Ocasio v. Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentN. Patrick Crooks, J.
¶ 27. (dissenting). I cannot join the majority's opinion because I disagree that failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 655.44(5) does not necessitate dismissal. The majority acknowledges that Ocasio failed to comply with § 655.44(5), but then concludes that the statute is silent as to the appropriate remedy, requiring the court to look to the purpose of the statute and previous interpretations given other timing provisions in ch. 655.1 respectfully dissent because this analysis is wholly unnecessary. The language in § 655.44(5) unambiguously states, "no court action may *377be commenced" unless two…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Figgs v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
- Colby v. Columbia CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
- Gillen v. City of NeenahWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998
- Eby v. KozarekWisconsin Supreme Court · 1990
- Brookhouse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.