Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 655.44 (2026)
Request for mediation prior to court action
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
655.44(1)(1) Request and fee. Beginning September 1, 1986, any person listed in s. 655.007 having a claim or a derivative claim under this chapter for bodily injury or death because of a tort or breach of contract based on professional services rendered or that should have been rendered by a health care provider may file a request for mediation and shall pay the fee under s. 655.54.
655.44(2)(2) Content of request. The request for mediation shall be in writing and shall include all of the following information:
655.44(2)(c)(c) The name and address of the health care provider alleged to have been negligent in treating the patient.
655.44(2)(d)(d) The condition or disease for which the health care provider was treating the patient when the alleged negligence occurred and the dates of treatment.
655.44(2)(e)(e) A brief description of the injury alleged to have been caused by the health care provider’s negligence.
655.44(3)(3) Delivery or registered mail. The request for mediation shall be delivered in person or sent by registered mail to the director of state courts.
655.44(4)(4) Statute of limitations. Any applicable statute of limitations is tolled on the date the director of state courts receives the request for mediation if delivered in person or on the date of mailing if sent by registered mail. The statute remains tolled until 30 days after the last day of the mediation period under s. 655.465 (7).
655.44(5)(5) No court action commenced before mediation. Except as provided in s. 655.445, no court action may be commenced unless a request for mediation has been filed under this section and until the expiration of the mediation period under s. 655.465 (7).
655.44(6)(6) Notice of court action to director of state courts. A claimant who files a request for mediation under this section and who commences a court action after the expiration of the mediation period under s. 655.465 (7) shall send notice of the court action by 1st class mail to the director of state courts.
655.44 AnnotationA request for mediation of a claim naming only one doctor did not toll the statute of limitations applicable to claims against doctors not named in the mediation request. Dipple v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 161 Wis. 2d 854, 468 N.W.2d 789 (Ct. App. 1991).
655.44 AnnotationWhen a care provider was deceased, it was sufficient to name the deceased provider in the mediation request rather than a legal entity, such as the estate or the provider’s insurer. In that case, the tolling of the statute of limitations under sub. (4) was effective against an insurer and the Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund. Failure to name the fund as a party to an action brought against the insurer within the 30-day period under sub. (4) barred the claim against the fund. Geiger v. Wisconsin Health Care Liability Insurance Plan, 196 Wis. 2d 474, 538 N.W.2d 830 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0692.
655.44 AnnotationThe limitation periods under s. 893.55 (1) (a) and (b) [now s. 893.55 (1m) (a) and (b)] are both tolled by the filing of a request for mediation under sub. (4). Landis v. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, 2001 WI 86, 245 Wis. 2d 1, 628 N.W.2d 893, 00-0330.
655.44 AnnotationSub. (5) does not mandate dismissal for filing an action before the expiration of the statutory mediation period. When a plaintiff fails to comply with sub. (5), the circuit court retains discretion to determine the appropriate sanction. Ocasio v. Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, 2002 WI 89, 254 Wis. 2d 367, 646 N.W.2d 381, 00-3056.
655.44 AnnotationNothing in the language of either this section or s. 655.445 precluded the application of this section to a mediation request filed under s. 655.445 when an action was filed but became a nullity due to failure to complete service. Young v. Aurora Medical Center of Washington County, Inc., 2004 WI App 71, 272 Wis. 2d 300, 679 N.W.2d 549, 03-0224.
655.44 AnnotationDelivery of a mediation request by regular mail is not determinative of the validity of the request. Geisel v. Odulio, 807 F. Supp. 500 (1992).
655.44 AnnotationFailure to name the Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund in a mediation request did not exempt the fund from the tolling of the statute of limitations under sub. (4). Geisel v. Odulio, 807 F. Supp. 500 (1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2001 WI 86 (Wis. 2001).
Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2001 WI 86 (Wis. 2001). “The circuit court disagreed, concluding that the mediation process mandated by Wis. Stat. § 655.44 , in particular the tolling provision in subsection (4), tolled the five-year limitation for filing actions.”
Ocasio v. Froedtert Mem'l Lutheran Hosp., 2002 WI 89 (Wis. 2002). “She asserts that the court of appeals erred by concluding that dismissal is mandated for noncompliance with the provision in Wis. Stat. § 655.44 (5) (1999-2000) [1] requiring a medical malpractice claimant to wait until the end of the statutory mediation period before filing a…”
Wenke Ex Rel. Laufenberg v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103 (Wis. 2004). “Although the tenor of Landis was certainly in this direction, it is critical to realize that Landis involved an issue of statutory construction, in which we were obligated to discern the meaning of the phrase "statute of limitations" in Wis.”
Ocasio v. Froedtert Mem'l Lutheran Hosp., 2001 WI App 264 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Ocasio argues that the trial court erred in its ruling dismissing her action because: (1) the requirement in Wis. Stat. § 655.44 (5) (1999-2000) 1 that the mediation period expire before filing a medical malpractice action is merely directory; (2) that any problem with her…”
Seaquist v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 531 N.W.2d 437 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[1] The issue is whether the action was filed within the three-year statute of limitations, as extended by §§ 655.44(4) [2] and *536 655.465(7), [3] STATS.”
Geiger v. Wisconsin Health Care Liab. Ins. Plan, 538 N.W.2d 830 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “1 The circuit court dismissed the action on grounds that Geiger failed to toll the statute of limitations as provided by § 655.44, Stats., 2 in that he named *477 a deceased health care provider rather than a recognizable legal entity and that Geiger failed to join the Fund in a…”
Rouse v. Theda Clark Med. Ctr., Inc., 2007 WI 87 (Wis. 2007). “" [38] Wis. Stat. §§ 655.44 , .445. [39] Id. [40] Wis.”
Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2000 WI App 164 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Phyllis, his surviving spouse, requested mediation pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 655.44 3 within five years of Edward's death, but commenced this action more than five years after his death.”
Hoffman v. Rankin, 2002 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “They contended that the Hoffmans *682 failed to comply with Wis. Stat. § 655.44 (5), providing for the expiration of a waiting period for mediation before filing their medical malpractice action.”
Haferman v. St. Clare Healthcare Found., Inc., 2005 WI 171 (Wis. 2005). “, Wis. Stat. §§ 655.44 (4) and 893.16(1). ¶ 67.”
Young v. Aurora Med. Ctr. of Washington Cnty., Inc., 2004 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “In addition, they argued that the statute was tolled under Wis. Stat. § 655.44 (4) 4 from the date of their mediation request on December 5, 2001, until thirty days after the mediation period ended in early March 2002, thereby rendering timely their March 28th filing of the…”
Merner v. Deere & Co., 176 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Wis. 2001). “44(4) provides that any “applicable statute of limitations is tolled on the date the director of state courts receives the request for mediation.” (Emphasis added).”
— Wis. Stat. § 655.44(1) — 5 cases
Burks v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 596 N.W.2d 391 (Wis. 1999).
Ocasio v. Froedtert Mem'l Lutheran Hosp., 2001 WI App 264 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Ocasio argues that the trial court erred in its ruling dismissing her action because: (1) the requirement in Wis. Stat. § 655.44 (5) (1999-2000) 1 that the mediation period expire before filing a medical malpractice action is merely directory; (2) that any problem with her…”
Schulz v. Nienhuis, 448 N.W.2d 655 (Wis. 1989).
Geiger v. Wisconsin Health Care Liab. Ins. Plan, 538 N.W.2d 830 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “1 The circuit court dismissed the action on grounds that Geiger failed to toll the statute of limitations as provided by § 655.44, Stats., 2 in that he named *477 a deceased health care provider rather than a recognizable legal entity and that Geiger failed to join the Fund in a…”
Geisel v. Odulio, 807 F. Supp. 500 (W.D. Wis. 1992).
— Wis. Stat. § 655.44(2) — 3 cases
Eby v. Kozarek, 450 N.W.2d 249 (Wis. 1990).
Geiger v. Wisconsin Health Care Liab. Ins. Plan, 538 N.W.2d 830 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “1 The circuit court dismissed the action on grounds that Geiger failed to toll the statute of limitations as provided by § 655.44, Stats., 2 in that he named *477 a deceased health care provider rather than a recognizable legal entity and that Geiger failed to join the Fund in a…”
Sandra J. Wendt v. Elana B. Wistrom, DO (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 655.44(2)(c) — 1 case
Geiger v. Wisconsin Health Care Liab. Ins. Plan, 538 N.W.2d 830 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “1 The circuit court dismissed the action on grounds that Geiger failed to toll the statute of limitations as provided by § 655.44, Stats., 2 in that he named *477 a deceased health care provider rather than a recognizable legal entity and that Geiger failed to join the Fund in a…”
— Wis. Stat. § 655.44(3) — 1 case
Geisel v. Odulio, 807 F. Supp. 500 (W.D. Wis. 1992).
— Wis. Stat. § 655.44(4) — 19 cases
Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2001 WI 86 (Wis. 2001). “The circuit court disagreed, concluding that the mediation process mandated by Wis. Stat. § 655.44 , in particular the tolling provision in subsection (4), tolled the five-year limitation for filing actions.”
Wenke Ex Rel. Laufenberg v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103 (Wis. 2004). “Although the tenor of Landis was certainly in this direction, it is critical to realize that Landis involved an issue of statutory construction, in which we were obligated to discern the meaning of the phrase "statute of limitations" in Wis.”
Seaquist v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 531 N.W.2d 437 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[1] The issue is whether the action was filed within the three-year statute of limitations, as extended by §§ 655.44(4) [2] and *536 655.465(7), [3] STATS.”
Geiger v. Wisconsin Health Care Liab. Ins. Plan, 538 N.W.2d 830 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “1 The circuit court dismissed the action on grounds that Geiger failed to toll the statute of limitations as provided by § 655.44, Stats., 2 in that he named *477 a deceased health care provider rather than a recognizable legal entity and that Geiger failed to join the Fund in a…”
Paynter v. Proassurance Wis. Ins. Co., 929 N.W.2d 113 (Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 655.44(5) — 8 cases
Ocasio v. Froedtert Mem'l Lutheran Hosp., 2002 WI 89 (Wis. 2002). “She asserts that the court of appeals erred by concluding that dismissal is mandated for noncompliance with the provision in Wis. Stat. § 655.44 (5) (1999-2000) [1] requiring a medical malpractice claimant to wait until the end of the statutory mediation period before filing a…”
Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2001 WI 86 (Wis. 2001). “The circuit court disagreed, concluding that the mediation process mandated by Wis. Stat. § 655.44 , in particular the tolling provision in subsection (4), tolled the five-year limitation for filing actions.”
Ocasio v. Froedtert Mem'l Lutheran Hosp., 2001 WI App 264 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Ocasio argues that the trial court erred in its ruling dismissing her action because: (1) the requirement in Wis. Stat. § 655.44 (5) (1999-2000) 1 that the mediation period expire before filing a medical malpractice action is merely directory; (2) that any problem with her…”
Seaquist v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 531 N.W.2d 437 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[1] The issue is whether the action was filed within the three-year statute of limitations, as extended by §§ 655.44(4) [2] and *536 655.465(7), [3] STATS.”
Geisel v. Odulio, 807 F. Supp. 500 (W.D. Wis. 1992).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.