Legal Opinion

Modica v. Verhulst

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided June 29, 1995No. 94-2756PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVergeront, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing their medical malpractice claim against Doug Verhulst, a radiology technician employed at the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWH). The trial court dismissed the action because the plaintiffs' notice of claim served upon the attorney general did not state Verhulst's name. We conclude that § 893.82(2m) and (3), Stats., requires that the names of persons involved in the circumstances of the claim be stated in the notice of claim. Because the first notice of claim did not contain Verhulst's name and the amended notice of claim was…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Tahtinen v. MSI InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Johnson v. Allis Chalmers Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Gutter v. SeamandelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Schneller v. St. Mary's Hospital Medical CenterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Yotvat v. RothCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1980

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. SweatWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Snopek v. LAKELAND MEDICAL CENTERWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Cheryl M. Sorenson v. Richard A. BatchelderWisconsin Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Oney v. SchrauthCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
  5. State v. Hager (In Re Commitment of Hager)Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2018

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API