Kierstyn v. Racine Unified School Dist.

• Decision Date: 09 June 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-1573,97-1573
• Parties: , 130 Ed. Law Rep. 276 John G. KIERSTYN, Plaintiff-Appellant, d v. RACINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Indiana Insurance Co., and Mike Farrell, Defendants-Respondents. . Oral Argument
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 721

585 N.W.2d 721

221 Wis.2d 563, 130 Ed. Law Rep. 276

John G. KIERSTYN, Plaintiff-Appellant, ^d v. RACINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Indiana Insurance Co., and Mike Farrell, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 97-1573.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Oral Argument June 9, 1998.

Opinion Released Aug. 26, 1998.

Opinion Filed Aug. 26, 1998.

On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the brief of John G. Shannon of Coates, Dye, Foley & Shannon, S.C. and Robert Riegelman of Riegelman & Mueckler, S.C. of Racine. There was oral argument by John G. Shannon.

On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of Raymond J. Pollen and Michele M. Ford of Crivello, Carlson, Mentkowski & Steeves, S.C. of Milwaukee. There was oral argument by Raymond J. Pollen.

Before BROWN, NETTESHEIM and ANDERSON, JJ.

ANDERSON, Judge.

John G. Kierstyn appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the Racine Unified School District, Indiana Insurance Co. and Mike Farrell. Judith Kierstyn, John's wife, was a teacher employed with the District for over twenty-five years and was eligible for disability benefits administered by the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) when she was diagnosed with cancer. Farrell, the District's benefits specialist, met with the Kierstyns and allegedly told them that Judith could not apply for disability benefits until her sick leave was exhausted. This was incorrect. Unfortunately, Judith died before her application for disability benefits had been filed; thus, the WRS determined that Kierstyn was entitled to nonannuitant survivor benefits which are significantly less than the disability survivorship annuity he may have received. Kierstyn's principal argument is that Farrell's decision to meet with the Kierstyns was discretionary; however, when the Kierstyns asked him questions, Farrell had a ministerial duty to give the correct answers. Thus, by giving the Kierstyns incorrect advice, Kierstyn maintains that Farrell breached this ministerial duty. We conclude that Farrell's advice to the Kierstyns required the exercise of governmental discretion and he is immune from liability. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

Initially, we note that the doctrine of public immunity assumes that the public officer was negligent. Therefore, the question before us is whether Farrell is entitled to immunity. See Kimps v. Hill, 187 Wis.2d 508, 513, 523 N.W.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1994), aff'd, 200 Wis.2d 1, 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996). Even so, a more thorough recitation of the facts is necessary. In 1993, Judith was diagnosed with cancer. At the time, she was a teacher employed for over twenty-five years with the District. In March, the District granted Judith a leave of absence from her teaching position. Judith's last day of work was March 19, 1993.

As an employee of the District, Judith was eligible for disability benefits administered by the WRS. The disability benefits are described in § 40.63, Stats. ¹ Farrell is the benefits specialist for the District. Among his job duties was the obligation to "[c]ommunicate general benefit information to employees" and to "[r]espond to employees' questions about benefits, claims, and problems, etc." Farrell was not, however, a representative of the WRS. The WRS benefit book referred all questions concerning the WRS administered programs to the WRS.

On April 16, 1993, the Kierstyns met with Farrell to discuss Judith's eligibility for retirement or disability benefits in case she would decide to retire. According to Kierstyn, Farrell told them that "[they] could not apply for disability benefits until the sick days were exhausted." Farrell recalled telling them that "in order to be eligible to receive or eligible to start getting disability benefits she would have had to have exhausted her sick leave." It is uncontested that Farrell did refer them to the WRS.

On April 20, 1993, Kierstyn contacted the WRS and spoke with Linda Summers. As a result of the conversation, Kierstyn did receive a disability benefits information package from WRS, but he only read the estimate of benefits; he did not read the disability packet information sheet.

On June 9, 1993, Kierstyn again contacted the WRS. He spoke with an unidentified WRS employee who told him that "[he] could apply, but it won't do any good" because Judith still had sick days left.

On June 22, 1993, Kierstyn had a third meeting with Farrell regarding disability benefits. Judith's condition was critical and Kierstyn wanted advice regarding disability benefits. Farrell referred him to the WRS. Judith died on June 28, 1993, and she had not applied for disability benefits at the time of her death. Consequently, Kierstyn, as the beneficiary of Judith's retirement and employment benefits, received nonannuitant survivor benefits instead of the disability survivorship annuity which would have provided a significantly greater amount.

Kierstyn brought this suit against the District, Indiana Insurance, the District's liability insurer, and Farrell alleging common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The District, Indiana Insurance and Farrell moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Kierstyn could not substantiate his claims. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed Kierstyn's complaint concluding that Farrell was performing a discretionary function entitling him to public immunity. Kierstyn appeals.

We review a motion for summary judgment using the same methodology as the trial court. See M & I First Nat'l Bank v. Episcopal Homes Managment, Inc., 195 Wis.2d 485, 496-97, 536 N.W.2d 175, 182 (Ct.App.1995). That methodology is well known, and we will not repeat it here except to observe that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. Summary judgment presents a question of law which we review de novo. See id. at 497, 536 N.W.2d at 182.

Public employees are immune from personal liability for injuries resulting from the negligent performance of a discretionary act within the scope of their public office. See Santiago v. Ware, 205 Wis.2d 295, 338, 556 N.W.2d 356, 373 (Ct.App.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 2435, 138 L.Ed.2d 196 (1997). However, this general rule is subject to exceptions which represent a judicial balance struck between "the need of public officers to perform their functions freely against the right of an aggrieved party to seek redress." Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis.2d 282, 300, 240 N.W.2d 610, 621 (1976). An exception may exist where

the public officer's or employee's duty is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task and (1) the law imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for the exercise of judgment or discretion, see, e.g., Lister, 72 Wis.2d at 300-01, ; or (2) there exists a known present danger of such force that the time, mode and occasion for performance is evident with such certainty that nothing remains for the exercise of judgment and discretion, see e.g., Cords [v. Anderson ], 80 Wis.2d [525,] 541, [259 N.W.2d 672, 679 (1977) ]. Additionally, the doctrine of immunity may be inapplicable where a public officer's challenged decision involves the exercise of discretion but the discretion exercised is not governmental, i.e., does not require the application of statutes to facts nor a subjective evaluation of the law. See, e.g., Scarpaci [v. Milwaukee County ], 96 Wis.2d [663,] 686-88, [292 N.W.2d 816, 827 (1980) ].

C.L. v. Olson, 143 Wis.2d 701, 717-18, 422 N.W.2d 614, 620 (1988).

Kierstyn's argument, as we understand it, is that the third exception is applicable. Although Kierstyn concedes that Farrell's decision to meet with him and his wife was discretionary, he argues that when they asked Farrell specific questions Farrell had an absolute, certain and imperative duty to correctly interpret the applicable statutes. We disagree.

Farrell was a benefits specialist employed by the District. Included in his job description was the responsibility to advise District employees regarding their benefits. As a result, he was sometimes required to interpret the statutes, rules and regulations pertaining to employee benefits. As a public employee, Farrell was immune from liability for injuries resulting from the performance of any discretionary act within the scope of his employment. See Santiago, 205 Wis.2d at 338, 556 N.W.2d at 373.

In this case, Farrell's job description obligated him to advise the Kierstyns regarding Judith's eligibility for disability benefits. As such, Farrell was called upon to interpret the applicable law and regulations and apply them to Judith's particular situation. It is an exercise of governmental discretion when a governmental employee is required to apply statutes, rules or regulations to facts or to subjectively evaluate the law. See Olson, 143 Wis.2d at 717-18, 422 N.W.2d at 620. By definition, acts that require the determination of what law, rule or regulation is to be followed or the application of a law, rule or regulation to a particular set of facts are nonministerial acts. See Lifer v. Raymond, 80 Wis.2d 503, 511-12, 259 N.W.2d 537, 541-42 (1977).

This case is beguiling because both parties agree that Farrell gave incorrect advice on a matter which was governed by clear and unambiguous law. ² That does not, however, alter the fact that interpreting a statute calls for the exercise of judgment, i.e., discretion. Judges and justices know that even when a court ultimately declares a statute or regulation to be clear and unambiguous, the resolution of that question can sometimes prove difficult and contentious. Indeed, some courts have even split on that question. For example, in State v. Setagord, 211 Wis.2d 397, 415, 565 N.W.2d 506, 513 (1997), the supreme court...