*1 WY 36 Petitioner, M.D., MADSEN, Kenneth MEMORI- OF TRUSTEES OF
BOARD SWEETWATER OF
AL HOSPITAL Respondent. Wyoming,
COUNTY,
No. S-10-0067. Wyoming.
Supreme Court 1, 2011.
March Patrick J. Mur- Petitioner:
Representing P.C., Neville, Porter, Williams, Day & phy of Wyoming. Casper, Paul D. Schier- Respondent: Representing E. Bendezu er, and Antonio Greg Weisz M. Laramie, MacMillan, LLC, Wy- Pence and by Mr. Schierer. oming. Argument GOLDEN, HILL, C.J., KITE, Before BURKE, VOIGT, JJ. require- opposed to suggestions, as mere
come ments. *2 KITE, Justice. Chief about November copy 2005. A of that notice is attached as Exhibit A. [11] After the Board of Trustees of Me- Hospital morial County, Wyo- Sweetwater [T5] Exhibit A attached to the answer is ming him, (Hospital) complaint against filed a captioned "Notice of Claim Wyo. Pursuant Madsen, Kenneth M.D. filed a counterclaim § Stat. Ann. 1-89-113." opening sen- against Hospital. Hospital's On the mo- part: tence states in relevant "... this letter tion, the district court dismissed the counter- serves as Dr. Madsen's NOTICE OF finding that adequately it did not allege pursuant Wyo. CLAIMS § Stat. Ann. 1- compliance signature with the and certifica- 39-113 as well as § Article 7 of the tion for notices of claim con- Wyoming Constitution." In addition to de- Wyoming tained Constitution. We tailing the facts underlying Dr. Madsen's reverse. Hospital, the notice of claim set forth following itemized statement of
ISSUES sought: relief $450,000 $175,000 $120,000 Direct contractual damages [12] The issues for this Court's determi- Consequential damages nation are: Lost income 1. Whether allegation contained in Relocation 15,000 $ Dr. Madsen's complies $750,000 TOTAL Wyoming Constitution, 16, § Art. (Lexis- § Stat. Ann. The notice of claim was penal- certified under 2009). Nexis ty perjury by Dr. Madsen. 2. Whether the damages itemization of Hospital [16] The filed reply a to the contained in Dr. Madsen's notice of claim counterclaim in which it asserted as an affir- is sufficient § § under Art. 7 and 1-39- mative defense that Dr. Madsen had failed to 118. comply with Wyoming Governmental (WGCA) Claims Act and Wyoming Constitu- FACTS tion. On that Hospital basis the also filed a [13] The underlying facts dispute this dismiss, motion to asserting specifically that are not relevant presented the issues the district court subject lacked juris- matter our determination. Suffice it say, diction because Dr. Madsen had not Hospital and Dr. Madsen entered into an complaint his that his notice of claim com- agreement in 2004. plied Madsen left with the constitution. The Hospital the Hospital and practice moved his Chey- also contended the notice of claim did not enne. He a Notice of Claim dated contain sufficiently a detailed itemized state- 8, 2007, November Hospital to the asserting ment of damages required by the constitu- it had agreement breached the and caused tion. issues before which is the focus of one of the us in plaint and filed a terclaim contained Hospital for breach of contract. The coun- filed a complaint against Dr. Madsen in the Madsen agreement. Dr. Madsen answered the com- him damages. district court claiming he had breached the [14] On December appeal: 10, 2007, following the Hospital allegation, plaint was different from the allegations con sidered in allegation contained in Dr. Madsen's com stitutional complaint that quirements. it referenced both 1-389-113and Arti granted Following failed to other signature While he had motion, adequately acknowledging complied and certification re hearing, § concluding that Dr. claims cases in allege in his with the con that
43. Pursuant Wyo.
§
Stat. Ann.
1-
7,§
cle
the district court concluded from
39-118
as well
as Article
7 of the
language in
Gose v.
Douglas, 2008
126, ¶ 18,
Wyoming Constitution, Dr.
Madsen's No- WY
(Wyo.
tice
Claims was
2008),
delivered to ...
[the
specifically
Hospitall's
chief
officer,
financial
on
allege
compliance with the
sig-
constitutional
nature
dressing the
stitution
did
terclaim
district
motion
Hospital's
However,
resolution
trial
of review
The district
granted
[T8]
not
until
in district
contain
court
against
The district
Dr. Madsen's
requires
Dr. Madsen
claim
of the
this Court
in this Court.
certification
court
dismissed
the
petition
court
stayed the trial
degree
Hospital.
On
filed
ruled on
court
for continuance
Dr. Madsen
petition for
Dr.
these
in this Court.
a
of detail
He also filed
petition for writ
Madsen's
scheduled
grounds,
his
concluded
for trial.
petition.
pending
review.
of the
coun-
con-
Ad-
the
the
We
it
a
nature
allege compliance
terclaim
"with
he
cause
plied
cation
the
that none
involved
conclusion,
Dr. Madsen's
tions
our
...
presented
district court
previous decisions
§
with
Dr. Madsen
like
1-39-118
requirements,"
an
of this Court's
those contained
case
certification
the district
allegation like
counterclaim.
a notice
district
his notice
precedent.
as well
concluded
did
court was
not
did
but
of claim
signature
requirements."
court
as
not address
allege in his
previous decisions
alleged
that contained
in Dr. Madsen's
Article
he
In
acknowledged
had not
reaching this
"pursuant
correct that
*3
and certifi-
only that
complied
16, §
allega
coun-
com-
sig-
Be-
7,"
to
in
jurisdiction.
matter
must
view
ty
P.3d
School
983,
de novo.
be dismissed
of
STANDARD
985
Dist.
law that
is a
The existence
(Wyo.2006).
The district
Cantrell
No.
question of
for
Dr. Madsen's
2,
OF
lack of
2006 WY
v. Sweetwater
REVIEW
court
of
law that we
subject matter
subject matter
57,
ruled
complaint
¶ 6,
Coun
as a
133
re
a
the constitution.
counterclaim.
¶ 3,
complaint referenced
constitutional
1164,
519,
complaint.
§
1-39-113
complaint
210 P.3d
only the statute
this Court
but
In
that
at
In
contrast
considered
made no
1079,
In
Gose
alleged compliance
Motley,
neither
was
the
to
¶18,
referenced
reference
the
allegation in the
those
¶ 3,
the statute
In
sufficiencyof
193
220
cases, Dr.
McCann,
P.3d at
P.3d at
to the
nor
of
presented a notice
that he
Madsen
DISCUSSION
16,
Art.
$
and
"pursuant
claim
allegation was suffi
the
§
conclude
7." We
dismissing Dr. Madsen's
In
[¥10]
by the dis
cited
the cases
even under
cient
counterclaim,
concluded
district court
the
trict court.
compli
allege
adequately
did not
part that he
statutory
constitutional
the
ance with
on
in reliance
Also
[T18]
a notice
presenting
requirements
governmental
decisions
recent
Court's
conclude
entity. We
ato
that
cases,
concluded
district court
claims
case
prior
under our
sufficient
allegation was
it had
insufficient
allegation was
because
court erred
district
that the
law and hold
subject
that
it lacked
to find
choice but
no
upon the
based
dismissing
set
the reasons
For
jurisdiction.
matter
insuffi
allegation was
that
conclusion
Casper, 2011 WY
City
v.
in Brown
forth
in Brown v.
stated
the reasons
For
cient.
1147,
district
that the
we hold
P.3d at
248
1186
248 P.3d
Casper, 2011 WY
City
jurisdiction of
subject matter
court obtained
also hold
(Wyo.2011), we
filing
upon the
claim
Dr. Madsen's
jurisdiction of
matter
subject
had
against the
a claim
alleging
filing
the coun
upon the
claims
of his counter
dismissal
To avoid
Hospital.
govern
against a
claims
alleging
terclaim
upon Dr. Madsen
claim,
incumbent
it was
entity.
mental
prec
condition
he had satisfied
show
maintaining an action
Gose,
edent
order,
2008 WY
citing
In its
[¶11]
that within
is,
show
he had to
That
Hospital.
Cody,
1159;
McCann
193 P.3d
rise to his
giving
conduct
of the
years
two
(Wyo.2009);
1078
an item
Hospital
220 to the
presented
WY
County, 2009
he
Motley v. Platte
pen
under
writing
certified
statement
con
ized
(Wyo.2009),
that show-
met
Dr. Madsen
perjury.
alty of
party
a
clear that
is
"precedent
cluded:
by
ing
alleging in
his
that he had Board
Comm'rs
Sheridan County v.
presented
pursuant
a notice of claim
§ 1- Denebrink,
89 P.
(Wyo.1907),
16, §
39-113 and Art.
7 of the Wyoming considered itemizations
phy
contained
two
by
Constitution and
attaching the notice of
sicians' notices of claim to the board of coun
satisfied the
district court
sions.
he had
did not
dismissing
comply
also concluded
Wyoming Consti-
counterclaim,
of those
Hospital
provi-
This
be
ty
their notices of
commissioners. The
paid
relief
county's
Court found
for medical
sought
behalf
to an
services
$50
physicians
indigent
physicians
itemizations were
they
$25
respectively.
rendered on
person.
sought to
itemized
In
tution Art.
7 in
that it
did not contain
all that
was "necessary
...
satisfy
the law
*4
sufficiently
requiring
detailed
itemization of
accounts
county
Dr.
the
Mad-
to be
16,
fully itemized,"
sen's
losses. Art.
requires
7
though
in
even
physicians
rele-
the
vant part that
a claimant
present
"a full
each
only
the total cost of their
itemized statement
in writing ...."
services
without itemizing
the
the individual ser
officer charged with auditing
vices comprising
Id.,
the same.
In
the total.
15
at
352,
order,
information
reviewing
then make a decision as to whether
receiving
grant
tution. This Court
a full
losses
tailed
[A]
itemization
the
does not
itemization is to
and
claim.
reviewing
claim had
investigate
provide
categorizes
Secondly,
required
believes the
the
the
give
paid
the claim and
by
the claimant's
degree
if
the
the Consti-
the
purpose
enough
person
person
of de-
of
vides:
which,
statement
case, we were asked to consider whether a
Constr., Inc.,
(b) The claim shall
[117]
195
like Art.
(Wyo.2008),
In City
in writing. Section
complied
7,§
of
state:
a construction contract
requires an itemized
Gillette v. Hladky
134, ¶ 23,
§ 1-39-118,
pro
(emphasis
Uinta County,
would support the
whether the claim was properly paid. Ad-
there
mittedly,
payment of the claim
enough information on which to determine
this Court
was no
in
original).
Houtz v. Board
doubts
11 Wyo.
analysis
precedent
any
Court's
seems to be novel as
citizen reviewing the
would be
discovered which
findings.
Comm'rs
70 P.
provided
the claimant
torney,
er relief demanded.
known;
name of
(iii) The
(i)
(i)
alleged
The
if
any;
time, place
name,
amount of
loss
and his
public
and
address and residence of
employee involved, if
representative
compensation
injury
and
cireumstances
including the
or oth-
or at-
of
provide governmental entities with notice to
mary purpose of
ing governmental expenditures. In Hochal
assist
sion making.
ter v. City Gillette,
ligently consider claims
and
tal entities the information they need to intel
842
statement were
(Wyo.1902),
them in budgeting and financial deci
provide
purposes
With the
680
(Wyo.2005),
taxpayers a means of assess
twofold:
this Court said in essence
purposes
requiring
2005WY
requirement
made
we said
give governmen
of the full itemi-
a full itemized
125, 21,
¶
was to
them to
pri
120
broken down
P.3d at ex
¶ 25, 196 Id., five
195. An attached Hladky,
cluded the notice of claim clearly set forth
$1,300,016.57
hibit
cost
tween the
identified
rise to the claim and
only generically described the conduct giving
[118] The
categories,
incurred
set
damages
¶ 22,
them
claimant's bid
forth
and
1155 Id. that claim. over complied fully ject matter City's conduct from J., dissenting). (Voigt, 195. 1150 Id., P.8d at at at § 1-39-118. As shown paragraph above, alleged total notice Madsen's Dr. $750,000 sepa- amount damages direct categories: into four total
rated damages, consequential damages,
contractual the itemiza- Like relocation. income lost Hladky, we conclude damages WY57 tion of met rel., Wyoming, ex WYOMING STATE it 1-89-118(b)(iii). conclude further We §of AND COMPEN- SAFETY WORKERS' in writ- statement "full itemized constituted (Peti- DIVISION, Appellant SATION Hospital as to apprise ing" sufficient tioner), and extent nature 16, § 7. by Art. contemplated claimed SINGER, Appellee A.
Leonard *5 (Respondent). CONCLUSION The notice claim No. S-10-0064. compliance sufficiently alleged this case Wyoming. Supreme Court statutory and constitutional The dis- claims. governmental notices of 30, 2011. March subject matter had trict alleging a filing of the upon the entity. The in the notice
satisfied Reversed remanded. concurring in J., opinion
VOIGT, an files dissenting part.
part Justice, concurring part
VOIGT,
dissenting part. I agree majority that counterclaim, alleged "deliv to both pursuant ery" and article § 1-89-113 Ann.
Wyo. Stat. Constitution, cou Wyoming 7 of section the notice attachment
pled with was sufficient compliance,
showing such juris subject matter
give the our ex under the counterclaim over diction agree with I not do
isting precedent. citing Brown suggestion,
majority's (Wyo. Casper, filing of a
2011), the mere gov against a alleging a court sub- entity gives
ernmental