produce absurd results)
- State v. Wachsmuth, 73 Wis. 2d 318 (Wis. 1976) (avoid legally absurd and physically impossible results)
- Kellner v. Christian, 197 Wis. 2d 183 (Wis. 1995) (strict adherence to statutory requirements under § 893.82(2m))
- Wirth v. Ehly, Wis. 2d 433 (Wis. 1980) (undeveloped factual challenges not decided on appeal)