author: N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.

text:
    Joseph J. Paul, Judith E. Paul, and The Estate of Jennifer Jo Paul, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, v. Frederick C. Skemp, Jr., M.D., ABC Insurance Company, Virginia A. Updegraff, M.D., DEF Insurance Company, Skemp Clinic, Ltd., and GEH Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents, Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, Defendant.
    Supreme Court

      No. 99-1810.

      Oral argument February 28, 2001.

    Decided May 3, 2001.

    2001 WI 42
    (Also reported in 625 N.W.2d 860.)

      For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were briefs by James R. Koby and Parke O'Flaherty, Ltd., La Crosse, and oral argument by James R. Koby.

    For the defendants-respondents there was a brief by Virginia L. Newcomb, Patrick S. Nolan and Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by Virginia L. Newcomb.

    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Edward E. Robinson and Cannon & Dunphy, S.C., Brookfield, on behalf of the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers.
   N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.

¶1. The issue in this case is whether the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims in Wis. Stat. § 893.55 (1995-96) bars this action. Joseph J. and Judith E. Paul, and the Estate of Jennifer Jo Paul (collectively the "Pauls") brought this action in La Crosse County Circuit Court against Dr. Frederick Skemp, Dr. Virginia Updegraff and the Skemp Clinic (collectively "Skemp"). The Pauls claim that Skemp misdiagnosed the cause of recurring headaches Jennifer suffered, and that the misdiagnosis resulted in the rupture of a malformed blood vessel in Jennifer's brain which subsequently caused her death. The circuit court, Judge John A. Damon presiding, concluded that the statute of limitations started running at the time of the last alleged misdiagnosis, when Jennifer last complained to Skemp about headaches; and that the Pauls' action was filed after that limitation period had run. The court of appeals agreed, and affirmed the circuit court. Paul v. Skemp, No. 99-1810, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. June 8, 2000).

¶ 2. The Pauls contend here, as they have before the circuit court and court of appeals, that what triggered the statute of limitations was not the alleged misdiagnosis, but the injury that resulted from that misdiagnosis, the rupture of the blood vessel. We agree with the Pauls. A misdiagnosis may be a negligent omission, but it is not, in and of itself, an injury. The Pauls' claim for medical malpractice did not, and could not, accrue until Jennifer suffered an injury. Accordingly, because this action was filed within the limitations period triggered by Jennifer's injury, it is timely, and summary judgment in favor of defendants was improper. We thus reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

I.

¶ 3. Jennifer Paul was 19 years old when she died. She first complained to the Skemp Clinic about headaches when she was 9 years old, in 1984. Over the next ten years, Jennifer complained about headaches at least one dozen times. She sometimes complained that vomiting or nausea accompanied the headaches, and sometimes complained about dizzy spells.

¶ 4. On November 20, 1994, Jennifer saw Dr. Skemp and indicated that she had suffered from headaches for some time. Dr. Skemp concluded, as others at Skemp had over the past 10 years, that Jennifer's headaches were probably sinus related. A month later, on December 20,1994, Jennifer saw Dr. Updegraff and complained of "persistent headaches and dizzy spells over the past year," as well as frequent nausea. (R. at 8:63.) Dr. Updegraff also concluded that Jennifer may have been suffering from a sinus problem.

¶ 5. Jennifer's last visit to the Skemp Clinic was on March 17, 1995. She saw Dr. Theodor Habel, and according to the medical records, complained only of a sore throat. The morning of May 22,1995, Jennifer was taken to an emergency room. There, it was found that an arteriovenous malformation ("AVM") in Jennifer's right cerebellum had ruptured, causing extensive hemorrhaging. Jennifer died on May 23,1995.

¶ 6. On March 16, 1998, the Pauls filed a complaint against the Skemp defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to diagnose the AVM and misdiagnosed the cause of Jennifer's headaches. In the complaint, Joseph J. and Judith E. Paul, Jennifer's parents, seek damages for the loss of society and companionship. The Pauls also seek survivor damages; and the Estate of Jennifer Jo Paul seeks damages for the fear, pain and suffering allegedly suffered by Jennifer prior to her death.

¶ 7. Skemp moved for summary judgment, contending that the lawsuit was not timely filed. The circuit court agreed, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the action. The Pauls appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, and this court granted the Pauls' petition for review.

III

¶ 8. This court reviews summary judgment decisions by employing the same methodology used by the circuit court in deciding motions for summary judgment. First, the court reviews the pleadings to determine whether a claim has been stated, and if so, whether there are disputed issues. Tamminen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 109 Wis. 2d 536, 550, 327 N.W.2d 55 (1982). There is no dispute that the Pauls have stated a claim for negligence and that there are disputed issues regarding that claim.

¶ 9. Notwithstanding a dispute on the merits, a defendant may be entitled to summary judgment by establishing that the action was not filed within the limitations period set forth in the statute of limitations.

If the complaint states a claim and the pleadings show the existence of factual issues, the court examines the moving party's (in this case the defendants') affidavits or other proof to determine whether the moving party has made a prima facie case for summary judgment under sec. 802.08(2). To make a prima facie case for summary judgment, a moving defendant must show a defense which would defeat the plaintiff. If the moving party has made a prima facie case for summary judgment, the court must examine the affidavits and other proof of the opposing party (plaintiffs in this case) to determine whether there exist disputed material facts, or undisputed material facts from which reasonable alternative inferences may be drawn, sufficient to entitle the opposing party to a trial.

Id. (quoting Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis. 2d 332, 338, 294 N.W.2d 473 (1980)).

¶ 10. Whether, as Skemp contends, the action is time-barred by the statute of limitations that governs medical malpractice actions, Wis. Stat. § 893.55, involves statutory construction. Such statutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo, even though we benefit from the analyses of the circuit court and the court of appeals. Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., 2000 WI 80, ¶ 12, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d 120; see also Patients Compensation Fund v. Lutheran Hosp., 223 Wis. 2d 439, 454-55, 588 N.W.2d 35 (1999). "A court will not ordinarily engage in statutory construction unless a statute is ambiguous. 'When a statute is plain and unambiguous, interpretation is unnecessary and intentions cannot be imputed to the legislature except those to be gathered from the terms of the statute itself.'" Czapinski, 2000 WI 80 at ¶ 17 (citing and quoting Harris v. Kelley, 70 Wis. 2d 242, 249, 234 N.W.2d 628 (1975)).

I — I } — i HH

¶ 11. As just noted, the statute at issue is Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1). Section 893.55(1) provides that:

[A]n action to recover damages for injury arising from any treatment or operation performed by, or from any omission by, a person who is a health care provider, regardless of the theory on which the action is based, shall be commenced within the later of:
(a) Three years from the date of the injury, or
(b) One year from the date the injury was discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered, except that an action may not be commenced under this paragraph more than 5 years from the date of the act or omission.

¶ 12. Skemp contends that Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1) bars the Pauls' action because the action was filed more than three years after Jennifer's injury. According to Skemp, Jennifer's injury is the alleged misdiagnosis, which last occurred when Jennifer last complained about her headaches to Dr. Virginia Updegraff on December 20, 1994. This action was not filed until March 16, 1998. Skemp also contends that the Pauls' action is untimely because the Pauls discovered Jennifer's injury, at the very latest, on the day she died, May 23, 1995; correspondingly, the Pauls' action should have been filed one year after the Pauls discovered Jennifer's injury, by May 23, 1996.

¶ 13. In contrast, the Pauls contend that the injury that triggered the statute of limitations in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1) is the rupture of the AVM in Jennifer's brain and the resultant hemorrhaging. That injury occurred on May 22, 1995, and, according to the Pauls, the action was timely filed, less than three years later, on March 16, 1998. The Pauls additionally submitted, in opposition to Skemp's motion for summary judgment, an affidavit from an expert witness, who concluded, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that had Jennifer's AVM "been properly diagnosed at any time prior to May 1,1995, it is more likely than not that [Jennifer] would not have sustained the injury and disability she ultimately experienced on May 22, 1995." (R. at 11:5.)

¶ 14. The Pauls also contend that, alternatively, Jennifer complained about her headaches to Dr. Habel when she last visited Skemp on March 17, 1995. Even though the medical records do not reflect that complaint, the Pauls point to Judith Paul's deposition testimony that Jennifer had told her that she had complained about her headaches to Dr. Habel. The Pauls also point to an affidavit from Jennifer's boyfriend, Kevin Mason, that Jennifer told him before the appointment that she intended to complain about her headaches, and that Jennifer told him after the appointment that she had complained to Dr. Habel. Correspondingly, according to the Pauls, the last negligent act by defendants was March 17, 1995, and this action was timely filed within three years, on March 16,1998.

¶ 15. The running of the statute of limitations turns on when the claims accrue, as compared to when the action is filed. "[A] period of limitation within which an action may be commenced is computed from the time that the cause of action accrues until the action is commenced." Wis. Stat. § 893.04. "An action is commenced, within the meaning of any provision of law which limits the time for the commencement of an action, as to each defendant, when the summons naming the defendant and the complaint are filed with the court...Wis. Stat. § 893.02.

¶ 16. Although "[t]his court has the power to establish when claims accrue," the legislature has established when medical malpractice claims accrue in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1). Hansen v. A.H. Robins, 113 Wis. 2d 550, 559, 335 N.W.2d 578 (1983). The plain language of § 893.55(1) indicates that medical malpractice claims accrue at the time of an injury or the discovery of an injury. That is, there is an injury rule of accrual in § 893.55(1)(a), and a discovery rule of accrual in § 893.55(1)(b). The running of the limitations period is correspondingly triggered by the injury or the discovery thereof.

¶ 17. That an injury or the discovery of an injury triggers the limitation periods in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1) reflects that án injury is an element of a medical malpractice claim. A claim for medical malpractice, as all claims for negligence, requires the following four elements: (1) a breach of (2) a duty owed (3) that results in (4) an injury or injuries, or damages. See Nieuwendorp v. American Family Ins. Co., 191 Wis. 2d 462, 475, 529 N.W.2d 594 (1995). In short, a claim for medical malpractice requires a negligent act or omission that causes an injury.

¶ 18. Here, there is no dispute that the alleged negligence is an "omission" under Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1) — the failure to correctly diagnose the cause of Jennifer's headaches. However, Skemp contends that the alleged misdiagnosis, or misdiagnoses, is not only the omission, but also the injury that triggers the statute of limitations in § 893.55(l)(a).

¶ 19. If, as Skemp suggests, the alleged misdiagnosis is both the negligent omission and the injury, then the introductory paragraph of Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1) would read, unintelligibly, that "[a]n action to recover damages for [an omission] arising from.. .any omission by.. .a person who is a health care provider," etc. Also, if § 893.55(l)(a) were constructed based upon Skemp's contention that a negligent omission was also the injury, then both the injury and discovery rules of accrual in § 893.55(1) would be changed into a negligence-based rule of accrual. A medical malpractice claim would then have to be filed within the later of three years from the date of the omission or one year from the discovery of the omission.

¶ 20. The legislature did not intend that "omission" and "injury" would be so conflated. The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(a) indicates that it is not the negligence, but the injury resulting from the negligent act or omission which initiates the limitations period. It is evident from the face of § 893.55(1) that a medical malpractice claim accrues when there is an injury, or the discovery thereof, which arose from an omission by a health care provider. This corresponds with the long-standing common law rule that a tort claim does not accrue until there is an injury.

We have held that the time of the negligent act alone is not the key to accrual of tort claims. . . .A tort claim is not capable of enforcement until both a negligent act and an accompanying injury have occurred. Although the negligence and resulting injury are often simultaneous, occasionally an injury will not be sustained until a subsequent date. Therefore, we have held that tort claims accrue on the date of injury.

Hansen, 113 Wis. 2d at 554 (internal citations omitted).

¶ 21. Here, we have a case wherein the alleged negligence and the resulting injury did not occur concurrently. The alleged negligence — the failure to correctly diagnose the source of Jennifer's headaches, preceded the resulting injury — the rupture of the AVM and subsequent hemorrhaging. Skemp effectively contends that the negligence and injury occurred simultaneously, as evidenced by Jennifer's continued headaches. However, Jennifer's headaches were the condition that existed both before and after Skemp examined and diagnosed her. Consequently, Skemp's failure to properly diagnose the headaches could not have caused those headaches.

In every misdiagnosis case, the patient has some type of medical problem at the time the physician is consulted. But the injury upon which the cause of action is based is not the original detrimental condition; it is the injury which later occurs because of the misdiagnosis and failure to treat.

St. George v. Pariser, 484 S.E.2d 888, 891 (Va. 1997).

¶ 22. In St. George v. Pariser, Dr. Pariser had performed a biopsy on a mole of Linda St. George on June 13, 1991. He diagnosed the mole as benign. In March 1993, St. George went to a plastic surgeon about removing: the mole, and the surgeon requested Pariser's records. Pariser again reviewed the tissue sample of the mole and then diagnosed it as cancerous. Id. at 889. However, by that time, the cancer, a malignant melanoma, had invaded St. George's dermis, where it was potentially fatal. Id. at 891.

¶ 23. On October 21, 1993, St. George filed suit against Pariser. Id. St. George moved the trial court to find, as a matter of law, that her action was timely under Virginia's statute of limitations which bars any action that is filed two years after the date of injury. Id. at 890. The trial court declined to make such a finding and submitted the question to the jury, which found the action untimely. Id. St. George appealed contending that the injury was not the cancer she had when she consulted Dr. Pariser. The Virginia Supreme Court agreed:

St. George's actionable injury was not the generic disease of cancer or the cancer "in situ" which she had when she sought evaluation of the mole in 1991. Pariser's negligence could not have been the cause of that medical condition. St. George's injury was the change in her cancerous condition which occurred when the melanoma altered its status as "melanoma in situ," a biologically benign condition, to "invasive superficial spreading malignant melanoma" in the dermis which allowed the melanoma cells to metastasize to other parts of the body. At this point, St. George's cancer, according to the expert testimony, was no longer 100 percent curable because the cancer could metastasize and recur.

Id. at 891. Given that the evidence indicated that the melanoma invaded the dermis after January 1992, the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that Pariser had not proven that St. George's action which was filed less than two years later, was untimely. Id. at 892.

¶ 24. In concluding that Pariser's misdiagnosis was not the injury that triggered the statute of limitations, the Virginia Supreme Court relied upon a number of cases wherein the actionable injury was that injury caused by the misdiagnosis, not the condition for which the patient initially sought medical treatment.

[I]n Lo v. Burke, the actionable injury was not the cyst the plaintiff had when she went to the doctor, although this was a medical problem which should have been treated. The injury at issue was the cancer which developed from the cyst. 249 Va. at 315-17, 455 S.E.2d at 12-13. Similarly, in Jenkins v. Payne, 251 Va. 122, 465 S.E.2d 795 (1996), the injury was the wrongful death of a patient who presented to the physician with a cancerous condition which was not diagnosed or treated before the condition became terminal. See also Renner v. Stafford, 245 Va. 351, 429 S.E.2d 218 (1993) (actionable injury was condition caused by improper treatment rendered because of misdiagnosis). "Where a medical malpractice claim is based on a misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose a condition, the 'injury'. . .is the development of the problem into a more serious condition which poses greater danger to the patient or which requires more extensive treatment." DeBoer v. Brown, 138 Ariz. 168, 673 P.2d 912, 914 (Ariz.

St. George v. Pariser, 484 S.E.2d at 891.

¶ 25. Although a decision from the Virginia Supreme Court is certainly not binding precedent for this court, the reasoning therein is persuasive. A misdiagnosis, in and of itself, is not, and cannot, be an actionable injury. The misdiagnosis is the negligent omission, not the injury. The actionable injury arises when the misdiagnosis causes a greater harm than existed at the time of the misdiagnosis. This comports with Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1), i.e., that the "injury arising. . .from any omission" instigates the limitations period, not the omission.

¶ 26. Skemp contends that there is authority that, notwithstanding the unambiguous language of Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1), a misdiagnosis, without more, is an injury that results in an accrual of a medical malpractice claim: Koschnik v. Smejkal, 96 Wis. 2d 145, 153, 291 N.W.2d 574 (1980); Elfers v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 214 Wis. 2d 499, 571 N.W.2d 469 (Ct. App. 1997); and Webb v. Ocularra Holding, Inc., 232 Wis. 2d 495, 606 N.W.2d 552 (Ct. App. 1999). However, insofar as these cases suggest that a medical malpractice claim accrues before there is an injury that has resulted from a misdiagnosis — a negligent omission, these cases run counter to long-standing precedent that a cause of action does not accrue unless there is an injury that has resulted from the alleged negligence.

It is well settled that a cause of action accrues when there exists a claim capable of enforcement. ... A party has a present right to enforce a claim when the plaintiff has suffered actual damage, defined as harm that has already occurred or is reasonably certain to occur in the future.

Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302, 315, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995) (internal citations omitted).

¶ 27. In Koschnik, Marie Koschnik alleged that she fractured her spine in an automobile accident and that she was injured as a result of Dr. Smejkal's failure to diagnose the fracture: one, "the fracture remained untreated, causing her personal injury;" and two, Koschnik relied upon Smejkal's report that failed to note the fracture to settle her claims, to her detriment, against the other party to the accident. 96 Wis. 2d at 148. Koschnik commenced her action on September 22, 1976. Id. at 147. The court concluded that the action was time-barred because it was not brought within the three-year limitation period that applied to medical malpractice actions at that time. Id. at 152-53.

¶ 28. Koschnik is first distinguishable because it arose under a different statutory scheme. At the time that Koschnik brought her claim, in 1976, there was no specific limitations statute for medical malpractice actions. Instead, medical malpractice actions were brought under a personal injury limitations statute, Wis. Stat. § 893.205. Id. at 146. Section 893.205 provided that "[a]n action to recover damages for injuries to the person for such injuries sustained on and after July 1, 1955. . . ." must be brought within three years after the cause of action accrued. Id. at 146 n.1; see also Rod v. Farrell, 96 Wis. 2d 349, 350-51, 291 N.W.2d 568 (1980). The legislature did not dictate the time of accrual of claims brought under § 893.205, as it later did in § 893.55(1). See Hansen, 113 Wis. 2d at 559. Instead, this court determined when a medical malpractice claim accrued under § 893.205.

The word accrued is not defined by statute. This court has held that a cause of action for personal injuries due to medical malpractice accrues, and therefore the statute of limitation begins to run, "at the time the negligent act occurs with accompanying injury." Peterson v. Roloff, 57 Wis. 2d 1, 4, 203 N.W.2d 699 (1973). See also Reistad v. Manz, 11 Wis. 2d 155, 105 N.W.2d 324 (1960), McCluskey v. Thranow, 31 Wis. 2d 245, 142 N.W.2d 787 (1966), Volk v. McCormick, 41 Wis. 2d 654, 165 N.W.2d 185 (1969), and Olson v. St. Croix Valley Memorial Hospital, 55 Wis. 2d 628, 201 N.W.2d 63 (1972).

Rod v. Farrell, 96 Wis. 2d at 352-53. Since Koschnik, the common law rule of accrual has been replaced with § 893.55(1), rendering Koschnik of little precedential value.

¶ 29. Koschnik is also of little precedential value because its conclusion runs counter to the cases it relies upon. Without providing any reasoning, Koschnik summarily concluded that "under our established construction of sec. 893.205, Stats., in medical malpractice cases, the cause of action accrued at the time of the misdiagnosis. The injury to Marie Koschnik became fixed on that date." 96 Wis. 2d at 153. Koschnik then cites to the same cases that Rod v. Farrell did — Peterson, Reistad, McCluskey, Volk, and Olson. However, as noted above, these cases all held that the cause of action accrued when there was a negligent act accompanied by an injury. In concluding that Marie Koschnik's claim accrued at the time of the misdiagnosis, without specifying the injury caused by the misdiagnosis, Koschnik apparently concluded that the misdiagnosis was the injury. (Even though elsewhere, the opinion indicated that the alleged misdiagnosis was the not the injury, but rather the cause of the alleged injury, which was claimed to be the diminution of Koschnik's settlement. Koschnik, 96 Wis. 2d at 152.) Accordingly, insofar as Koschnik concluded that the misdiagnosis was the injury, it cannot be reconciled with the cases upon which it relies, nor with our holding here today. Nor can Koschnik be reconciled with the long-standing precedent, stretching both before and beyond Koschnik, that there is no accrual of a medical malpractice claim until there is an injury that resulted from the malpractice. Any language in Koschnik to the contrary is hereby withdrawn.

¶ 30. Similarly, insofar as Webb v. Ocularra Holding, Inc., 232 Wis. 2d 495, 606 N.W.2d 552 (Ct. App. 1999), upon which Skemp also relies, suggests that a misdiagnosis is, in and of itself, an injury, it is also in error. In Webb, Roger Webb brought a medical malpractice claim against Pearle Vision alleging that an eye exam by a Dr. Knutzen should have resulted in a diagnosis of a slow-growing brain tumor. 232 Wis. 2d at 499-500. The court of appeals concluded that the action was untimely filed. "This action was filed on February 25, 1998. The only time Dr. Knutzen saw Webb was on February 23, 1994. Thus, any injury caused by Dr. Knutzen could only have occurred on the date of Webb's eye examination. Like the facts in Olson, the date of negligence and the date of injury were the same date. Olson, 55 Wis. 2d at 633." Webb, 232 Wis. 2d at 511.

¶ 31. First, Webb, like Koschnik, does not identify the injury caused by the misdiagnosis, but only summarily concludes that the negligence and the injury occurred simultaneously. Webb, 232 Wis. 2d at 511; see also Koschnik, 96 Wis. 2d at 153. Apparently, as in Koschnik, Webb assumed that the misdiagnosis was the injury. Webb, 232 Wis. 2d at 511. However, as we have previously stated, the misdiagnosis is the negligent act or omission. The misdiagnosis is not the injury. The misdiagnosis may or may not result in an injury; and, that injury may occur concurrently, or there may be a delay between the misdiagnosis and the injury.

¶ 32. In addition, Webb's reliance upon Olson v. St. Croix Valley Memorial Hospital, 55 Wis. 2d 628, 201 N.W.2d 63 (1972), in suggesting that the alleged misdiagnosis is the actionable injury, is misplaced. In Olson, Judy Olson had received a blood transfusion with an incompatible Rh factor in 1962, which, allegedly, resulted in the death of two of her children, one shortly after birth in 1966 and one stillborn in 1969. Id. at 632-33. The court concluded that the negligent act and the injury occurred at the same time; that is, the negligent act, the transfusion, caused the injury, Olson's impaired "capacity for future childbearing." Id. at 633.

¶ 33. In Olson, there was an affirmative negligent act, the improper transfusion, which immediately resulted in an injury to Judy Olson. In contrast, in Webb, the alleged negligence was an omission, the failure to diagnose the brain tumor. But in Webb, there was no evidence of an injury that immediately resulted from that misdiagnosis, nor was there evidence of any injury that ever resulted from the alleged misdiagnosis, e.g., a cancerous condition that became fatal as a result of a misdiagnosis. See St. George v. Pariser, 484 S.E.2d at 891 (citing Jenkins v. Payne, 465 S.E.2d 795 (Va. 1996)): Olson has no bearing on the misdiagnosis claim in Webb, just as it has no bearing on the alleged misdiagnosis claim here.

¶ 34. As our long-time precedent has established, the negligence and its result — an injury — should be considered separately. The negligence must cause an injury before there is an accrual of a claim. Meracle v. Children's Serv. Soc'y, 149 Wis. 2d 19, 26, 437 N.W.2d 532 (1989). Accordingly, that part of Webb that holds that a misdiagnosis is an actionable injury is, like that similar part of Koschnik, withdrawn because it is in error.

¶ 35. Skemp also relies upon Elfers v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 214 Wis. 2d 499, 571 N.W.2d 469 (Ct. App. 1997) to contend that a misdiagnosis is an actionable injury. However, Elfers supports the court's holding here today rather than Skemp's position.

¶ 36. Elfers concerns the accrual of a medical malpractice claim against a doctor and a radiologist. Christine Elfers had fallen and broken her right arm in 1985 when she was four years old. Id. at 501. The doctor and the radiologist diagnosed the fracture but failed to detect a dislocation in the elbow that resulted from that same fall. Id. In 1989, Elfers' right arm was x-rayed again, and her parents were then told of the dislocation and that it had been caused by the 1985 accident. Id. However, the dislocation was not treated. Id. at 502. In 1993, Christine experienced symptoms related to the dislocation and, in 1996, filed an action against the radiologist and doctor, among others. Id.

¶ 37. The court of appeals determined the circuit court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment which claimed that the action was untimely. The court of appeals held that there was a disputed fact as to the date of the injury, which would trigger the limitations period. Id. at 505-06. Regarding Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1), the court of appeals noted that "[bjefore the time limitation under this statute begins to run, there must first be a negligent act and an injury caused by that act." Id. at 504 (citing Meracle, 149 Wis. 2d at 26). The court of appeals could identify the negligent act and when it occurred — the failure to diagnose the dislocation in 1985. Id. at 504. However, the court could not determine the injury and when it occurred. Id. at 505-06. Relying upon our decision in Meracle, the court of appeals indicated that there was no injury, no enforceable claim for the misdiagnosis, until such time "when it became reasonably certain that Christine would suffer compensable damages as a result of the negligent act." Id. at 505 (emphasis in original).

¶ 38. In Meracle, we held that the adoptive parents had no compensable injury against the adoption agency, which negligently misrepresented to them their adopted child's susceptibility to Huntington's disease, until the child developed the disease. 149 Wis. 2d at 29-30. At that point, "[t]hey could then demonstrate with reasonable medical certainty that Erin [the child] would need extensive future medical care." Id. Similarly, in Elfers, there was no harm to Christine, notwithstanding the failure to diagnose the dislocated elbow, until she suffered some physical or pecuniary injury as a result. Elfers thus corresponds with our holding here, that until the misdiagnosis results in a harm that would not have occurred but for the misdiagnosis, there is no injury to trigger the running of the statute of limitations.

¶ 39. Skemp, however, claims that the following paragraph from Elfers supports its contention that a misdiagnosis is a medical malpractice injury:

This does not mean that we agree with Christine's apparent contention that an asymptomatic dislocated elbow is not an injury. If this medical condition will inevitably result in some disability, the plaintiff has sustained an injury as of the date the failure to diagnose occurred. Our law does not permit a claimant who possesses a cause of action to wait until the full effect of the injury has developed before filing a claim.

Id. at 506. Skemp is incorrect. Nothing in the above language changes the prerequisite that a negligent act or omission, such as a misdiagnosis, must cause an injury in order to be actionable. If, however, as Elfers suggests, a condition for which a patient seeks treatment immediately develops into a more serious problem as a result of the misdiagnosis, then the patient has sustained an injury caused by the failure to diagnose on the date that there was a failure to diagnose. Indeed, once a claimant has sustained an injury and has an enforceable claim, that claimant cannot sit on that claim until all consequential damages have come to fruition. See e.g., Nierengarten v. Lutheran Social Serv., 219 Wis. 2d 686, 701, 580 N.W.2d 320 (1998) (adoptive parents' claims accrued when their adopted child was first diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, even though extraordinary medical expenses were not incurred until later).

¶ 40. Nonetheless, Elfers' indeterminate outcome has no impact upon our holding. The injury that resulted from the misdiagnosis was in dispute there. Here, the injury that resulted from the misdiagnosis is not in dispute. There is no evidence Skemp's failure to diagnose properly the source of Jennifer's headaches would have resulted in an immediate and inevitable injury to Jennifer. Instead, there is evidence that suggests the opposite, namely, that the AVM could have been treated until shortly before it ruptured.

¶ 41. The instant case is more akin to other cases wherein the negligent act does not occur concurrently with the injury it causes. See e.g., Meracle, 149 Wis. 2d 19. However, "[i]n the medical malpractice cases so far to come before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the malpractice and the harm have been coincidental." Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 686 F.2d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 1982). Yet, there has been a medical malpractice case where the malpractice and the injury have not been coincidental decided by the court of appeals, Fojut v. Stafl, 212 Wis. 2d 827, 569 N.W.2d 737 (Ct. App. 1997). In Fojut, Helen Fojut had a tubal ligation to prevent further pregnancies; subsequently, she became pregnant. Id. at 829. The court of appeals rejected, as we do here, the defendants' contention that the date of the injury was the date that the negligence occurred. Id. at 831. The court of appeals instead determined that the negligent act was the surgery, and the injury that resulted from that negligence was the pregnancy. "There was no physical injurious change to Helen's body until she became pregnant." Id. Similarly, here, there was no injurious change as a result of Skemp's misdiagnosis until the AVM ruptured, or until the AVM could no longer be treated.

¶ 42. If a negligent act or omission, such as a misdiagnosis, triggered the limitations period, as Skemp suggests, potential claimants who have not yet been injured would be seeking relief for damages that may never occur. If we were to conclude otherwise, we would be "creat[ing] incentives for claimants to rush to the courthouse to initiate anticipatory litigation." Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 230 Wis. 2d 212, 230, 601 N.W.2d 627 (1999). Extending this consideration to the field of health care, if a misdiagnosis was an injury that would start the limitations period running, patients would have to obtain a second or third opinion or risk losing a claim for medical malpractice. The result would be to drive up health care costs, even though rising health care costs prompted the legislature to modify the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims, at least for minors. See Aicher v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2000 WI 98, ¶ 22, 237 Wis. 2d 99, 613 N.W.2d 849. Until there is an injury, any damages sought would be speculative. See Sopha, 230 Wis. 2d at 229. Hence the rule that "recovery for damages may be had for 'reasonably certain injurious consequences of the tortfeasor's negligent conduct, not for merely possible injurious consequences.'" Id. at 226-27 (quoting Brantner v. Jenson, 121 Wis. 2d 658, 663-64, 360 N.W.2d 529 (1985)).

¶ 43. Skemp's contention that the alleged misdiagnosis is the injury here that triggered the running of the statute of limitations ignores the causation element in medical malpractice claims. Skemp must, but does not, establish the necessary causal nexus between the alleged misdiagnosis and Jennifer's headaches. See Fischer v. Ganju, 168 Wis. 2d 834, 857, 485 N.W.2d 10 (1992). Skemp's failure to diagnose the source of Jennifer's headaches did not cause the headaches, nor cause the AVM. Jennifer's headaches did not make it reasonably certain that she had been injured as a result of the misdiagnosis. See Meracle, 149 Wis. 2d at 27. Nor did those headaches establish, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Jennifer was to incur future medical expenses or other harm for which she could seek recovery. Id. at 29-30. As in St. George v. Pariser, 484 S.E.2d 888, the headaches were the initial condition for which Jennifer sought diagnosis and treatment from Skemp; they were not the injury that resulted from the misdiagnosis. Indeed, Jennifer's estate is not seeking damages for the pain and suffering caused by the headaches, but rather for the pain and suffering that resulted from the rupture.

¶ 44. Skemp also contends that the misdiagnosis was an actionable injury because Jennifer's headaches increased in frequency and intensity. However, it was not shown that the misdiagnosis caused more intense and more frequent headaches. The headaches, to varying degrees of intensity and frequency according to the medical records, existed before and after the misdiagnosis.

¶ 45. Skemp has not shown that there was an injury that resulted from the alleged misdiagnosis that occurred prior to March 16, 1995, which would have rendered the action filed here untimely. Accordingly, we conclude that Skemp failed to establish a limitations defense to entitle defendants to summary judgment. Moreover, the evidence submitted in opposition to Skemp's summary judgment motion indicates that the action was timely filed. The evidence indicates that an actionable injury occurred in May 1995. That actionable injury which resulted from the alleged misdiagnosis occurred either at the time that Jennifer's AVM ruptured, or at the time that Jennifer's AVM could no longer be treated. Since it is undisputed that an actionable injury occurred at some point in May 1995, and this action was filed within three years of that time, on March 16, 1998, it is timely under Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(a).

¶ 46. Skemp makes a final argument, though, that, as a policy matter, this action should have been filed one year after Jennifer died. That is, the date of Jennifer's death was the last date that the Pauls could have discovered that she had been injured by the misdiagnosis, and this action could have been filed by then. Skemp's contention rests upon the discovery rule of accrual in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(b) which provides that a medical malpractice claim shall be commenced "[o]ne year from the date the injury was discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. ..." However, Skemp ignores the policy reflected in the introductory paragraph of § 893.55(1), that the action "shall be commenced within the later of: (a) Three years from the date of the injury, or (b) One year from the date the injury was discovered [etc.]." (Emphasis added.)

¶ 47. Typically, the discovery rule of accrual embodied in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(b) extends the accrual time, specifically, where the negligence and the injury occurred at the same time, but the injury was latent. See Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 292-93, 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997). Section 893.55(l)(b) allows a claimant to bring a medical malpractice claim where an injury was discovered more than three years after the injury occurred, so long as the action is brought within one year from the date of the discovery of the injury, or within one year of when, with the exercise of reasonable efforts, the injury should have been discovered, and no "more than 5 years from the date of the act or omission." Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1)(b).

¶ 48. We would be remiss if we failed to note that in medical malpractice matters, a tension between the injury rule and the discovery rule of accrual arises in those cases where there is a lengthy delay between the negligent act or omission and the resulting injury. Under the discovery rule of accrual in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(b), "an action may not be commenced under this paragraph more than 5 years from the date of the act or omission." The injury rule of accrual apparently does not have any similar limitation. Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(a). Consequently, a medical malpractice action might be able to be timely filed more than five years after the act or omission under the injury rule of accrual where, for example, the injury occurs more than two years after the negligent act or omission and the action is filed within three years from the injury. In contrast, § 893.55(1)(b) clearly bars an action filed more than five years after the negligent act or omission even though the injury was not discovered until after the five years had passed. See Aicher v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2000 WI 98, ¶¶ 10, 11, 237 Wis. 2d 99, 613 N.W.2d 849.

¶ 49. The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1) does not indicate whether the five-year statute of repose in § 893.55(1)(b) applies to actions governed by the injury rule of accrual in § 893.55(1)(a). According to the Legislative Reference Bureau's Bill Drafting Manuals that may have been referred to when § 893.55(1) was drafted in 1979, paragraphs are to be "designated by letters of the alphabet enclosed in parentheses." Wisconsin Bill Drafting Manual at 16 (October 1976); Wisconsin Bill Drafting Manual, 33 (1979-1980); see also § 35.18 (statute regarding printing of Wisconsin statutes provides that "[e]ach paragraph shall be designated by a letter or letters enclosed in parentheses"). These drafting manual guidelines may indicate that repose limitation may only apply to the discovery rule of accrual in paragraph (b). However, the timeliness of an action filed within three years of the date of the injury, but more than five years after the negligent act or omission is not before us. The action at issue here was filed less than five years after the alleged negligent omission. We nonetheless point out the possible conflict between actions that arise under the injury rule of accrual and the discovery rule of accrual. In pointing out this potential conflict, we urge the legislature to provide guidance by resolving it. (Indeed, this court has struggled with the impact of injury and discovery rules of accrual on medical malpractice claims. See Aicher, 2000 WI 98.) The legislature has, in the past, addressed the problem of the statute of limitations in medical malpractice actions. In so doing, the legislature appropriately considered "the policy issues involved." See Rod v. Farrell, 96 Wis. 2d 349, 355, 291 N.W.2d 568 (1980).

¶ 50. However, in cases such as this one, where the injury did not occur at the same time as the negligence, the discovery rule of accrual may provide a shorter time in which the claimant would bring her claim than the injury rule would provide. Yet, contrary to Skemp's contention, the discovery rule in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(b) was not intended to shorten the time in which a claimant had to bring a medical malpractice action. This is evident from the words in the introduction that the claimant could choose from the later of the two accrual rules, injury or discovery. In Fojut, the injury accrual rule in § 893.55(1)(a) applied because the claim accrued on the date of injury. 212 Wis. 2d at 830. The Fojuts were not required to file their action one year after they discovered the injury, the pregnancy, even though, presumably, they could have. In fact, that time passed before they filed their action. See id. at 830 n.1.

¶ 51. Here, the three-year injury rule of accrual in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(a) provided a longer time in which the Pauls could file this action than the discovery rule of accrual in § 893.55(l)(b). The provision in § 893.55(1) that the action had to be filed by the "later of' the injury or the discovery thereof gave them a choice. The Pauls were thus entitled to file this action within three years of Jennifer's injury, and they did not have to file it sooner, even though they may have discovered the injury sooner.

IV

¶ 52. We make no determination whatsoever regarding the merits of the Pauls' claims, or whether they will be able to prove the elements of their negligence action. We have only determined the timeliness of the commencement of the action.

¶ 53. In summary, we conclude that the alleged misdiagnosis in this case was not the injury that triggered the running of the limitations period in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(a). Instead, based on the information presented, the injury that resulted from the alleged misdiagnosis occurred when the rupture of the AVM in Jennifer's brain happened on May 22, 1995, or it occurred at that point earlier in May when, more likely than not, Jennifer's AVM could not have been successfully treated. According to the affidavit of Pauls' expert, proper diagnosis prior to May 1, 1995, would have avoided the harm she subsequently experienced. It was this injury that triggered the statute of limitations, not the alleged misdiagnosis in November or December, 1994. Consequently, since the instant action was commenced on March 16, 1998, it was commenced well within the three-year statute of limitations.

¶ 54. The defendants have failed to establish that the alleged misdiagnosis was an injury that triggered the running of the statute of limitations, which, in turn, would have rendered this action untimely. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the defendants was improper. The decision of the court of appeals, which affirmed that circuit court's granting of summary judgment, is hereby reversed, and the action is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

By the Court. — The court of appeals decision is reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

       All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to be the 1995-96 version unless otherwise indicated.

       Employers Insurance of Wausau was originally a Plaintiff-Subrogee, but was later dismissed.

       The phrase the "discovery of an injury" as used herein also embraces that part of Wis. Stat. § 893.55(l)(b) which includes not only the discovery of an injury, but that point in time when, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the injury should have been discovered.

       It is noteworthy that Skemp's counsel conceded, correctly, during oral argument, that as of December 21, 1994, the day after Jennifer saw Dr. Updegraff, Jennifer's medical malpractice claim had not yet accrued — even though that is the date Skemp contends that the statute of limitations began to rim.

       We have previously followed the guidance and reasoning of the Virginia Supreme Court in the area of medical malpractice. See Tamminen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 109 Wis. 2d 536, 555-56, 327 N.W.2d 55 (1982) (followed Virginia cases in determining what triggers the limitations period where there is a continuing course of negligent treatment).

       Wisconsin Stat. § 893.205 was amended and renumbered as Wis. Stat. § 893.54, effective July 1, 1980. Ch. 323, Laws of 1979.

       These cases were all overruled in part by Hansen v. A.H. Robins, 113 Wis. 2d 550, 560, 335 N.W.2d 578 (1983) when Hansen adopted the discovery rule of accrual for personal injury actions for which there was not already a legislatively-created discovery rule. Wisconsin Stat. § 893.55(1)(b) is such a legislatively-created discovery rule for medical malpractice actions. Id. at 557. For other personal injury actions, those governed by the personal injury statute of limitations in § 893.54, the discovery rule of accrual applies. The discovery rule of accrual in such cases is that "a cause of action does not accrue until the nature of the injury and the cause — or at least a relationship between the event and the injury — is or ought to have been known to the claimant." Borello v. U.S. Oil Co., 130 Wis. 2d 397, 407, 388 N.W.2d 140 (1986) (emphasis in original).

       The phrase that "this medical condition will inevitably result in some disability" indicates that, in certain circumstances, the failure to diagnose properly a condition results in an immediate injury to the patient. We have no evidence of such circumstances here.

       Our holding rests solely upon the construction of Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1). We need not, and do not, rely upon the "continuing course of negligent treatment" doctrine this court adopted in Tamminen, 109 Wis. 2d 536, to determine whether this action was timely or not. Consequently, we need not consider whether the statements of Jennifer's mother and boyfriend are admissible, since they were offered only in support of applying that doctrine here.

       Skemp makes a related argument that the court of appeals decision should be upheld because it reflects public policy considerations regarding medical malpractice actions. However, our decision upholds the public policy the legislature specifically adopted in Wis. Stat. § 893.55(1), wherein the legislature both allowed, and limited, actions in relation to the injury or the discovery of the injury.

       The parties themselves did not claim that this action was either timely or untimely as a wrongful death action. Accordingly, we do not address that issue, or the contention made by amicus, the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers, that the action was timely as a wrongful death action under Wis. Stat. § 893.54(2). However, this court stated in Rineck v. Johnson, 155 Wis. 2d 659, 671, 456 N.W.2d 336 (1990) (overruled in part, Chang v. State Farm Ins. Co., 182 Wis. 2d 549, 514 N.W.2d 399 (1994)) that "there is no logical distinction between injury and death claims arising out of medical malpractice. Once medical malpractice produces a loss, a remedy exists regardless whether the consequence is injury or death." See also Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, ¶ 18, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d 120. Notably, though, Rineck and Czapinski dealt with damages, not statutes of limitations. Section 893.55(1) could be read as covering wrongful death actions against health care providers, that is, those actions "to recover damages for injury arising from any treatment or operation performed by, or from any omission by, a person who is a health care provider, regardless of the theory on which the action is based." Potentially, then, there is a conflict where a wrongful death action filed against a health care provider which would have been timely at the time of the decedent's death and thus timely under § 893.54(2), but is barred by § 893.55 because it was filed three years after the decedent's death. This potential conflict is not before the court, and has not been briefed or argued by the parties. Apparently, the parties concluded that if the medical malpractice claim was timely filed, then the wrongful death claim, simultaneously filed and indisputably filed within three years of Jennifer's death, was also timely filed.
      Also, the parties did not raise, and, accordingly, we do not address, any issues regarding the limitations, if any, on damages that may be recovered. See Rineck, 155 Wis. 2d 659; Czapinski, 2000 WI 80.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SNYDER, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re the Paternity of Brenton T.C.: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner, v. Patrick G.B., Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, Cindy L.D., Respondent-Respondent-Cross-Appellant.
    Court of Appeals

      No. 00-1308.

      Submitted on briefs December 18, 2000.

    Decided February 7, 2001.

    2001 WI App 85
    (Also reported in 627 N.W.2d 898.)

      On behalf of the respondent-appellant-cross-respondent, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Joseph J. Welcenbach of Welcenbach & Widmann, S.C. of Milwaukee.
    On behalf of the respondent-respondent-cross-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Jennelle London Joset of Obernberger & Joset, LLP of Milwaukee.
    Before Nettesheim, Anderson and Snyder, JJ.
   SNYDER, J.

¶ 1. Patrick G.B. appeals from an order of the circuit court setting child support arrear-ages at $22,443 and awarding statutory interest on those arrearages at 1.5% per month. Patrick argues that the arrearages found by the circuit court were improper in light of current case law, and that interest should not accrue on arrearages so long as the payer is current on payments. Cindy L.D. cross-appeals, arguing that the circuit court erred in applying the serial family payer formula in determining child support and by awarding Patrick the tax exemption for the child. We agree with Patrick's assertions that all of the issues herein must be evaluated in light of recent case law. We further note that it is not entirely clear whether the serial family payer formula was utilized. We therefore reverse and remand this matter to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

¶ 2. Brenton T.C., the minor child in this action, was born on September 6, 1988. The mother, Cindy, commenced a paternity action in 1998. Following genetic testing, Patrick admitted paternity of Brenton.

¶ 3. On March 19, 1999, a hearing was held before Judge Patrick C. Haughney regarding child support, child support arrearages and other claims. Cindy testified that on numerous occasions both before and after Brenton's birth, she informed Patrick and Patrick's parents that he could be Brenton's father and that she had made numerous attempts to locate him. However, Patrick testified that he had joined the navy and that Cindy had been aware of his enlistment; Patrick further testified that Cindy had "made speculation" that he was the father, but also that there were four other gentlemen who could possibly be Brenton's father. Paternity actions were commenced against two other men before Patrick, and a fourth man was also named as Brenton's potential father. Patrick testified that he did not know with any certainty that he was Brenton's father until the paternity test was completed.

¶ 4. In addition, Patrick testified that he had married in 1990 and had two other children, born in 1995 and 1997. Patrick testified that he might have made different decisions in his life had he known of Brenton's existence. He testified that, for example, he might not have stayed in the military, he might not have purchased a house, and he might not have had two children had he known about Brenton.

¶ 5. At this March 19, 1999 hearing, Judge Haughney found that there was no conclusive proof of paternity until the DNA testing was completed and that Patrick had not been aware of Brenton's existence until the commencement of the paternity case. Judge Haughney rejected Cindy's testimony that she made repeated attempts to find Patrick because she definitively knew he was Brenton's father and accepted the testimony of Patrick that some of his life choices might have been different had he known of Brenton's existence.

¶ 6. Judge Haughney then calculated child support arrearages from the date of Brenton's birth, September 6, 1988, until Patrick's wedding date, May 19, 1990, at the rate of 17%. Relying on Brad Michael L. v. Lee D., 210 Wis. 2d 437, 564 N.W.2d 354 (Ct. App. 1997), Judge Haughney specifically stated that Patrick's ignorance of Brenton's existence was not a reason to deviate from the percentage standards of WlS. Admin. Code § HSS 80.03 during this time period. However, from May 19, 1990, until March 19, 1999 (the date of the hearing), arrearages were established at a rate of 12.75%, with future child support to remain at 12.75%. Judge Haughney found that the application of the percentage standards after May 19,1990 "would be unfair to [Patrick] under 767.25(1m)." Judge Haughney deviated from the percentage standards after May 19, 1990, the date of Patrick's marriage, because Patrick then became legally obligated for his wife's support. Judge Haughney held that equity demanded that past support, from May 19, 1990, through March 19, 1999, be established at 12.75%. The arrearages were calculated according to Judge Haughney's determinations and found to be $22,443. Judge Haughney also established future support at 12.75%, deviating from the percentage standards because of Patrick's marriage, his life-style choices and his two marital children. The hearing was then adjourned for further proceedings.

¶ 7. On March 26, 1999, Cindy filed a motion to reconsider Judge Haughney's oral pronouncements. A hearing was held on May 26,1999. However, instead of addressing Cindy's motion to reconsider, Judge Haughney allowed Cindy's attorneys to withdraw as her counsel. Judge Haughney adjourned the proceedings and gave Cindy two weeks to file a letter with the court indicating that she wanted to pursue the motion to reconsider either pro se or with new counsel. Despite the announced intention of adjournment, that same day Judge Haughney signed a findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of paternity, memorializing the findings of the March 19, 1999 hearing. While Judge Haughney never addressed the issue of interest on arrearages at the March 19,1999 hearing, the judgment of paternity indicated that no interest on arrearages was to be assessed.

¶ 8. On August 2,1999, Judge Haughney notified the parties of a September 16,1999 hearing to address Cindy's motion for reconsideration; the hearing notice advised the parties that the hearing would be held before Judge Lee S. Dreyfus, Jr. After Patrick filed a motion to reduce the amount of arrearages and to clarify and modify Judge Haughney's previous judgment, the hearing was rescheduled for October 14,1999. Patrick's motion was based upon case law issued subsequent to Judge Haughney's judgment. On October 27, 1999, Cindy, by new counsel, filed an amended motion for reconsideration. A hearing to address these motions was then scheduled for December 1,1999.

¶ 9. At the December 1, 1999 hearing before Judge Dreyfus, Patrick asked the court to reduce the arrearages based upon new case law, to allow Patrick the tax deduction for Brenton, and to clarify whether any interest on arrearages had been awarded. Cindy argued that Judge Haughney's determination that Patrick was a serial family payer, which reduced the percentage of his child support payments, and his decision to release Patrick from interest on the arrearages were in error. Cindy also argued against Patrick receiving the tax deduction for Brenton.

¶ 10. On April 12, 2000, Judge Dreyfus issued an order in this matter, determining the arrearages of record to be set pursuant to Judge Haughney's order in the amount of $22,443, effective March 19, 1999, with statutory interest of 1.5% per month applicable to the arrearages starting March 19,1999. Using the percentage standards as determined by Judge Haughney, current support was set at $361.73 per month, with arrearages to be paid in the amount of $200 per month. Patrick was entitled to use the tax exemption for Brenton for the year 2000 and for all subsequent tax years so long as he continued to pay support and remained current in his support obligations. Judge Dreyfus's order did not address the serial family payer issue.

¶ 11. Patrick appealed Judge Dreyfus's order and Cindy cross-appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶ 12. A determination of child support is committed to the sound discretion of the circuit court. Brad Michael L., 210 Wis. 2d at 446. Exercising discretion contemplates a reasoned application of proper principles of law to the facts of the case. Wala P. v. Alonzo R., 230 Wis. 2d 17, 21, 601 N.W.2d 328 (Ct. App. 1999). Furthermore, the determination of back support in paternity cases, like the determination of child support in general, is committed to the circuit court's discretion. Id. We must reverse a discretionary decision that misapplies the law. Brad Michael L., 210 Wis. 2d at 446. In reviewing an order denying a motion for reconsideration, we apply the same erroneous exercise of discretion standard that we use when reviewing the underlying judgment or order. Wala P., 230 Wis. 2d at 21.

¶ 13. Patrick argues that the arrearages determined and the interest established by the circuit court were improper based upon present case law. We conclude that the issues presented in this case must be reexamined in light of the holding in Wala P.

¶ 14. Judge Haughney calculated child support arrearages from the date of Brenton's birth, September 6, 1988, until Patrick's wedding date, May 19, 1990, at the rate of 17%. Judge Haughney also established future support at 12.75%. In arriving at his decision, Judge Háughney relied primarily upon Brad Michael L., 210 Wis. 2d at 437.

¶ 15. In Brad Michael L., a fifteen-year-old child brought a paternity action against his putative father. Id. at 443-44. The parties stipulated that the father had not known of Brad's existence for the first fifteen years of the child's life. Id. at 445. In the fifteen years since Brad's birth, the father had married and fathered two children. Id. After DNA results determined that Lee D. was Brad's father, the trial court made a finding of paternity and determination of child support, ordering Lee to pay $500 monthly for future support, but denying past support, concluding that the application of WlS. Stat. § 767.51(4) would be unfair to Lee because he had not known of Brad nor had he had an opportunity to develop a relationship with him. Brad Michael L., 210 Wis. 2d at 445. We affirmed in part and reversed in part. Id. at 442. We concluded that the retroactive application of § 767.51(4) was appropriate and therefore Lee was liable for past support starting after Brad's birth even though Lee lacked knowledge of Brad's existence. Brad Michael L., 210 Wis. 2d at 449.

¶ 16. On August 10, 1999, Wala P. was issued. Wala P. was born out of wedlock in 1987; in 1995, her mother brought a paternity action against Alonzo R. as Wala's father. Wala P., 230 Wis. 2d at 19. A family court commissioner (FCC) concluded, among other things, that the application of the percentage standards was inappropriate. Id. at 20. Alonzo sought certification to the circuit court for the determination of past support issues. Id. The circuit court made a discretionary decision that it would be inequitable and unfair to establish full past support retroactive to the date of birth. Id. However, the circuit court said past support was necessary and established it at $4,000, with monthly payments for both past and future support. Id. In addition, the circuit court affirmed the FC C's determination that it would be unfair to the father, by the great weight of the credible evidence pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 767.51(5)(b), to establish current support under the percentage standards. Wala P., 230 Wis. 2d at 20-21. The State appealed. Id. at 21.

¶ 17. We affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that Wis. Stat. § 767.51(4m) and (5) allow the trial court, when determining child support payments, to deviate from the presumptive application of the percentage standards if the court finds, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, that use of the percentage standards is unfair to the child or to the requesting party. Wala P., 230 Wis. 2d at 22-23. The child support guideline standards are not mandatory but "presumptively" applicable, absent a showing of unfairness by the great weight of the credible evidence. Id. at 28. In concluding that a deviation is warranted, a trial court need not apply all fourteen factors set forth in § 767.51(5) in a checklist fashion, but need only consider those factors that are relevant. Wala P., 230 Wis. 2d at 28.

¶ 18. Therefore, reading Brad Michael L. and Wala P. together, Wis. Stat. § 767.51(4) (1997-98) dictates that a father is responsible for a child's support for all years following his or her birth, whether or not the father knew of the child's birth; however, pursuant to § 767.51(4m), a court can deviate from the percentage standards when establishing both back and future support if, after considering the factors set forth in § 767.51(5), the court finds that by the greater weight of the credible evidence that use of the percentage standards is unfair to either the child or the requesting party.

¶ 19. Patrick brought the holding of Wala P. to the circuit court's attention in his post judgment motion. While Wala P. was discussed at the December 1,1999 hearing, the circuit court's April 12, 2000 order made no mention of this case and instead adopted and reaffirmed Judge Haughney's pre-Wala P. determination. There is no record that Wala P. was considered in arriving at these conclusions. While decisions regarding child support issues are indeed discretionary, we must reverse a discretionary decision that misapplies the law. Brad Michael L., 210 Wis. 2d at 446. Because it appears that the circuit court failed to consider the implications of Wala P., we therefore reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand this matter for reconsideration of all the issues in light of Wala P.

¶ 20. Because we are remanding this matter for reevaluation in light of Wala P., we need not specifically address any further issues raised here save one. Cindy argues that the circuit court erred when applying the serial family payer formula in determining Patrick's support obligation. However, because of inconsistencies between the oral pronouncements and the judgment of paternity, it is unclear whether the serial family payer formula was actually applied in this instance.

¶ 21. Wisconsin Admin. Code §DWD 40.04 addresses the determination of child support obligations in special circumstances. Subsection (1) specifically addresses the determination of child support obligations of a serial family payer and states, in relevant part:

This subsection applies only if the additional child support obligation incurred by the payer is the result of a court order and the support obligation being calculated is for children from a subsequent family or subsequent paternity judgment or acknowledgment.

A "serial family payer" is defined as "a payer with an existing legal obligation for child support who incurs an additional legal obligation for child support in a subsequent family as a result of a court order." WlS. Admin. Code § DWD 40.02(24). Therefore, the percentage standards of § DWD 40.04(1) only apply if the payer is considered a serial family payer as defined in § DWD 40.02(24).

¶ 22. In Judge Haughney's findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of paternity, the court held that Patrick would pay support at the rate of 12.75% of his gross monthly income, commencing March 19, 1999. Support was set pursuant to WlS. Admin. Code ch. DWD 40, as Patrick was a serial family payer.

¶ 23. But the transcript of the March 19, 1999 hearing intimates that Judge Haughney did not apply the serial family payer formula, but instead chose to deviate from the child support percentage standards. At the hearing, Judge Haughney spent a great deal of time talking about the criteria for deviating from the child support percentage standards, pursuant to Wis. STAT. § 767.25(lm), and why he chose to deviate from those standards, pursuant to § 767.25(lm)(bz). Section 767.25(lm)(bz) states:

(1m) Upon request by a party, the court may modify the amount of child support payments determined under sub. (lj) if, after considering the following factors, the court finds by the greater weight of the credible evidence that use of the percentage standard is unfair to the child or to any of the parties:
(bz) The needs of any person, other than the child, whom either party is legally obligated to support.

¶ 24. Wisconsin Admin. Code § DWD 40.03(1) through (6) detail how child support is to be determined in the absence of special circumstances such as the serial family payer situation. But § DWD 40.03(7) expressly provides for deviation from the percentage standards of subsecs. (1) through (6) if the court finds by the greater weight of the credible evidence that use of the percentage standards is unfair to the child or to any of the parties.

¶ 25. At the March 19, 1999 hearing, Judge Haughney stated: "What is of interest to the court is under [Wis. Stat. § 767.25(lm)](bz), the needs of any person, other than the child, whom either party is legally obligated to support." He further stated:

Although I can find — by applying the serial family payor formula, the court is absolutely satisfied that for future support this forms a rational basis and thus is not even a deviation from the child support standards, but is in effect application of the child support standards. The reason I'm taking this — -the reason I'm doing this analysis under (lm) to not use the percentage standards is because for the time prior to 1995 the child support would be 17 percent. And it's only if there is some reason to deviate that the court should set it at less than that.

In the above passage, Judge Haughney did not state that he was actually applying the serial family payer formula. In fact, Judge Haughney appeared to specifically reject use of the serial family payer formula. Judge Haughney stated that if he were to apply the serial family payer formula, the 12.75% child support obligation would not be a deviation from child support percentage standards under the serial family payer formula. Judge Haughney then announced that he was going to deviate from child support percentage standards under WlS. Stat. § 767.25(lm)(bz). If applying the serial family payer formula is the equivalent of applying the child support percentage standards, and Judge Haughney announced his intention to deviate from the child support percentage standards, then Judge Haughney did not apply the serial family payer formula. Judge Haughney's oral pronouncements somewhat conflict with the written judgment of paternity.

¶ 26. At the December 1, 1999 hearing, Judge Dreyfus acknowledged that he needed to address the serial family payer issue. However, Judge Dreyfus's written decision and order did not address the serial family payer issue but merely adopted Judge Haughney's factual findings, stating that any prior orders that were neither modified by nor inconsistent with this order remained in effect. Thus, Judge Haughney's conflicting oral and written rulings remained in effect, and it is unclear whether the serial family payer formula was actually applied.

CONCLUSION

¶ 27. Because there is no evidence that the circuit court took Wala P. into account when making its determinations, we conclude that this matter must be remanded for reconsideration in light of the holding of Wala P. In addition, because it is not entirely clear whether the serial family payer formula was applied in this case, the circuit court may revisit the appropriateness of the application of the serial family payer formula on remand.

¶ 28. Costs are denied to all parties.

By the Court. — Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.

       Wisconsin Admin. Code ch. HSS 80 was renumbered ch. DWD 40 in July 1999.

       WISCONSIN Stat. §767.51(4) (1997-98) provided, in relevant part, "The father's liability for past support of the child shall be limited to support for the period after the birth of the child." Previously, a father's liability for past support of the child in a paternity case was statutorily limited to support for the period after the commencement of the paternity action. Wis. Stat. § 767.51(4) (1985-86).

       All remaining references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1997-98 version unless otherwise noted.

       Wisconsin Admin. Code § DWD 40.02(6) defines "child support" or "child support obligation" as
      an obligation to support a marital child either in an intact family or as a result of a court order, an obligation to support the payer's nonmarital child as a result of a court order, or an obligation to support the payer's nonmarital child in an intact family as a result of adoption, maternity or an acknowledgment of paternity.


author: DEININGER, J.

text:
    In re the Marriage of: Kathleen M. Schmitt, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Arnold C. Schmitt, Respondent-Appellant.
    Court of Appeals

      No. 00-0695.

      Submitted on briefs November 7, 2000.

    Decided February 8, 2001.

    2001 WI App 78
    (Also reported in 626 N.W.2d 14.)

      On behalf of the respondent-appellant, the cause was submitted on the brief of Scott B. Rasmussen of Rasmussen Law Offices, Beaver Dam.
    On behalf of the petitioner-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief oí Julie M. Gay oí Brenner, Brenner & Wall, LLP, Waukesha.
    Before Dykman, P.J., Deininger and Leineweber, JJ.

       Circuit Judge Edward E. Leineweber is sitting by special assignment pursuant to the Judicial Exchange Program.

   DEININGER, J.

¶ 1. Arnold Schmitt appeals a divorce judgment, contending that the trial court erred by awarding him too little maintenance for a too limited time period. We conclude that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in determining the amount or duration of maintenance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2. Arnold and Kathleen Schmitt filed this action for divorce in 1998, and a trial was held. They were married in 1960, and in 1978 they filed for divorce but reconciled. In 1991, they again filed for divorce, but the action was dismissed. On Arnold's request, Kathleen stayed with him to assist in dealing with the contaminated land that they owned. The divorce action subsequently filed in 1998 is the subject of this action.

¶ 3. After getting married, Kathleen began her career as a stay-at-home mother, raising their four children. In 1976, she began working outside the home at Shopko, where she worked for almost twenty years. In about 1989, she embarked on part-time employment as a real estate sales agent, and in 1996, began doing this on a full-time basis. As of the date of trial, Kathleen worked seventy hours per week, and earned $6,475.63 gross and $3,744.63 net monthly income. As a real estate agent, she claimed numerous expenses, including $400 per month on clothing, and $900 per month on gifts and donations.

¶ 4. Arnold began his career working at a gas station approximately sixty-five hours per week. He also took on a newspaper route to earn extra money. At some point, Arnold was compensated for his part-time position of alderperson. For the past sixteen years, Arnold has worked as a rural postal delivery worker. He works approximately twenty-nine hours per week (six days) for $15.36 an hour, plus $4.15 per hour for "equipment maintenance" on his vehicle. He does not receive any other benefits from the post office, including retirement or funded health insurance. He has had problems with his back for several years. He testified that he never considered getting a second job. Arnold believed that his age and back injury would prevent him from getting a factory job, and that there is no job other than his current one where he could earn a comparable wage.

¶ 5. Kathleen testified that she and Arnold had lived "separate lives" for much of their marriage. They lived in the same house, but on different levels, and did not sleep together. Both had separate bank accounts, from which they made purchases at will. They shared some expenses: Arnold paid taxes on the house; Kathleen paid for most of the house maintenance, but they shared in fixing the roof; and they shared groceries, and took turns paying the electric bill. Kathleen moved out of the house in the year preceding the divorce trial.

¶ 6. Arnold disagreed that he and his wife lived separate lives since 1991 because they did some socializing together, and they shared household expenses. Arnold testified that they had a mutual understanding that he did not want to socialize with her. He testified that he went to dinner with his wife four to six times in the two years before the divorce was filed.

¶ 7. Based on the most recent financial information available, Arnold's accounting expert testified that Kathleen would have to pay Arnold $2,533 per month to equalize their incomes. Kathleen did not present any accounting expert.

¶ 8. At the time of the divorce trial in 1999, Kathleen was fifty-seven years old and Arnold was fifty-nine. The main issue at the trial was the amount and duration of maintenance to be awarded to Arnold. The parties had agreed to an equal property division. The trial court awarded Arnold maintenance of $500 per month for three years. Arnold appeals the judgment, citing the maintenance award as error. Additional facts relating to the appealed issues are included in the analysis that follows.

ANALYSIS

¶ 9. The amount and duration of maintenance to be awarded is entrusted to the circuit court's discretion. King v. King, 224 Wis. 2d 235, 247, 590 N.W.2d 480 (1999); Forester v. Forester, 174 Wis. 2d 78, 85, 496 N.W.2d 771 (Ct. App. 1993). We will not reverse a discretionary determination absent an erroneous exercise of discretion. King, 224 Wis. 2d at 248; Forester, 174 Wis. 2d at 85. " '[A] discretionary determination must be the product of a rational mental process by which the facts of record and law relied upon are stated and are considered together for the purpose of achieving a reasoned and reasonable determination.'" LaRocque v. LaRocque, 139 Wis. 2d 23, 27, 406 N.W.2d 736 (1987) (quoted source omitted). To determine the amount of maintenance, the trial court must apply the facts to the relevant statutory factors. Id. at 31; see Wis. Stat. § 767.26 (1999-2000).

¶ 10. Wisconsin Stat. § 767.26 lists a number of factors for a trial court to consider when determining the amount and duration of a maintenance award:

(1) The length of the marriage.
(2) The age and physical and emotional health of the parties.
(3) The division of property made under s. 767.255.
(4) The educational level of each party at the time of marriage and at the time the action is commenced.
(5) The earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance, including educational background, training, employment skills, work experience, length of absence from the job market, custodial responsibilities for children and the time and expense necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party to find appropriate employment.
(6) The feasibility that the party seeking maintenance can become self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage, and, if so, the length of time necessary to achieve this goal.
(7) The tax consequences to each party.
(8) Any mutual agreement made by the parties before or during the marriage, according to the terms of which one party has made financial or service contributions to the other with the expectation of reciprocation or other compensation in the future, where such repayment has not been made, or any mutual agreement made by the parties before or during the marriage concerning any arrangement for the financial support of the parties.
(9) The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other.
(10) Such other factors as the court may in each individual case determine to be relevant.

These factors "are designed to further two distinct but related objectives in the award of maintenance: to support the recipient spouse in accordance with the needs and earning capacities of the parties (the support objective) and to ensure a fair and equitable financial arrangement between the parties in each individual case (the fairness objective)." LaRocque, 139 Wis. 2d at 32-33.

¶ 11. Arnold requested that he be awarded $2,533 per month indefinitely, but the court awarded him $500 per month for three years. Arnold claims that the trial court erred in its decision regarding both the amount and duration of maintenance. We disagree.

¶ 12. In its oral decision, the court specifically referred to the maintenance provisions of WlS. STAT. § 767.26. After reviewing all of the statutory factors, the court summarized the reasoning for its maintenance decision as follows:

This case is not about whether or not Mrs. Schmitt is female or whether or not Mr. Schmitt is a male. It's about what is fair and equitable as to both parties and the need of one of the parties and the ability of the other to pay and receive maintenance. ...
Again, this Court finds that a significant factor in this case is, although the length of the marriage is of a large number, I think the length should be discounted because of the actual living arrangements between the parties. In addition, I do think that Mr. Schmitt is a little bit underemployed. I'm not saying that he should — what he should do to get a job because I don't want to tell anybody what to do to work. But he's only working 30 hours a week.. ..
However, the Court find[s] that maintenance is a proper award in this case taking into all consideration and the ability and the need of Mr. Schmitt. The Court awards Mr. Schmitt the amount of $500.00 per month for a period of three years ....

¶ 13. Arnold first asserts that the trial court "failed to follow the standard maintenance methodology required by law" because it did not begin by equalizing their incomes. The starting point for a maintenance evaluation following a long-term marriage is to award the dependent spouse half of the total combined earnings of both parties. Bahr v. Bahr, 107 Wis. 2d 72, 85, 318 N.W.2d 391 (1982). This amount may then "be adjusted following reasoned consideration of the statutorily enumerated maintenance factors." Id. Here, the trial court did discuss equalizing the incomes, noting the unopposed calculation necessary to equalize incomes, but moved away from that figure right away because of the particular facts in this case, stating as follows:

[I]n this particular case, Mrs. Schmitt does have the ability to pay some maintenance. Whether or not she has the ability to pay $2,533.00 a month is one question and whether or not Mr. Schmitt needs that amount of money is another. Now, I know that equalizing the income is something that one has to look at in a case like this but I also have to take a look at this is not your typical... 39-year marriage. These two people have lived basically separate lives for at least, as far as I can tell, 15 years out of 38 years or more, although at one point they both lived in the same house but came and went as they saw fit.

¶ 14. Arnold also claims error because the court "did not make any findings in regards to the standard of living of the parties." A goal of maintenance is to maintain the standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage. See Bahr, 107 Wis. 2d at 83. In reviewing the court's oral decision, we conclude that the court did make findings regarding Kathleen's and Arnold's standards of living. The trial court based its decision on its assessment that they had lived separate lives for a substantial part of their marriage. Kathleen is a real estate agent, who is socially active, generous in her charitable donations, and feels compelled to spend considerable money on clothes to maintain her professional image. Arnold, on the other hand, is a rural postal delivery person, who is less social, and who does not spend much on clothes or other business-related items. Kathleen took several vacations over the eight months prior to the divorce trial, a total of eight trips costing approximately $15,000. By contrast, Arnold only went on one vacation, costing $600-700, in the two years prior to the filing of this divorce action. These differences are clearly manifested in their different budgetary requests. A reasonable judge could conclude that the parties had different standards of living during their marriage.

¶ 15. Arnold next contends that the trial court erred by "fail[ing] to apply standard statutory factors to this case, instead it discounted the length of the marriage due to the fact that the parties did not sleep with each other in the same bedroom." We conclude that the trial court did not fail to apply the statutory factors in this case.

¶ 16. The court explicitly referred to WlS. Stat. § 767.26, and it expressly considered the statutory factors: (1) length of marriage: 38 years; (2) age and physical and emotional health of parties: comparable; (3) division of property: parties agreed to equal distribution; (4) educational level of each party: comparable (high school); (5) earning capacity of party seeking maintenance: slightly underemployed; (6) feasibility that party seeking maintenance can become self-supporting at standard of living reasonably comparable to standard enjoyed during marriage: they lived separate lives, different lifestyles during the marriage; (7) tax consequences: Kathleen would pay taxes on any property division equalization out of her funds; (8) contribution of one to education, training or increased earning power of other: "There wasn't a significant amount of that done here."; (9) mutual agreements made before or during marriage: none, except in action; (10) other factors as the court deems relevant in individual case: the trial court discounted the length of the marriage because they "lived basically separate lives for at least... 15 years." The court weighted the last factor as the most significant.

¶ 17. Based on Kathleen's testimony, the trial court found that she and Arnold lived separate lives for several years prior to the divorce action at issue. We will not disturb this finding of fact because it is not clearly erroneous, that is, against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2); Siker v. Siker, 225 Wis. 2d 522, 527-28, 593 N.W.2d 830 (Ct. App. 1999). Arnold points to evidence that they had not lived separate lives because they lived under one roof and shared expenses. However, there was also evidence, as explained above, that they led very separate and quite different lives. It is not accurate to say that the trial court simply discounted the length of the marriage because the parties did not sleep with each other in the same bedroom. In fact, the court did not mention that fact in rendering its decision. The court's focus was on the parties' separate finances and the apparent lack of any contribution by Arnold to Kathleen's earning capacity.

¶ 18. Arnold objects strongly to the "living separate lives" evidence, claiming it is not relevant because "it is not a statutory factor under Wis. Stat. § 767.26." While not one of the specifically enumerated statutory factors, the court considered it under the broad catchall provision of WlS. STAT. § 767.26(10) (other factors as the court deems relevant). It was not impermissible for the court to consider the current and long-standing living arrangements and lifestyles of the parties. Indeed, the court's award appears to implement what the parties had already agreed to in practice during their marriage. "Under subsection (10) a circuit court may consider '[s]uch other factors as the court may in each individual case determine to be relevant.' This broad 'catchall' provision exemplifies the flexibility that a circuit court has in crafting a fair and equitable remedy." Meyer v. Meyer, 2000 WI 132, ¶ 45, 239 Wis. 2d 731, 620 N.W.2d 382 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring). Moreover, "[s]ound discretion in maintenance determinations must reflect consideration of the factors set out in WlS. STAT. § 767.26, but the factors in the statute do not appear to be weighted, implying that the weighting will be done by the circuit court." Id. at ¶ 49 (Prosser, J., concurring). We conclude that the trial court did not err in considering the "separate lives" evidence under subsection (10) and choosing how much weight to place on that factor.

¶ 19. Arnold disagrees with the trial court's finding that he is slightly underemployed. While we acknowledge that Arnold testified that he could not work more than thirty hours per week due to his back problems, the court found that his physical condition was no worse than the usual problems of a person his age, and that he could have attempted to find a second job. Arnold testified that he did not even consider getting a second job. It is not unreasonable for the trial court to expect him to attempt to seek additional employment within his abilities. As the Bahr court noted, "[w]hen the dependent party is capable of accepting reasonably available, gainful employment, we do not believe the dependent party can avoid such employment and simply rely upon the supporting party to provide a standard of living for the dependent party comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage." Bahr, 107 Wis. 2d at 83.

¶ 20. Arnold also argues that it was improper for the trial court to consider whether Kathleen possessed an incentive to continue to work hard. The court stated: "I've been here long enough to know that when a court makes a decision in any area, especially in the area of maintenance . . . you do have to give the person who is paying some sort of incentive to continue to work as hard as they're working in order that they have to pay anything." Perhaps this is not a statutory factor, but it is a practical concern that plays into the fairness factor. The Bahr court observed as follows:

In considering the amount of any maintenance award, the court should ensure that the award to the dependent party should not be so great a portion of the supporting party's income so as to thwart the supporting party's incentive to be productive and advance in the job market. The reasonableness of the dependent party's taking employment and the impact of the maintenance award on the supporting party's job incentive are factors which must be weighed along with the other statutory factors.

Bahr, 107 Wis. 2d at 83-84 (emphasis added). Kathleen is working many extra hours, while Arnold is choosing to work only thirty hours a week. The court reasoned that-it would not be fair, absent other factors, to order her to pay a substantial amount of maintenance, and we conclude that it did not erroneously exercise its discretion in this regard.

¶ 21. Arnold further asserts that the trial court engaged in gender discrimination in its decision as reflected in "the one-sided nature of the court's thinking in this case." The court specifically disavowed gender bias. Simply because Kathleen was not ordered to pay as much maintenance as Arnold requested does not mean that the court was biased against him based on his gender. The court concluded that this was not a "traditional" marriage, where one party develops a stream of income as the principal wage earner, while the other contributes to the marriage primarily as a homemaker. See LaRocque, 139 Wis. 2d at 38. Here, Kathleen was the primary homemaker for approximately sixteen years of the marriage, and then she worked at Shopko for twenty years. She also began a career in real estate sales, which she is now doing full-time, working seventy hours per week and earning a substantial income. The court found that Kathleen's real estate career developed while the parties were essentially living separate lives. In the court's view, these circumstances simply did not merit a substantial amount of maintenance for Arnold. We find no support in the record for Arnold's claim of gender bias.

¶ 22. Finally, Arnold claims that the trial court erred in granting maintenance for only three years. He argues that there was no rational basis to limit the maintenance award to three years, and that the court should have awarded him maintenance indefinitely. Arnold contends that there was no evidence that he would become self-supporting in three years. He also insists that "[i]t is not fair for Kathleen Schmitt to be able to live a lavish lifestyle while [he] has to live frugally."

¶ 23. The trial court cited several reasons in support of limited-term maintenance. First, the court specifically noted in its decision that Arnold could request continued maintenance at a future date, if necessary. Second, limited maintenance can serve many purposes, including an opportunity for the recipient spouse to become self-supporting within that period of time, as well as an incentive to seek employment. LaRocque, 139 Wis. 2d at 40-41. The court found that Arnold was slightly underemployed. In this case, the limited maintenance provides Arnold with an incentive to seek additional employment. Third, Arnold's counsel acknowledged that in three years Arnold would receive social security benefits. Fourth, both parties received retirement benefits in the property division.

¶ 24. Arnold also contends that maintenance should be indefinite based on the length of the marriage and on the circumstances of the parties. He was fifty-nine years old at the time of the divorce, close to retirement age, and had back problems. However, as explained above, the court discounted the length of the marriage because the parties had lived separate lives for several years of the marriage. The trial court also determined that Arnold's health problems were typical of persons his age.

¶ 25. In summary, we agree with Kathleen that the trial court's maintenance award is sustainable as a discretionary act because the court considered the relevant facts, applied the correct law, and reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. See Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400, 414-15, 320 N.W.2d 175 (1982). We cannot conclude that $6,000 per year for three years failed to satisfy both the support and fairness objectives of maintenance. A trial court's discretionary determination of the amount and duration of maintenance to be awarded may encompass a result "which another judge or another court," including this one, might not have reached on the present facts. Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66, 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981). Nonetheless, if it is a result "which a reasonable judge or court could arrive at by the consideration of the relevant law, the facts, and a process of logical reasoning," we will not disturb it. Id.

CONCLUSION

¶ 26. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the appealed judgment.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

       Kathleen testified that after 1978, when the first divorce action was filed, she and Arnold lived separate lives; that as of 1981, she and Arnold lived "very, very separate" lives; and that as of 1991, after the second divorce action was filed, they lived "totally separate" lives.

       Shortly before the trial in August 1999, Kathleen filed an updated financial statement, which stated gross earnings of $6,475.63 per month. Her financial statement from April 1998 showed a gross monthly income of $11,230.92.

       All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise noted.

       Arnold also claims that the trial court failed to make findings regarding what Kathleen’s income was. However, it is not clear that this was placed in issue at trial. As explained in footnote 3, Kathleen submitted an updated financial statement on the eve of trial. However, Arnold did not present any real objection to it as revealed by his counsel's statements in post-trial arguments:
      [A]t the trial, the accountant adjusted the figures on his computer, testified in court that it would take $2,533.00 per month to equalize the incomes. That's using her figures. I didn't even challenge any of the figures in her financial statement. I just used her figures. It would've been a lot higher than that if I would have spent the time to try to kick out some of her expenses from her financial statement.
      If Arnold intended to make the amount of Kathleen's income an issue, he should have done so at trial.

       Arnold also notes that the trial court awarded him the same amount as the family court commissioner had ($500 per month). He asserts that "[t]his shows the trial court did not want to think about or deal with the facts of this case. Instead it just followed blindly the previous temporary order." We disagree. Simply because the trial court awarded the same monthly dollar amount for maintenance as the family court commissioner does not mean that the court abdicated its responsibilities. As explained in this opinion, the court did review the facts and factors, and came to a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.

       The court stated as follows:
      Matter of fact, I don't think that there was any discussion between you [Kathleen] and Mr. Schmitt as to what you should do with your money. You both have been living separate lives here for so long so you have learned to put your money in your checking account and do what you will with it as if you weren't married and so has Mr. Schmitt.

       The court noted that increases in the marital estate occurred largely during the time period that Arnold and Kathleen lived separate lives.

       The court stated as follows:
      The Court is not unmindful of the fact that any award of maintenance on a temporary basis could potentially lead to a permanent basis because, as we all are aware, if someone comes back to court before the temporary maintenance runs out and asks for it to be continued, the Court has the authority to continue it. That's why I took that into consideration in doing what I'm about to do.