![]() ![]() Mercy s evidentiary submissions fulfill this requirement. The party with the burden of proof in the case must establish that there is at least a genuine issue of fact by submitting evidentiary material set forth specific facts, see § 802.08(3), material to the elements of the case. A summary judgment motion shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. ♦ We review a motion for summary judgment using the same methodology as the trial court. Fisher contends that included in these issues is whether Mercy s rates are excessive, whether there was a meeting of the minds when the patient agreement was signed, whether services were duplicative, whether unnecessary tests were performed, and whether Mercy bills patients uniformly. ♥ On this appeal, Fisher asserts that there are issues of fact worthy of a jury trial. The court concluded that Mercy s submissions established a prima facie case and that Fisher s affidavit in opposition failed to meet the statutory requirement to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. ♤ The circuit court granted summary judgment to Mercy. The assertions are that the costs for specified procedures were excessive, specified procedures were improper, or procedures were double billed. ¦ or our affiant, based on past experience, believes ¦. The balance of the affidavit contains assertions prefaced by either our affiant believes. The affidavit also establishes that Albert is a physician with staff privileges at Mercy. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise noted. In the affidavit there is an admission that Elizabeth did receive medical services from 1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. ![]() ♣ In response to Mercy s motion, Fisher filed an opposing affidavit. The second affidavit was from the director of budget and reimbursement for the health system of which Mercy was a member and contained a statement that the hospital s standard charges are contained in a Procedure Revenue Report that is available to the public and the charges billed to Fisher were in accordance with this report. The affidavit also stated that the charges were in accord with the hospital s regular rates and terms. The first affidavit was from the coordinator of credit and collections at Mercy and included an agreement signed by Elizabeth agreeing to pay the normal and customary costs for all medical services, copies of four accounts itemizing goods and services provided to Elizabeth, and a history of the Fisher account. The motion was supported by two evidentiary affidavits. After a failed attempt at mediation, Mercy filed a motion for summary judgment. After the court commissioner rendered a decision in favor of Mercy, Fisher demanded a trial de novo in the circuit court. ![]() ♢ Mercy started a small claims collection to recover $4,753.57 in medical services provided to Elizabeth. We affirm because Fisher failed to file an affidavit with sufficient evidentiary facts to establish that there was a material dispute of a genuine issue for trial. Fisher (Fisher) appeal from the summary judgment granted Mercy Medical Center, Inc., for the cost of medical services provided to Elizabeth. 00-2268 ♡ ANDERSON, J.1 Albert and Elizabeth A. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago County: BRUCE SCHMIDT, Judge. FISHER, DEFENDANT, MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. ALBERT FISHER, MD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ELIZABETH A. 00-2268 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II MERCY MEDICAL CENTER OF OSHKOSH, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. Clark Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED FebruCornelia G. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |