Joyce S. Clark v. League of Wisconsin Municipalities Mutual Insurance Company
959 N.W.2d 648
Wis. Ct. App.2021Background
- Joyce Clark, a Fox Valley Technical College instructor, fell on October 17, 2015 while entering the City-owned Oshkosh Senior Center; she reported minor injuries that day.
- Within 120 days a college supervisor submitted an electronic workers’ compensation “Injury Form” to the City that described the incident but was neither signed by Clark nor served under Wis. Stat. § 801.11, and it incorrectly listed the employer as the City.
- A City safety officer (Greeninger) investigated within the week, determined the door’s disabled-person feature had been turned off (not broken), and concluded nothing needed repair.
- Clark filed a formal notice of claim under Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1d)(b) on April 12, 2018 (about 2½ years later) and later sued the City in October 2018.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding Clark failed to provide the statutorily required written notice and failed to show lack of prejudice; the Court of Appeals reversed as to prejudice and remanded for factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Clark provide the § 893.80(1d)(a) "notice of injury" (formal compliance)? | Clark relied on the Injury Form submitted within 120 days to satisfy notice. | The Injury Form was not signed or served per § 801.11, so it did not meet formal requirements. | Clark did not comply with the statute's formal notice requirements. |
| Did early communications (Injury Form and staff conversations) constitute "actual notice of the claim" for substantial compliance? | Clark argued the Injury Form and follow-up discussions put the City on notice and triggered investigation. | City argued those communications informed only of the incident, not of a claim; actual notice occurred only with April 12, 2018 notice of claim. | Early communications did not constitute actual notice of the claim; actual notice occurred when the April 2018 notice of claim was filed. |
| Was the City prejudiced by the delay such that the savings clause does not save Clark's claim? | Clark argued the City had prompt opportunity to investigate (Greeninger’s early inquiry) and thus was not prejudiced. | City argued the multi-year delay defeated the statute’s purpose and prejudiced its ability to investigate. | Prejudice is a factual question; Clark raised a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. Case remanded for determination of prejudice only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 350 Wis. 2d 554, 835 N.W.2d 160 (2013) (explains substantial compliance/savings-clause framework under § 893.80(1d)(a)).
- Nielsen v. Town of Silver Cliff, 112 Wis. 2d 574, 334 N.W.2d 242 (1983) (actual notice has no statutory time limit; prejudice inquiry central).
- Yacht Club at Sister Bay Condo. Ass’n v. Village of Sister Bay, 385 Wis. 2d 158, 922 N.W.2d 95 (2019) (purpose of notice of injury is to permit prompt investigation by government entities).
- Elkhorn Area Sch. Dist. v. East Troy Cmty. Sch. Dist., 110 Wis. 2d 1, 327 N.W.2d 206 (1982) (notice facilitates prompt governmental investigation of circumstances giving rise to claims).
- E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida, 335 Wis. 2d 720, 800 N.W.2d 421 (2011) (standard for appellate review of statutory notice determinations; summary judgment appropriate on legal questions).
- Markweise v. Peck Foods Corp., 205 Wis. 2d 208, 556 N.W.2d 326 (Ct. App. 1996) (distinguishes notice of circumstances from actual notice of a claim).