Sawyer v. Midelfort, 97-1969

Citation579 N.W.2d 268,217 Wis.2d 795
Decision Date17 March 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-1969,97-1969
PartiesDelores SAWYER, special administrator of the estate of Nancy K. Anneatra, Thomas Sawyer and Delores Sawyer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. H. Berit MIDELFORT, M.D. d and Celia Lausted, Defendants-Respondents, Blue Cross Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, Valley Health Plan, ABC Insurance Company and DEF Insurance Company, Defendants.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin

On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of William Smoler and Gregory P. Seibold of Murphy & Desmond, S.C., Madison.

On behalf of the defendant-respondent, H. Berit Midelfort, M.D., the cause was submitted on the brief of Thomas R. Jacobson and Brent R. Johnson of Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A., Hudson.

On behalf of the defendant-respondent, Celia Lausted, the cause was submitted on the brief of Thomas J. Misfeldt and James W. Flory of Misfeldt, Stark, Richie & Wickstrom, Eau Claire.

Before CANE, P.J., and MYSE and HOOVER, JJ.

MYSE, Judge.

Thomas Sawyer, Delores Sawyer in her own right, and Delores Sawyer as the special administrator of the estate of Nancy K. Anneatra, appeal the grant of summary judgment that ordered the dismissal of their malpractice complaint against Dr. H. Berit Midelfort and Celia Lausted. The trial court concluded that the Sawyers' claims against Midelfort and Lausted failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, alternatively, were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court next determined that Wisconsin law applied to the estate's claims against Midelfort, but nonetheless concluded that its claims against both Midelfort and Lausted did not survive under the Wisconsin survivorship statute, § 895.01, STATS., and, alternatively, that its claims must be dismissed on public policy grounds. We affirm that portion of the judgment applying Wisconsin law to the estate's claims against Midelfort. For various reasons, however, we reverse that portion of the summary judgment concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the statute of limitations and public policy grounds barred these causes of action. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a trial.

This case involves alleged negligence by both Lausted and Midelfort in their treatment and care of Anneatra. The plaintiffs complain that this negligence caused Anneatra to develop allegedly false memories that her father sexually and physically abused her, that her mother physically abused her and failed to prevent her father's sexual abuse, and that various other acquaintances sexually abused her. The plaintiffs also complain that this negligence caused Anneatra to falsely believe she had multiple personalities. The Sawyers' claimed injury from this negligence stems from their daughter's public accusations of abuse. The estate's claimed injury arises out of the pain and suffering caused by the alleged false memories of abuse and out of Anneatra's belief that she had multiple personalities.

Anneatra allegedly developed these memories and was diagnosed with multiple personality disorder at about the same time in the early- to mid-1980s, when she was an adult. At a meeting in 1985 attended by Anneatra, her parents, therapist, psychiatrist, and psychiatrist's associate, Anneatra accused her parents of the abuse. 1 Anneatra then cut off virtually all relations with her parents, except for initiating a lawsuit in 1988 for damages arising from the alleged abuse. 2 The Sawyers stated that they tried to contact their daughter and her therapist several times to further discuss these allegations, but were rebuffed. Anneatra and her parents never spoke again, and she died of cancer in 1995.

The alleged negligence involves Lausted's use of hypnosis and age regression, Midelfort's manner of treatment for Anneatra's multiple personality disorder, and Midelfort's improper supervision of Lausted. Lausted's treatment of Anneatra began in 1984, lasting until just prior to Anneatra's 1995 death. For the first nine of eleven years of treatment, Lausted was an unlicensed therapist allegedly operating under the supervision of a licensed psychiatrist. Her treatment of Anneatra took place in Wisconsin, where both patient and therapist resided.

Midelfort began treating Anneatra in 1987, and continued until late 1994. During this time, the record indicates that Midelfort's and Lausted's treatment of Anneatra was a coordinated effort, with Midelfort and Lausted discussing the case a number of times. Midelfort was licensed as a psychiatrist in both Wisconsin and Minnesota. With one exception, Midelfort treated Anneatra in her Minnesota office.

After Anneatra died, Delores was appointed administrator of Anneatra's estate. 3 She then obtained Anneatra's treatment records, and claims to have first discovered the role of Lausted's and Midelfort's treatment in Anneatra's recovery of allegedly false memories after reviewing the records. Prior to that time, the Sawyers claim that they were unsure why Anneatra accused them. Shortly thereafter, in 1996, the Sawyers brought this claim on their own behalf, and Delores Sawyer brought this claim on behalf of Anneatra's estate. Lausted and Midelfort moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted for a variety of reasons. The Sawyers and Anneatra's estate appeal.

In reviewing the granting of summary judgment, the appellate court adopts the same methodology as the trial court. State v. Town of Linn, 205 Wis.2d 426, 434, 556 N.W.2d 394, 398 (Ct.App.1996). Summary judgment is a question of law, id. at 434, 556 N.W.2d at 399, which we review de novo, State v. Irish, 210 Wis.2d 107, 110, 565 N.W.2d 161, 162 (Ct.App.1997). After examining the pleadings to determine that a claim and defense are asserted, we examine the proof submitted by the moving party to determine whether that party has made a prima facie case for summary judgment. In re Cherokee Park Plat, 113 Wis.2d 112, 115, 334 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Ct.App.1983).

If the moving party has made a prima facie case for summary judgment, we examine the proof submitted by the opposing party and determine whether a genuine issue exists as to any material fact. Id. at 116, 334 N.W.2d at 583. This court determines only whether a factual issue exists, and resolves all doubts in that regard against the moving party. Id. Even if there are no disputed issues of fact, summary judgment is not appropriate if reasonable alternative inferences can be drawn from the facts. Ritt v. Dental Care Assocs., S.C., 199 Wis.2d 48, 64, 543 N.W.2d 852, 858 (Ct.App.1995).

For the sake of clarity, the defenses raised against both the appellants' claims will be discussed first, the defenses raised only against the Sawyers' claim second, and the defenses raised only against the estate's claim last.

Defenses Against Both The Estate's And The Sawyers' Cause Of Action

Midelfort and Lausted first contend that the doctrine of laches precludes the estate's and the Sawyers' claims. 4 Midelfort and Lausted argue that by delaying a claim until Anneatra's death, the estate and the Sawyers deprived them of evidence essential to their defense. Because we conclude that the elements of laches have not been established as a matter of law, summary judgment on this ground was improper.

Laches is an equitable defense to an action based on the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in bringing suit under circumstances in which such delay is prejudicial to the defendant. See Schafer v. Wegner, 78 Wis.2d 127, 132, 254 N.W.2d 193, 196 (1977). For laches to arise "there must be unreasonable delay, knowledge of the course of events and acquiescence therein, and prejudice to the party asserting the defense." Batchelor v. Batchelor, 213 Wis.2d 251, 257, 570 N.W.2d 568, 571 (Ct.App.1997). If any single element is missing, laches will not be applied. Where the facts are undisputed and there is only one reasonable inference, the court may conclude as a matter of law that the elements are met. See Schafer, 78 Wis.2d at 132, 254 N.W.2d at 196 (concluding that prejudice was established in that case as a matter of law). If the material facts or reasonable inferences are disputed, however, summary judgment will be improper.

We cannot conclude that laches should apply on summary judgment in this case. First, the record does not indicate as a matter of law whether the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed bringing this lawsuit. If it is true, as the Sawyers claim, that they had no reason to believe Lausted's and Midelfort's negligent treatment caused Anneatra to make her allegations, and if it is also true that they made several unsuccessful attempts to discern what caused the allegations, their delay in bringing the action until they obtained Anneatra's medical records would not appear to be unreasonable. If it is likewise true that the estate had no knowledge that Anneatra was receiving negligent treatment until shortly before filing suit, its delay would also not be unreasonable.

The third element of laches, prejudice to the parties, is also in dispute. Although Anneatra is deceased, Midelfort and Lausted apparently would be able to develop both her sincere belief that she was the victim of abuse and the date she developed those memories at trial. Anneatra's medical records, and the defendants' testimony about both the circumstances surrounding the 1985 confrontation and other allegations made during the course of treatment would appear to be adequate proof of both Anneatra's belief that the accusations were true and when the memories were formed. Further, the defendants could bring in testimonial evidence from any of Anneatra's acquaintances concerning the allegations because such statements would be indicative of her state of mind and therefore not hearsay. Section 908.03(3), STATS....

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Sawyer v. Midelfort
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 29, 1999
    ...¶1 DONALD W. STEINMETZ, J. The petitioners seek review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Sawyer v. Midelfort, 217 Wis.2d 795, 579 N.W.2d 268 (Ct.App.1998), which affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County, the Honorable Eric J.......
  • Smith v. Meadows Mills, Inc., 98-C-310.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • August 17, 1999
    ...task; (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interest; and (5) application of the better rule of law. Sawyer v. Midelfort, 217 Wis.2d 795, 817, 579 N.W.2d 268 (Ct.App.1998) (citing Hunker v. Royal Indem. Co., 57 Wis.2d 588, 599, 204 N.W.2d 897 (1973)). The law of the forum state applie......
  • Gersbach v. City of Madison, Appeal No. 2018AP512
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • March 14, 2019
    ...of fact or competing inferences regarding when the cause of action accrued. See Schmidt , 305 Wis. 2d 538, ¶3 ; Sawyer v. Midelfort , 217 Wis. 2d 795, 814, 579 N.W.2d 268 (Ct. App. 1998), aff'd , 227 Wis. 2d 124, 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999).¶36 As a general matter, a cause of action accrues when ......
  • Wesolowski v. Coltman
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • August 25, 2015
    ...summary judgment is proper where only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts. See Sawyer v. Midelfort, 217 Wis.2d 795, 815, 579 N.W.2d 268 (Ct.App.1998), aff'd, 227 Wis.2d 124, 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999).¶ 11 Under summary judgment methodology, the first step is to deter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT