Mosley v. Oakwood Lutheran Senior Ministries
| Docket Number | 2022AP907 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2023 |
| Parties | Valvree Mosley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Oakwood Lutheran Senior Ministries, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: Cir. Ct. No. 2021CV670, FRANK D. REMINGTON, Judge.
Before Blanchard, P.J., Fitzpatrick, and Nashold, JJ.
Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in Wis.Stat. Rule 809.23(3).
¶1 Valvree Mosley appeals a circuit court order dismissing her claims against Oakwood Lutheran Senior Ministries ("Oakwood").
Mosley alleges that Oakwood shared the contents of her COVID-19 test results with its employees without her authorization. Mosley brought claims against Oakwood under Wis.Stat. § 146.82 (2021-22),[1] which governs confidentiality of patient health care records, and Wis.Stat § 995.50(2)(am)3., which provides a cause of action for invasion of privacy. The circuit court granted Oakwood's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and entered an order dismissing Mosley's operative complaint in its entirety. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the circuit court order.
¶2 The following background summary consists of allegations made by Mosley in her operative complaint. See Cattau v National Ins. Servs. of Wis., Inc., 2019 WI 46 ¶4, 386 Wis.2d 515, 926 N.W.2d 756 (). Mosley worked as a food services employee for Oakwood at its Prairie Ridge Campus in Madison, Wisconsin from approximately August 2018 to May 2021. Oakwood's Prairie Ridge Campus is a senior living community that offers residences and varying levels of support and care to people in their retirements.
¶3 On June 15, 2020, Mosley reported to work and went through Oakwood's COVID-19 screening process. After answering "yes" to one of the screening questions about COVID-19 symptoms, Mosley was turned away from work. During this period, in mid-June 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had only recently been publicly recognized and potential vaccines were still in development.
¶4 Mosley called her supervisor, Ellen Ritter, to explain that she had been turned away from work during the COVID-19 screening process. Mosley alleges that Ritter directed her to obtain a COVID-19 test at the Alliant Energy Center, which Mosley did that same day. The testing was organized by Public Health Madison and Dane County (PHMDC), but the actual testing was conducted at Exact Sciences Laboratory in Madison. Mosley alleges that she called Ritter after being tested, and that Ritter angrily demanded a written copy of her test result. Mosley alleges that it was clear to her that Ritter thought that she was lying about her COVID-19 symptoms and trying to extend the length of her previously approved vacation. Two days later, a PHMDC nurse notified Mosley that Mosley had tested positive for COVID-19. The nurse emailed Mosley a copy of her test result as a secure attachment. Mosley tried to forward the email containing her test result to Ritter, but was unable to do so because of its encrypted nature. Mosley then authorized the nurse to email her test result directly to Ritter, which the nurse did.
¶5 The following day, on June 18, 2020, Oakwood informed its employees at its Prairie Ridge Campus by memo that a campus employee had tested positive for COVID-19 and that the employee last worked on campus on June 10, 2020. The memo did not identify Mosley by name, but Mosley alleges that she was the employee referenced in the memo. A few days after the memo was released, Mosley received a message from one of her coworkers through the social media service, Snapchat, which stated: "Emily telling everyone you go[t] corona, is that true?" Mosley alleges that the reference to "Emily" in the message was to Emily Ganser, a supervisor of the dietary aides at Oakwood's Prairie Ridge Campus. Mosley alleges that Ritter frequently confided in and sought advice from Ganser about workplace issues; therefore, Ritter likely shared the contents of Mosley's test result with Ganser, who subsequently told "everyone" that Mosley tested positive for COVID-19.
¶6 The same day that Mosley received the Snapchat message from her coworker, Mosley tried calling Ritter, but Ritter did not answer or return Mosley's call. Also on that day, Mosley called the same PHMDC nurse who had informed her about her test result and told the nurse about the message she received from her coworker. The nurse confirmed to Mosley that the nurse had sent the test result only to Ritter, not to Ganser or to anyone else.
¶7 When Mosley next reported to work on June 29, 2020, four of Mosley's coworkers asked her what it was like having COVID-19. Mosley alleges that, when she asked them how they knew about her test result, they told her that Ganser had told them that Mosley had tested positive for COVID-19. Following the interaction with her coworkers, Mosley confronted Ritter, who denied telling Ganser about the test result.
¶8 Mosley brought this action, alleging four claims against Oakwood in her operative complaint.[2] Mosley alleges three claims under Wis.Stat. § 146.82:
one claim for Oakwood's alleged release of her patient health care record under § 146.82(1), and two claims for Oakwood's alleged redisclosure of the record under § 146.82(5)(b) and (c). Mosley's fourth claim is for invasion of privacy under Wis.Stat. § 995.50. Oakwood filed a motion to dismiss all of Mosley's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
¶9 The circuit court granted Oakwood's motion and dismissed all four claims. With respect to Wis.Stat. § 146.82(1), the court determined that Mosley's claim fails because Mosley fails to allege a patient-health care provider relationship between Mosley and Oakwood. Regarding Mosley's two claims under § 146.82(5), the court concluded that Mosley fails to allege facts showing a redisclosure outside of Oakwood, nor could the court reasonably infer that such a redisclosure occurred.
¶10 As to Mosley's invasion of privacy claim, the circuit court determined that Mosley fails to allege sufficient facts satisfying the following two elements of Wis.Stat. § 995.50: (1) that the disclosure of the positive test result would be highly offensive to a reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities; or (2) that Oakwood acted unreasonably or recklessly as to whether there was a legitimate public interest in her positive test result.
¶11 Mosley appeals.
¶12 A party may file a motion to dismiss on the ground that a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Wis.Stat. § 802.06(2)(a)6. We review de novo a circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss. Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86, ¶17, 356 Wis.2d 665, 849 N.W.2d 693. "Upon a motion to dismiss, we accept as true all facts well-pleaded in the complaint and the reasonable inferences therefrom." Id., ¶19 (quoting Kaloti Enters., Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2005 WI 111, ¶11, 283 Wis.2d 555, 699 N.W.2d 205). We "cannot add facts in the process of construing a complaint" and do not accept any legal conclusions asserted in the complaint. Id., ¶¶18-19. The sufficiency of a complaint depends on the substantive law that underlies the claim, and the alleged facts must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id., ¶31.
¶13 This appeal also requires that we interpret statutes. "Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that we review de novo." State v. Stewart, 2018 WI.App. 41, ¶18, 383 Wis.2d 546, 916 N.W.2d 188. "[T]he purpose of statutory interpretation is to determine what the statute means so that it may be given its full, proper, and intended effect." State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶44, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. "[S]tatutory interpretation 'begins with the language of the statute.'" Id., ¶45 (quoted source omitted). "If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry." Id. (). "Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning." Id. Additionally, statutory language must be "interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results." Id., ¶46. "If this process of analysis yields a plain, clear statutory meaning, then there is no ambiguity, and the statute is applied according to this ascertainment of its meaning." Id. ().
¶14 Wisconsin Stat. § 146.84 is titled "Violations related to patient health care records." Under § 146.84(1)(b), "[a]ny person … who violates [Wis. Stat. §] 146.82 … in a manner that is knowing and willful shall be liable to any person injured as a result of the violation …." Pursuant to § 146.84(1), Mosley brings three claims alleging violations under § 146.82: § 146.82(1), (5)(a), and (5)(b). Section 146.82 is titled "Confidentiality of patient health care records," and the subsections at issue provide:
To continue reading
Request your trial