In a recent legal battle that underscores the complexities of contractual obligations and governmental immunity, Jesse Clubb has taken his case to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Clubb, who was incarcerated at Marinette County Jail, suffered a dental injury allegedly caused by biting into a hard object in his food. The complaint was filed by Jesse Clubb on September 19, 2022, against Marinette County, Sheriff Jerry Sauve, corrections officer Brian Wruk, Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Company, Aramark Correctional Services LLC, and Advanced Correctional Healthcare Inc., among others.
The heart of the dispute lies in whether the contract between Marinette County and Aramark Correctional Services LLC was intended to benefit inmates like Clubb as third-party beneficiaries. On September 13, 2018, while incarcerated, Clubb claimed he bit down on what appeared to be a piece of plastic in his meal. He reported the incident immediately but alleged delays in receiving medical attention for his injury. Despite submitting multiple medical request slips between September 13 and 24, there were no records of these submissions until an undated slip led to his first nurse visit on September 24. His subsequent dental appointment did not occur until October 19 when he was diagnosed with an infection requiring tooth extractions.
Clubb’s lawsuit accused the defendants of negligence and breach of contract under several Wisconsin statutes. He argued that Aramark’s contract with the county should have directly benefited inmates like him by ensuring safe and nutritious meals. Furthermore, he claimed that Marinette County failed its ministerial duty to provide adequate healthcare without delay. However, the court dismissed these claims citing governmental immunity for discretionary acts under Wisconsin Statute § 893.80(4) and concluded that any benefits from Aramark’s contract were incidental rather than intentional third-party benefits.
Clubb sought damages for what he perceived as cruel and unusual punishment under state law alongside other claims such as negligent training and supervision. He also aimed to recover costs under Wisconsin’s direct action statute and indemnification statute due to alleged breaches by the involved parties.
The court ultimately ruled against Clubb’s arguments. It determined that while there might have been negligence in processing medical referrals promptly, Marinette County had met its obligation to provide necessary care within its discretion. Similarly, it found no provision in Aramark’s contract suggesting inmates were intended third-party beneficiaries capable of enforcing contract terms.
Representing this intricate case are attorneys whose identities remain unspecified within this document. Presiding over this appeal are Judges Stark P.J., Hruz J., Gill J., with Judge Jeffrey R. Wisnicky affirming the circuit court’s order favoring summary judgment for Marinette County and other defendants (Case ID: No. 2024AP1969).
Source: 2024AP1969_Clubb_v_Marinette_County_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
