 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board2/23/2005
. Luann Gehin, the claimant, seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals reversing an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County, Moria Krueger, Judge. The circuit court had set aside the Wisconsin Group Insurance Board's termination of Luann Gehin's income continuation insurance benefits.
. Relying on Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), the court of appeals concluded that although the written medical reports the Group Insurance Board relied on were hearsay, they constituted substantial evidence upon which the Group Insurance Board could base its findings and decision. . The following issue is presented: Does uncorroborated written hearsay evidence alone (that is controverted by in-person testimony) constitute substantial evidence to support the Group Insurance Board's factual findings, which in turn form the basis for its conclusion of law, i.e., that the claimant's benefits should be terminated as of April 30, 1997?
. We conclude that the uncorroborated written hearsay medical reports alone (that are controverted by in-person testimony) did not constitute substantial evidence to support the Group Insurance Board's factual findings and decision to terminate the claimant's benefits. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the order of the circuit court reversing the decision of the Group Insurance Board.
I.
. This court reviews the decision of the Group Insurance Board, not the circuit court's order or court of appeals' decision. We review the decision of the Group Insurance Board to terminate the claimant's benefits pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 40.08(12) (2001-02), which provides that decisions of the Wisconsin Group Insurance Board are "reviewable only by an action for certiorari in the circuit court for Dane County."
. In this certiorari review, the issue presented requires us to review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the Group Insurance Board relied in reaching its decision. The sufficiency of the evidence on certiorari review is identical to the substantial evidence test used for the review of administrative determinations under chapter 227 of the statutes.
. Wisconsin Stat. § 227.57(6) provides that "the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact. The court shall, however, set aside agency's action or remand the case to the agency if it finds that the agency's action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by substantial evidence." This case involves the meaning of the words "substantial evidence," as used in § 227.57(6).
. To determine whether substantial evidence supports the Group Insurance Board's factual findings and decision to terminate the claimant's benefits, we shall first examine the Group Insurance Board's findings of fact. We next review the evidence upon which the Group Insurance Board relied in its findings of fact. We then explore the legal basis for the long-standing rule adopted in Folding Furniture Works, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Relations Board, 232 Wis. 170, 189, 285 N.W. 851 (1939), that uncorroborated hearsay evidence alone does not constitute substantial evidence. Upon analyzing the hearsay evidence and live testimony, we conclude that we should not deviate in the instant case from the long-standing rule in Wisconsin that uncorroborated hearsay alone does not constitute substantial evidence. Finally, we examine and do not accept the Group Insurance Board's arguments, based on Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), that we should abandon the rule long used in this state that uncorroborated hearsay evidence alone d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|