Ryan Sey v. National General Insurance Company

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
December 2, 2021
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2020AP1676 Cir. Ct. No. 2019CV1448

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

RYAN SEY,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

REGENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

INVOLUNTARY-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County:
STEPHEN E. EHLKE, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Blanchard, P.J., Kloppenburg, and Graham, JJ.
No. 2020AP1676

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

¶1 PER CURIAM. Ryan Sey appeals the circuit court’s order approving
a settlement agreement pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 102.29 (2019-20),1 a statute that
addresses third-party liability in the worker’s compensation context. The settlement
agreement disposed of Sey’s claims arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Sey
contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in approving the
settlement. We disagree and affirm.

Background

¶2 In May 2016, while in the course of his employment, Sey was
involved in a motor vehicle accident with another motorist. A physician assessed
Sey as having a “concussion with brief (less than one hour) loss of consciousness,”
and Sey received worker’s compensation benefits. In December 2016, the physician
determined that Sey’s healing period had ended and that Sey had no permanent
disability from the accident.

¶3 In May 2019, Sey filed suit against the other motorist and her insurer,
National General Insurance Company. Sey also named his employer’s worker’s
compensation insurer, Regent Insurance Company, as an involuntary plaintiff. Sey
alleged that the other motorist’s negligence caused him damages, including past and
future medical expenses.2

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise
noted.
2
Sey’s lawsuit was consolidated with a lawsuit filed by Regent.

2
No. 2020AP1676

¶4 Regent moved the circuit court for approval of a settlement agreement
pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 102.29. National General joined in the motion. Under the
settlement, Sey would receive approximately $6,760, and Regent would receive
approximately $9,800 as reimbursement for worker’s compensation benefits paid to
Sey or on Sey’s behalf.3 As support for the proposed settlement, Regent and
National General submitted police reports from the accident and portions of Sey’s
medical records. Sey, who was proceeding pro se, objected to the settlement.4

¶5 The circuit court approved the settlement agreement over Sey’s
objection. The court found that there were disputed issues as to fault and causation.
As to fault, the court noted that Sey claimed that he had a green light, but the other
motorist claimed she had a yellow light. As to causation, the court noted that Sey
had pre-existing injuries and had suffered numerous previous concussions. The
court also found that the settlement appeared to provide Sey with nearly $7,000 in
his pocket, which the court determined was reasonable under the circumstances.
The court acknowledged that Sey had submitted a letter from a physician stating
that he continued to experience dizziness and “cognitive concerns” relating to his
head injury from the accident through at least March 2018. However, the court
noted that the physician had not seen Sey recently, and the court determined that the
letter did not change its conclusion that the settlement was reasonable. The court
found that there was no indication that Sey had suffered any major injury. Finally,
the court stated that, although not determinative of the value of Sey’s case, the fact

3
In addition, Regent’s attorneys would receive approximately $6,430.
4
Sey was represented by counsel for limited purposes earlier in the circuit court
proceedings. Sey also has counsel in this appeal.

3
No. 2020AP1676

that an attorney had not taken the case supported the court’s conclusion that the case
had a relatively low value.

Discussion

¶6 Sey does not dispute that the circuit court had discretionary authority
to approve the proposed settlement pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 102.29. Sey contends,
however, that the court erroneously exercised its discretion.

¶7 “A reviewing court will uphold a discretionary decision if the circuit
court considered the relevant facts, properly interpreted and applied the law, and
reached a reasonable determination.” Ness v. Digital Dial Commc’ns, Inc., 227
Wis. 2d 592, 600, 596 N.W.2d 365 (1999). In the specific context of WIS. STAT.
§ 102.29, the court properly exercises its discretion by “defining the dispute, taking
stock of the relative positions of the parties[,] and considering matters that impacted
the fairness of the settlement.” See Adams v. Northland Equip. Co., 2014 WI 79,
¶83, 356 Wis. 2d 529, 850 N.W.2d 272.5

¶8 Sey argues that the circuit court failed to adequately take stock of his
position by (1) cutting him off during the hearing on the settlement agreement,
(2) failing to adequately consider Sey’s unpaid medical bills, and (3) failing to
consider the expert medical opinion and medical records that Sey submitted. We
are not persuaded.

5
Sey argues that the guidelines set forth by the supreme court in Adams v. Northland
Equipment Co., 2014 WI 79, 356 Wis. 2d 529, 850 N.W.2d 272, are insufficient, and that circuit
courts need additional guidelines when considering whether to approve settlement agreements
pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 102.29. However, we are bound by Adams, and for the reasons explained
in the body of this opinion, we conclude that the circuit court reasonably exercised its discretion
based on the guidelines set forth in Adams.

4
No. 2020AP1676

¶9 First, the record shows that the circuit court allowed Sey to make
extensive statements setting forth his position during the hearing on the settlement.
The court interrupted Sey in two instances to point out that Sey was screaming or
making accusations against other parties or attorneys, but in each instance the court
allowed Sey to continue making statements regarding his case. Eventually, the court
cut Sey off after Sey continued making accusations, but the court explained to Sey
that it would continue the hearing to allow Sey additional time to obtain an expert
medical report to support his claims.

¶10 Second, Sey did not submit any medical bills for the circuit court to
consider. Sey submitted medical records, but the records did not establish that Sey
had unpaid medical bills.

¶11 Third, as noted above, the circuit court considered the expert opinion
letter from Sey’s physician, and the court determined that the letter did not change
the court’s view that the settlement was reasonable.6 Although the court did not
expressly reference the medical records that Sey submitted, we are not persuaded
that the court failed to consider the records. Moreover, Sey does not point to
anything in the records that undermines the circuit court’s reasoning.

¶12 Sey next argues that the circuit court failed to adequately consider the
fairness of the settlement agreement by (1) ignoring his unpaid medical bills and
(2) failing to provide him with sufficient time to present his side of the case. This
argument, like Sey’s previous argument, is not persuasive. As we have explained,
Sey did not submit evidence of unpaid medical bills, and Sey does not now contend
that he needed more time to obtain such evidence. Further, as we have noted, the

6
The circuit court read the letter out loud on the record.

5
No. 2020AP1676

court continued the hearing on the settlement to allow Sey time to submit an expert
opinion.

¶13 Finally, Sey argues that the circuit court erred because, according to
Sey, the court considered his pro se status to be “determinative” of the value of his
case. We reject this argument. The court’s exact words on the topic were as follows:
“Although it is not determinative on the question of the value of the case, the fact
that no attorney has taken this case lends support to my conclusion that Mr. Sey’s
case is not worth an enormous amount or that much.” Sey acknowledges the “not
determinative” qualification in the court’s statement, but he nonetheless argues that
the court’s statement shows that the court failed to consider any factors other than
his pro se status in assessing the value of his case. We disagree with Sey’s
interpretation of the court’s statement. The court’s overall reasoning demonstrates
that the court assessed the potential value of Sey’s claims based on a variety of
factors, including the disputed issues as to fault and causation and the lack of
evidence to show that Sey had unpaid medical bills.

¶14 In sum, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the circuit court’s order
approving the settlement agreement that disposed of Sey’s claims.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)5.

6