Madsen v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MEMORIAL HOSP.
2011 Wyo. LEXIS 39
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- In 2004, the Hospital and Dr. Madsen entered into an agreement; in 2007 Madsen left and moved his practice to Cheyenne.
- Madsen served a Notice of Claim dated November 8, 2007, alleging the Hospital breached the agreement and caused damages.
- The Hospital filed a lawsuit against Madsen on December 10, 2007; Madsen answered and counterclaimed for breach.
- Madsen's counterclaim alleged that the Notice of Claim was delivered to the Hospital's chief financial officer on November 9, 2005, and attached Exhibit A.
- Exhibit A identified damages and indicated the notice was certified under penalty of perjury; itemized damages totaled $750,000.
- The district court dismissed the counterclaim for lack of explicit constitutional signature and certification compliance and insufficient itemization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Art. 16, §7 and §1-39-113 required? | Madsen alleged delivery and attached the claim; argued sufficient compliance under precedent. | Hospital contends the complaint failed to allege constitutional compliance with signature and certification. | Sufficient; district court erred; subject matter jurisdiction existed. |
| Adequacy of the damages itemization under Art. 16, §7 and §1-39-113? | Itemization totaled damages across four categories, providing a full itemized statement. | District court required more detailed itemization beyond categorization. | Sufficient; itemization met constitutional and statutory requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gose v. City of Douglas, 193 P.3d 1159 (Wyo. 2008) (addressed sufficiency where notice referenced statute but not constitution)
- McCann v. City of Cody, 210 P.3d 1078 (Wyo. 2009) (allegation referenced neither statute nor constitution)
- Motley v. Platte County, 220 P.3d 518 (Wyo. 2009) (only statute referenced in complaint)
- Brown v. City of Casper, 248 P.3d 1136 (Wyo. 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction upon filing counterclaim against governmental entity; limits clarified)
- Hladky Constr., Inc. v. City of Gillette, 196 P.3d 184 (Wyo. 2008) (itemization under §1-39-113 must itemize damages to apprise claims)
- Houtz v. Board of Comm'rs of Uinta County, 70 P.840 (Wyo. 1902) (purpose of full itemization to inform budgeting and claims evaluation)
- Denebrink v. Board of Commissioners of Sheridan County, 89 P. 7 (Wyo. 1907) (noted early itemization standards for public accounts)