First Published Wisconsin Appellate Opinion Applying New Class Action Rule
21 August 2019
In 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted a new class action rule, modeled after Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, with the avowed purpose of aligning state class-action practice with the federal practice and encouraging resort to the body of case law interpreting the federal rule.
In the first published appellate opinion of which I’m aware that undertakes that charge, written by Judge Kitty Brennan of District I, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed certification of a class of persons claiming that they had been overcharged by a hospital for copies of their medical records. The decision is Harwood v. Wheaton Franciscan Servs., Inc., No. 2018 AP 1836. The case provides a good road map through the class-certification requirements.
The hospital’s principal argument on appeal was that the circuit court should have allowed more discovery before certifying the class. The appellate court upheld the certification as an appropriate exercise of discretion.
The only matter of substantive significance in the opinion was the court’s rejection (following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015)) of the Third Circuit’s adoption of “heightened ascertainability standards” in such cases as Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012).
In the first published appellate opinion of which I’m aware that undertakes that charge, written by Judge Kitty Brennan of District I, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed certification of a class of persons claiming that they had been overcharged by a hospital for copies of their medical records. The decision is Harwood v. Wheaton Franciscan Servs., Inc., No. 2018 AP 1836. The case provides a good road map through the class-certification requirements.
The hospital’s principal argument on appeal was that the circuit court should have allowed more discovery before certifying the class. The appellate court upheld the certification as an appropriate exercise of discretion.
The only matter of substantive significance in the opinion was the court’s rejection (following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015)) of the Third Circuit’s adoption of “heightened ascertainability standards” in such cases as Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012).
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
23 May 2025
Tariff & International Trade Resource
Oscar the Grouchy CCO
This Memorial Day marks 35 years since Jim Henson, creator of the Muppets, passed away. Among his many accomplishments, the Muppets were essential to the creation of the longest-running children’s television show, “Sesame Street,” which has been airing for over 55 years.
21 May 2025
Tariff & International Trade Resource
What Every Multinational Company Should Know About … Customs Enforcement and False Claims Act Risks (Part III)
We complete the series on “Customs Enforcement and False Claims Act Risks” with Part III, which focuses on preparing for the most common FCA risks arising from improper management of import operations.
19 May 2025
The Path & The Practice
Podcast Episode 125: Kimberly Klinsport, Partner
This episode of The Path & The Practice features a conversation with Kimberly Klinsport, a litigation partner in Foley’s Los Angeles office where she is also the Office Managing Partner.