A state appellate court has affirmed a jury verdict holding a healthcare provider and its insurer responsible for injuries suffered by a mother during an attack at a diabetes clinic, concluding that the defendants failed to follow their own safety protocols despite documented warnings about disruptive behavior. The decision comes after a Milwaukee County jury awarded over $8 million to the Krupka family, who alleged negligence on the part of Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin and ProAssurance Casualty Company.
The complaint was filed in February 2017 by Mary Miceli-Krupka, John B. Krupka, John M. Krupka, and Anna M. Krupka against Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Inc., and ProAssurance Casualty Company. The case was heard in Milwaukee County Circuit Court before Judge Kashoua Kristy Yang and reached the Court of Appeals as case number 2024AP387.
According to court documents, the incident occurred on February 11, 2014, when Mary Miceli-Krupka was scheduling a follow-up appointment for her son at the hospital’s Diabetes Clinic. Her daughter Anna sat nearby while her son John Michael waited with them. At the same time, another patient named Kendra was at an appointment with her mother Vanessa; Kendra’s sister Jade was waiting in the lobby. After a brief verbal exchange between Mary and Jade escalated, Jade physically attacked Mary, causing injuries to her head and face.
The Krupka family brought claims of negligence as well as loss of society and companionship related to Mary’s husband and children witnessing or being affected by the attack. The lawsuit alleged that Children’s Hospital had prior knowledge of disruptive and violent behavior from Kendra’s family during previous visits but failed to take reasonable steps to protect other patients and visitors.
Testimony at trial included eyewitness accounts from other parents present during the attack, expert testimony from Alan Butler—a healthcare security professional—and statements from medical staff who witnessed or responded to previous incidents involving Kendra’s family. Butler reviewed five years’ worth of security reports documenting repeated aggressive conduct by Vanessa and Jade at various appointments, including swearing at staff, trapping employees in rooms, property damage, threats made by Jade at school, and multiple warnings issued by hospital security.
Despite these documented concerns—summarized in internal records as “disorderly, disruptive and violent behaviors”—the hospital created but did not fully enforce a Safety Plan or behavioral contract meant to limit which family members could accompany Kendra or require notification of Security Services upon their arrival. Butler testified that although electronic flags were placed on Kendra’s medical record warning staff about high-risk behavior starting in May 2013 (nine months before the attack), there was no evidence that security was notified when Jade arrived with her family on the day of Mary’s assault.
Children’s Hospital moved for summary judgment prior to trial arguing that it could not be held liable under ordinary negligence standards or public policy grounds because it could not have foreseen such an act or prevented it without imposing unreasonable burdens on healthcare providers generally. The circuit court denied these motions; after hearing evidence at trial in October 2023—including testimony from both parties—the jury found Children’s Hospital negligent for failing to protect Mary from foreseeable harm caused by third-party conduct on its premises.
The jury apportioned responsibility as 70% attributable to Children’s Hospital and 30% to Vanessa (Jade’s mother), awarding more than $7 million for Mary’s pain, suffering, disability, future health care expenses, lost earning capacity; plus over $1 million collectively for loss of society/companionship damages suffered by John B., John Michael, and Anna due to witnessing or being affected by the attack.
On appeal, Children’s Hospital argued again that public policy should preclude liability because allowing recovery would place too great a burden on healthcare providers or open up limitless claims against hospitals whenever violence occurs on their premises. The appellate panel rejected these arguments one by one: it found no break in causation between prior documented incidents and Mary’s injury; determined that holding Children’s Hospital accountable was not out of proportion given its knowledge of risk; concluded that violence following repeated warnings was not highly extraordinary; ruled that enforcing existing safety plans does not create unreasonable burdens; and stated this case did not set precedent for unlimited liability across all healthcare settings.
The appellate opinion emphasized: “CHW saw a risk of foreseeable harm from Vanessa and Jade’s conduct—the security reports describe not only disorderly disturbances and cursing but labeling the family as having a history of ‘violent behaviors’… CHW developed a safety plan… yet did not exercise [its] option” when faced with known risks.
Ultimately affirming both liability findings and damages awards entered by Judge Kashoua Kristy Yang in Milwaukee County Circuit Court (case ID: 2017CV1161), Chief Judge White wrote: “We conclude that none of the public policy factors apply to preclude CHW’s liability for the Krupka family’s injuries.”
Attorneys representing both sides are referenced throughout procedural filings but are not named explicitly within this decision notice.
Source: 2024AP387_Miceli_Krupka_v_Proassurance_Casualty_Company_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
