Ruling that Wisconsin’s $750,000 cap on medical malpractice claims is unconstitutional, an appellate court said Wednesday that a Milwaukee woman who lost all four limbs should collect the $16.5 million for pain and suffering awarded to her and her husband.

“We conclude that the statutory cap on non-economic damages is unconstitutional on its face,” Judge Joan Kessler wrote in the 19-page unanimous opinion by the three-judge First District Court of Appeals panel.

Kessler added that “Wisconsin’s cap on non-economic medical malpractice damages always reduces non-economic damages only for the class of the most severely injured victims who have been awarded damages exceeding the cap, yet always allows full damages to the less severely injured malpractice victims.”

Wisconsin law caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases at $750,000 but does not put a ceiling on the amount that could be awarded for economic damages, such as medical costs, which in Mayo’s case was awarded at $8.8 million. That award and $750,000 has already been paid by the $1.3 billion state-managed medical malpractice insurance fund.

The case is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Wisconsin has had various ceilings on medical malpractice damages since 1986. A $350,000 cap enacted in 1995 was struck down by the state Supreme Court in 2005 as being arbitrary and violating the equal protection provision of the state constitution. It was replaced a year later by the $750,000 ceiling.

The personal property tax, implemented in the early days of Wisconsin, when most of its governmental revenue came from property taxes, began as a tax on items like livestock, furniture, jewelry and vehicles. Its property tax counterpart — real property — covers land and buildings.

The Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance has approved an overall 8.46% rate decrease for Worker’s Compensation (WC) premiums for business this year following a 3.19% decline last year. Some specific industries, like manufacturing, will see even greater decreases of 9.28%. This overall decrease represents a savings of nearly $170 million for employers.

“This is the second consecutive year Worker’s Compensation rates have declined in Wisconsin, reaffirming our commitment that Wisconsin is open for business,” said Governor Walker. “The magnitude of savings is a result of employers working with their employees to emphasize the importance of safety in the workplace.”

Worker’s compensation rates are adjusted yearly by a committee of actuaries from the Wisconsin Compensation Rating Bureau (WCRB). The committee studies the prior losses (claims) of hundreds of categories and professions throughout the state’s employment pool and submits a rate recommendation to the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) who has final approval over the rates.

“Wisconsin businesses are dedicated to ensuring a safe working environment and this decrease in workers compensation rates reflects that,” said Commissioner of Insurance Ted Nickel. “These savings will allow Wisconsin businesses to continue to strengthen their ability to operate affordably and efficiently.”

On July 1, the Wisconsin court system will launch a three-year pilot project for the handling of large-claim business and commercial cases filed in Waukesha County Circuit Court and in the circuit courts of the Eighth Judicial Administrative District in northeastern Wisconsin.

There is also potential availability of a commercial docket for cases venued outside of those jurisdictions, when the parties agree to the change in venue, and a judge participating in a commercial docket agrees to the transfer. The commercial docket is intended to ensure that large business and complicated commercial cases are resolved timely and effectively.

“This is a significant step forward for the Wisconsin court system. It is our hope that the commercial docket will result in efficient resolutions of complex business-related controversies, and in the process, improve the efficiency of the justice system for everyone,” said Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack.

The Court approved the pilot project in an order issued April 11. If successful, and after a thorough review of the pilot program, the Court may consider a statewide commercial docket.

Roggensack convened the Business Court Advisory Committee in the fall of 2016 to draft a proposed rule petition to be considered in the event that the Court approved a commercial docket. The committee created the framework and forms necessary to implement the project, and the committee remains available to assist the Court with any adjustments that may be necessary moving ahead, Roggensack said.

The commercial docket will handle disputes involving, among other things: the governance of business organizations, including financial institutions; unfair competition or prohibited business activities; sales and mergers; securities sales and regulations; intellectual property rights; franchising; and cases involving claims or disputes under portions of the Uniform Commercial Code, when the amount in controversy exceeds $100,000 exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fees.

Detailed criteria for cases to be assigned to the commercial docket, as well as cases that may be taken on a discretionary basis, are listed in the appendix attached to the Court’s order. Commercial court docket cases will be integrated with the existing circuit court eFiling system, making it easy for lawyers involved in the cases to submit and track filings.

Senate Republicans on Thursday released a health-care bill that would curtail federal Medicaid funding, repeal taxes on the wealthy and eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood as part of an effort to fulfill a years-long promise to undo Barack Obama’s signature health-care law.

The bill is an attempt to strike a compromise between existing law and a bill passed by the House in May as Republicans struggle to advance their vision for the country’s health-care system even though they now control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

The Senate proposal largely mirrors the House measure with significant differences, according to a discussion draft circulating Wednesday among aides and lobbyists. While the House legislation would peg federal insurance subsidies to age, the Senate bill would link them to income, as the Affordable Care Act does.

The Senate measure would cut off expanded Medicaid funding for states more gradually than the House bill but would enact deeper long-term cuts to the health-care program for low-income Americans. It also would eliminate House language aimed at prohibiting federally subsidized health plans from covering abortions, a provision that may run afoul of complex Senate budget rules.

Like the House bill, the Senate measure is expected to make big changes to Medicaid, the program that insures about 74 million elderly and lower-income Americans and was expanded in most states under the ACA. In effect, the revisions would reduce federal spending on the program.

The Senate measure would transform Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to one in which federal funding would be distributed to states on a per capita basis. The Senate measure would also seek to phase out the program’s expansion – although at a more gradual rate than the House version.

Yet the Senate bill is expected to go further than the House version in its approach to cutting Medicaid funding in the future. In 2025, the measure would tie federal spending on the program to an even slower growth index than the one used in the House bill. That move could prompt states to reduce the size of their Medicaid programs.

In a move that will please the health-care industry, the draft also proposes repealing all the ACA taxes except for its ‘‘Cadillac tax’’ on high-cost health plans in language similar to the House version. Senators had previously toyed with the idea of keeping some of the ACA’s taxes.

It would also eliminate Medicaid reimbursements for Planned Parenthood for one year. Federal law already prevents taxpayer funding to pay for abortions except to save the life of the woman or in the case of rape or incest. But some Republicans want to ban all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which also provides health services such as birth control, because their clinics provide abortion services.

Like the House measure, the Senate bill would eliminate two central requirements of the current health-care law: that individuals provide proof of insurance when filing their annual tax returns and that companies with 50 or more employees provide health coverage for their workers.

In a move that is critical to insurers, the Senate measure would continue to fund for two years cost-sharing subsidies that help 7 million Americans with ACA plans. House Republicans have challenged the legality of the $7 billion in subsidies – which help cover consumers’ deductibles and copays – in court, and insurers have warned that they will have to increase premiums dramatically next year unless the federal government commits to continuing the payments.

Health insurer Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield says it will largely stop selling insurance plans in Wisconsin on the marketplaces set up through the Affordable Care Act next year, citing a volatile market for insurance plans that comply with the law.

Anthem will be the second large national insurance company to stop selling health plans on the state’s marketplaces. UnitedHealthcare pulled out last year.

About 14,000 people are covered by the Anthem health plans sold on Wisconsin’s marketplaces. That works out to less than 6% of the 242,863 people who were enrolled in health plans sold on the marketplaces as of Jan. 31. Anthem said its decision does not affect its health plans for employers, its Medicare Advantage plans or Medicaid plans.

It also will continue to renew its so-called transitional plans that were sold before March 2010 and December 2013. Those plans, which are not available to new customers, cover about 4,500 people in Wisconsin.

Anthem previously pulled out of the marketplaces for Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties. But Molina Healthcare, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, Children’s Community Health Plan and Network Health sold plans in Milwaukee County this year.

Other health insurers selling marketplace plans in the state include Dean Health Plan, Unity Health Insurance, Security Health, Gundersen Health Plan and Aspirus Arise Health Plan of Wisconsin.

All of the insurers, though, have struggled.

“The Wisconsin individual market remains volatile, making planning and pricing for ACA-compliant health plans increasingly difficult,” Anthem said Wednesday in a statement.

Among the factors Anthem cited were a shrinking and deteriorating market and uncertainty at the federal level.

The Supreme Court will once again wade into the world of partisan gerrymandering – that is, the practice of purposely drawing district lines to favor one party and put another at a disadvantage. The justices announced today that they will review Wisconsin’s appeal of the decision by a three-judge district court striking down, as the product of partisan gerrymandering, the redistricting map that the Republican-controlled legislature created after the 2010 census.

The lower court also ordered the state to create a new redistricting plan by the fall, but a deeply divided Supreme Court today put that order on hold. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, which is likely to come next year, will almost certainly be a major one that could affect redistricting efforts for decades to come.

When the Supreme Court last tried to take on the issue of partisan gerrymandering in 2004, the result was deeply unsatisfying for almost everyone involved. In a challenge to Pennsylvania’s redistricting plan, four justices – Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas – agreed that courts should never review partisan-gerrymandering claims, because it is too hard to come with a manageable test to determine when the role of politics in redistricting is too influential. Four other justices – Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer – believed that courts should be able to review partisan-gerrymandering claims. The key vote in the case came (as it so often does) from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who agreed that the Supreme Court should stay out of the Pennsylvania case but left open the door for courts to have a role in reviewing partisan-gerrymandering cases in the future if a workable standard could be found.

Thirteen years later, it appears that the justices are ready to try again. In its brief seeking review of the district court’s decision, Wisconsin complains about various aspects of the lower court’s ruling. It argues, for example, that the plaintiffs cannot challenge the map in its entirety, but instead need to go district by district, and that the plan cannot be a partisan gerrymander if it is also consistent with traditional redistricting principles. But the state is also playing for all the marbles. It observes that “wasteful and fruitless litigation” over partisan gerrymandering has continued over the past 13 years, and it maintains that because this “additional experience has failed to yield a ‘limited and precise’ standard” for evaluating partisan-gerrymandering claims, the Supreme Court should rule that such claims “are nonjusticiable.”

Wisconsin filed its request for review in March, but in May it also asked the justices to put the lower court’s order requiring new maps on hold until they can resolve the state’s appeal. In an order issued shortly after the justices left the bench this morning, the Supreme Court agreed to do so. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan indicated that they would have denied the state’s request. But the fact that the state could muster the five votes needed for the stay bodes poorly for the challengers, because one factor that the justices had to consider in making their decision was whether the state is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.

No matter how the Supreme Court ultimately rules, its decision will be significant. If the justices were to hold that courts cannot review partisan-gerrymandering claims, their ruling could insulate redistricting maps from challenges, allowing the political party in power to extend its control for decades: The dominant party will be able to draw districts to maximize its chances of maintaining control of the state legislature, which will in turn allow it to draw the new map after the next census. On the other hand, a ruling that courts can evaluate partisan-gerrymandering claims could open the door to a flood of litigation challenging existing and future maps. Of course, this assumes that the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the case at all: Today’s announcement also indicated that the justices would put off a decision on whether the court has jurisdiction to review the case until they hear the merits of the case. Postponing the determination of whether the court has jurisdiction could prove to be just a formality, or it could provide a way for the justices to sidestep a ruling on the merits if the case proves too hard – only time will tell.

The case will likely be argued in November or December, with a decision to follow next year – perhaps only a few months before the 2018 elections, and less than two years before the 2020 census.