Rave v. SVA Healthcare Services, LLC
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Wisconsin Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court dismissed this petition for review of a decision of the court of appeals affirming a circuit court order that certified a class and appointed Timothy Rave as class representative, holding that this case was moot.
In the underlying action, Rave alleged that SVA Healthcare Services, LLC (SVA), a medical records vendor, improperly charged him and others similarly situated a fee for copies of medical records that exceeded the fee restrictions set forth in Wis. Stat. 146.83(3f)(b). At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the circuit court erred in granting Rave's motion for class certification. In Townsend v. ChartSwap, LL, 967 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2021), the Supreme Court held that fee restrictions in section 146.83(3f)(b) apply only to "health care providers" as that term is defined in Wis. Stat. 146.81(1). Following the issuance of Townsend, Rave filed a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that Townsend rendered this matter moot because no evidence showed that SVA met the definition of a health care provider in section 146.81(1).
Download PDF
2022 WI 3 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2019AP2236 COMPLETE TITLE: Timothy Rave, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SVA Healthcare Services, LLC, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at 398 Wis. 2d 384,960 N.W.2d 631 2021 - Unpublished OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: January 19, 2022 Circuit Milwaukee Mary E. Triggiano JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by David J. Hanus, Corey J. Swinick and Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Milwaukee. For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by Robert J. Welcenbach and Welcenbach Law Offices, Milwaukee; with whom on the brief was Scott C. Borison S.C., and Legg Law Firm LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; with whom on the brief was Jon Craig Jones and Jones & Hill, LLC, Oakdale, Louisiana. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin Hospital Association, Inc. and the Wisconsin Civil Justice Council, Inc. by Sara J. Maccarthy, Stephane P. Fabus, Heather D. Mogden and Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, P.C., Milwaukee. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin Association for Justice by William C. Gleisner, Brookfield. 2 2022 WI 3 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2019AP2236 (L.C. No. 2018CV609) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT Timothy Rave, FILED Plaintiff-Respondent, JAN 19, 2022 v. SVA Healthcare Services, LLC, Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. ¶1 PER CURIAM. This case is before the Dismissed. court on a petition for review filed by the defendant-appellant-petitioner, SVA Healthcare Services, LLC ("SVA"). In the underlying suit, plaintiff-respondent Timothy Rave alleged that SVA, a medical records vendor, charged him and others similarly situated a fee for copies of medical records that exceeded the fee restrictions in Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b) (2019-20).1 In its petition for review, SVA seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, Rave v. SVA Healthcare Servs., LLC, No. 2019AP2236, All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise indicated. 1 No. 2019AP2236 unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2021), affirming a circuit court order that certified a class and appointed Rave as class representative. The sole issue before us is whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it granted Rave's motion for class certification. ¶2 On November 26, 2021, this court issued Townsend v. ChartSwap, There, See Wis. Stat. § 803.08. LLC, we held 2021 WI that 86, the 399 fee Wis. 2d 599, restrictions 967 in N.W.2d 21. Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b) apply only to "health care providers" as defined in § 146.81(1). ¶3 Id., ¶37. Following the issuance of Townsend, Rave filed motion to dismiss or alternatively stay this matter. motion, Rave describes SVA as "a records acting on behalf of a healthcare provider." "[a]lthough propriety this of underlying appeal class claims, addresses another certification——"Rave which are identical In the retrieval company Rave states that issue"——i.e., recognizes to a those the that his alleged in [Townsend], ultimately fail based on this Court's recent ruling. As such, this appeal is moot." Rave asks this court to dismiss the appeal, and further states that he "has agreed to dismiss the underlying action with prejudice." Rave alternatively seeks a stay of this matter. ¶4 motion. SVA Healthcare Services has responded to Rave's It writes that it "wholeheartedly agrees that this Court's decision in [Townsend] will ultimately be dispositive of Rave's claims against SVA in this action." Nevertheless, SVA claims that, notwithstanding Townsend, this appeal is not moot, 2 No. and even if it were, this case falls within 2019AP2236 two of the established exceptions to the mootness doctrine given the number of other pending cases, challenging charges for medical records, in which the propriety of class certification is at issue. See generally 386 Portage Wis. 2d 672, 927 County v. N.W.2d 509 J.W.K., (listing 2019 five WI 54, ¶12, exceptions to the mootness doctrine, including when "the situation arises so often 'a definitive decision is essential to guide the trial courts,'" and when "'the issue is likely to arise again and should be resolved by the court to avoid uncertainty'") (citation omitted). ¶5 moot. We agree with Rave that Townsend renders this matter Rave does not argue that SVA is a health care provider, and nothing before us suggests that SVA meets the definition of a health care provider provided in Wis. Stat. § 146.81(1). Consistent with Townsend, then, Rave has not stated a plausible claim that SVA is directly liable for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b). ¶6 We note, too, that Townsend's holding applies equally to every other member of the class that Rave represents, which consists of individuals whom SVA billed for copies of medical records in amounts that allegedly exceeded the fee caps in Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b). on appeal: class action. The effect is to moot the only question whether Rave's suit was properly certified as a Under Townsend, the answer is "no": neither Rave nor any of the unnamed class members have a plausible claim that SVA is directly liable for a violation of § 146.83(3f)(b). 3 No. ¶7 Rave's It is motion, true, that as we SVA may points overlook out in its mootness 2019AP2236 response when a to case presents questions that are recurring or likely to recur, and that signal a need for guidance and certainty. Wis. 2d 672, ¶12. See J.W.K., 386 But SVA does not meaningfully explain what essential guidance would be provided, or what uncertainty would be avoided, if we were to continue with this appeal and further discuss the propriety of class litigation of a claim made under a statute that does not, by its terms, apply to SVA, as Townsend makes clear and both parties now agree. ¶8 Given the above, we accept Rave's concession that our decision in Townsend makes this case moot. We therefore grant Rave's motion to dismiss, and dismiss the petition for review. The review of the decision of the court of appeals is hereby dismissed. By the Court.——Appeal dismissed. 4 No. 1 2019AP2236
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
