Tomah Journal - Printable Version

Story originally printed in the Tomah Journal or online at www.tomahjournal.com

Published - Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Editorial: Ziegler's dissent in favor of HMO hardly a surprise

Last week, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court reprimanded fellow Justice Annette Ziegler for conflict of interest violations while she was a Circuit Court Judge in Washington County.

That same day, the court, by a 3-2 vote, ruled against an HMO trying to deny a claim made by the family of a three-year-old boy suffering from brain cancer in Summers vs. Touchpoint Health Plan Inc. Ziegler dissented.

Why isn’t that a surprise? She dissented even though doctors treating Parker Summers determined that high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell rescue would be Parker’s best option because it had a higher cure rate than conventional therapy. The doctors were right. Today, Parker is 8 years old, and the family’s attorney said the youngster is “feeling great.”

Savor this decision because it may be one of the last times a consumer wins against a corporation before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The state’s business community, led by the financially flush Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, has been systematically purchasing court seats. In 2007, it used its financial muscle to put Ziegler on the court, even though Ziegler was, to put it mildly, an ethically challenged candidate. As a circuit court judge, she blatantly violated the judicial code of ethics by ruling on cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband, developer J.J. Ziegler, serves on the board of directors. In its reprimand, Ziegler’s fellow justices described her violations as “willful” and concluded “the judge knew or should have known that the conduct was prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct."

Last April, WMC bagged another seat, when incumbent Louis Butler was defeated by Michael Gableman. Butler voted with the majority in Summers; Gableman almost certainly would have voted in favor of the insurance company. If WMC is successful in defeating Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson next spring, health insurance companies will, in effect, have a wholly owned subsidiary on the state Supreme Court.

In another era, a conservative judiciary ruled based on contract language and legislative intent. Not anymore. Today’s conservative jurists are ruthlessly consistent in their opinions that favor corporations over consumers, corporations over the environment, and, in the case of Parker Summers, health insurance companies over individual policyholders. The family of Parker Summers was lucky that its case was heard before the state’s big-business lobby took complete ownership of the court. Will the next family be as fortunate?