‘Case 2020CV001108 Document 5 Filed 02-10-2020 Page3ofo ey 02-10-2020 John Barrett Clerk of Circuit Court 2020cv001108 Honorable Mary Trigglano- B Branch 13 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUITCOURT : — MILWAUKEE COUNTY JANE DOE, by her attorney, Benjamin S. Wagner, TTT Fast Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202, vs, Personal Injury - Other: 30107 Plaintiff, PEKIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY clo Thomas Messer, Registered Agent 47 Patk Place Lower Appleton, WI 54914, COMPLAINT ALEX AZAR, SECRETARY OF THE US. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES a United States Government Designee c/o United States Attorney 517 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202, Involuntary Plaintiffs, vs. ABC INSURANCE COMPANY one or more fictitious insurance corporations COLUMBIA ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL MILWAUKEE, INC. ‘fa ASCENSION COLUMBIA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL c/o Corporation Service Company, Registered Agent ‘8040 Excelsior Drive, Suite 400 Madison, WI 53717, Defendants. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, by HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER S.C,, her attorneys, as and for a Complaint against the above named defendants, alleges and shows to the court as follows:Case 20206V001108 Document 5 Filed 02-10-2020 Page 4 of 8 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1, At the present time, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsin, who appears by her attorney, Benjamin S, Wagner, at 777 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2300, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, 2. At the present time, the Involuntary plaintiff, Pekin Life Insurance Company (hereinafter “Pekin”), is a foreign corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Wisconsin with offices of its Registered Agent, Thomas Messer, at 47 Park Place Lower, Appleton, Wisconsin 54914; and is engaged in the business of providing health insurance benefits; Pekin is a party by reason of Wisconsin Statute § 803.03 because it may have an interest in the claim of the plaintiff by reason if it being the medical benefits provider for the plaintiff, Jane Doe. 3. tthe present time, the Involuntary plaintiff, Alex Azar, Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human Services (hereinafter "USDHHS"), is a U.S. Government Designee, with offices of the Administrator for Medicare Part A at 6775 West Washington Street, West Allis, Wisconsin; and offices of the Administrator for Medicare Part B at 1717 West Broadway, Madison, Wisconsin; USDHHS is a party by reason of Wisconsin Statute 803.03, as it may have an interest in the plaintiff's claim by reason of its being the medical benefits provider for the plaintiff, Jane Doe. 4. On information and belief, one or more unknown insurance companies, herein designated pursuant to Wis. Stat. §807.12 by the fictitious name of ABC Insurance Company, had issued a policy or policies of insurance to Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital, Milwaukee, Inc. d/b/a ‘Ascension Columbia St. Mary's Hospital for claims such as those hereinafter set forth in this Complaint and which policy or policies of insurance were in full force and effect at the time of the hereinafter described matter; by virtue of this contract of insurance, this defendant insurance company is a proper party defendant herein.Case 20200V001108 Document 5 Filed 02-10-2020 Page 5 of 9 5. At the present time, the defendant, Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital Milwaukee, Inc. ib/a Ascension Columbia St. Mary's Hospital (hereinafter “CSM"), is a domestic corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with offices of its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company, at 8040 Excelsior Drive, Suite 400, Madison, Wisconsin 53717. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times hereto, CSM owned, operated, and managed the property located at 2301 North Lake Drive, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211. FACTS 6. Onor about Sunday, April 2, 2018, at approximately 7:11 p.m., plaintiff, Jane Doe, was leaving CSM after visiting her mother in the intensive care unit. As Jane Doe was walking to her vehicle in CSM’s parking structure, Jane Doe was brutally attacked with a knife by an assailant (hereinafter “asssilant”). 7. Upon information and belief, the assailant had been lurking in the CSM parking structure prior to the attack. 8. During the attack the assailant knocked Jane Doe to the ground and stabbed her repeatedly to the chest, face, arm, hands, abdomen, and head. The assailant also repeatedly kicked Jane Doe in the head and face, knocking out several of her teeth. 9. Upon information and belief, this attack, which took place in the CSM parking structure, continued for approximately 10 minutes... 10. Ato point during the initial attack did anyone from CSM or its security staff intervene to stop the attack. 11, The assailant finally ceased his attack after being accosted and then chased by a bystander. 12, Upon information and belief, although CSM has security staff on its premises, CSM had no permanent or dedicated security personne! stationed in the parking structure, 3‘Case 2020CV001108 Document § Filed 02-10-2020 Page 6 of 9 13, Upon information and belief, no operating security cameras existed that captured the area of the CSM structure where Jane Doe was attacked. 14, Upon information and belief, CSM had prior knowledge and awareness of multiple other security incidents around the CSM campus that predated the attack on Jane Doe. 15. Upon information and belief, CSM knew or should have known, based on the nature of its experiences, its specific location in the City of Milwaukee, and the prior police contact calls at and/or around the facility, that more effective security staff and security services would be required to deter criminal activity and violent conduct at the CSM facility. 16. Upon information and belief, CSM undertook the responsibility to provide security ‘when it hired personnel who appeared to provide security and was required to exercise ordinary care in performing that duty. CSM knew or should have known that patients and visitors would rely on the presence of the security personne! provided by CSM when visiting the building. 17, Pekin provided health benefit coverage to the plaintiff, Jane Doe, and as such was, obliged to pay medical bills for the treatment of the plaintiff for the injuries sustained as alleged; by reason of these injuries, Pekin expended sums for medical bills and therefore, may have a subrogation interest herein to the extent of its payments. 18, _ USDHHS provided health benefit coverage to the plaintiff, Jane Doe, and as such was obliged to pay medical bills for the treatment of the plaintiff for the injuries sustained as alleged; by reason of these injuries, USDHHS expended sums for medical bills and therefore, may have a subrogation interest herein to the extent of its payments FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Safe Place Violation Against CSM 19, Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained within paragraph nos. 1-18 of this complaint, 4Case 2020CV001108 Document 5 Filed 02-10-2020 Page 7 of 9 20, tall times relevant hereto, CSM was the owner of a place of employment or a public building, as defined under section 101.01, Stats., and/or was an employer, as defined under section 101.01, Stats. Jane Doe was a frequenter of CSM as defined under section 101.01, Stats. 21, CSM, through its agents, servants, and employees, failed to maintain a safe place in violation of section 101.11, Stats., by failing to provide adequate security, functional safety ‘monitoring and alarm equipment in the structure. CSM had actual and constructive notice of said unsafe conditions that existed for a long enough time to allow CSM to remedy the situation. In so doing, CSM caused Jane Doe's injuries by failing to deter, prevent or prohibit potential assaults and otherwise protect frequenters such as Jane Doe from attack. 22, CSM, through its agents, servants, and employees, was negligent per se and violated section 101.11, Stats., in at least the following respects: a. CSM created and allowed an unsafe condition at the parking'structure where Jane Doe was attacked and knew or should have known that certain safety devices and other active security measures should have been installed and/or implemented on the CSM premises; including, but not limited to, sufficient operable security cameras, alarm equipment and security staff. b. CSM knew or should have known of the dangerous and unsafe conditions related to the inoperable security cameras and insufficient security systems and/or staffing in the parking structure, where Jane Doe was attacked. © CSM failed to furnish a place of business and employment which was safe for employees therein and for frequenters thereof. 4. CSM failed to adopt and use methods and processes in the operations of its business to reasonably render such place of employment safe, and, failed to do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety and welfare of such employees and frequenters. €. CSM failed to construct, repair and/or maintain such place of employment as to render same safe. f. CSM failed to “furnish and use safety devices and safeguards” and was negligent in failing to “adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render” 122 Wisconsin “safe” as required by Wis. Stat. § 101.11 and defined by Wis. Stat. § 101.01(13). 5‘Case 2020CV001108 Document 5 Filed 02-10-2020 Page 8 of @ 8. The failure of CSM, to reasonably design, implement, inspect, maintain and/or review the security system and protocol where Jane Doe was attacked which created an unsafe condition associated with the building, in violation of section 101.11, Stats. h. —_CSM’s failure to design, implement, inspect, maintain and/or review the security system and protocol referenced in paragraph g above was a cause of CSM’s failure to deter, prevent, stop, and/or mitigate the attack. 23, Asa direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Jane Doe sustained severe and life-threatening physical and psychological injuries and trauma; pain and suffering which ‘may continue in the future; incurred medical expenses, and may incur such expenses in the future; and sustained other damages, all to her detriment in an amount determined at trial. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ‘Negligence Against CSM 24, Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained within paragraph nos. 1-23 of this complaint. 25. By its conduct described above, CSM was negligent. 26. Upon information and belief, CSM had inadequate security systems, policies and procedures in place to protect its employers, patients, visitors, and others. 27. Upon information and belief, CSM was negligent in failing to provide adequate security systems and staff to monitor its property and to deter, prevent or prohibit potential assaults and otherwise protect frequenters such as Jane Doe from attack. 28. Upon information and belief, CSM was negligent in its hiring, training, monitoring, policymaking, and supervision of its employees. Moreover, CSM was also otherwise negligent. CSM is responsible for the actions ofits employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Jane Doe sustained severe and life-threatening physical and psychological injuries and trauma; pain and suffering which 6Case 2020CV001108 Document § Filed 02-10-2020 Page 9 of 9 may continue in the future; incurred medical expenses, and may incur such expenses in the future; and sustained other damages, all to her detriment in an amount determined at trial. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Direct Action Claim Against ABC 30. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained within paragraph nos. 1-29 of this complaint. 31. Upon information and belief, ABC had a policy of liability insurance in full force and ‘effect insuring CSM against claims such as those complained of herein, and is therefore a proper party defendant pursuant to section 803.04(2), Stats. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Jane Doe, seeks the following relief: judgment against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs and disbursements of this action; a determination of the subrogated plaintiffs’ rights, if any; and any other relief the court deems just and equitable under the circumstances. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of February, 2020. HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER S.C® Attorneys for Plaintiff Electronically Signed By: Benjamin S. Wagner. Benjamin S. Wagner State Bar No. 1046196 bwagner@habush.com US Bank Building, Suite 2300 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 (414) 271-0900 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE PLAITNIFF DEMANDS THAT THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION BE TRIED BY A TWELVE PERSON JURY 7