Wisconsin's Covid-19 Liability Shield Upheld in Stillbirth Case

State's top court says health care provider shield law didn't deprive couple of trial rights.

Apr. 13, 2026 at 1:42pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A Wisconsin couple failed to revive their malpractice suit against a Milwaukee hospital after the state's top court said a health care provider shield law in effect during the Covid-19 pandemic didn't deprive them of their trial rights. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers validly suspended the common-law medical malpractice cause of action against health-care providers for a designated period in mid-2020, when the couple's baby was stillborn.

Why it matters

This ruling upholds Wisconsin's Covid-19 liability shield law, which was intended to protect healthcare providers from lawsuits related to care provided during the pandemic. The decision could set a precedent for other states with similar liability shield laws and impact the ability of patients to seek recourse for medical malpractice during public health emergencies.

The details

Savannah Wren and Calvin Gordon's baby was stillborn in May 2020, and the couple filed a malpractice suit against the Milwaukee hospital. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state's lawmakers had validly suspended the common-law medical malpractice cause of action against health-care providers for a designated period during the Covid-19 pandemic, meaning the couple did not have a valid cause of action and therefore no state constitutional right to a jury trial.

  • Savannah Wren and Calvin Gordon's baby was stillborn in May 2020.
  • The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its ruling on April 10, 2026.

The players

Savannah Wren

A Wisconsin resident who filed a malpractice suit against a Milwaukee hospital after her baby was stillborn in 2020.

Calvin Gordon

Savannah Wren's husband, who joined her in filing the malpractice suit.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

The state's top court that upheld Wisconsin's Covid-19 liability shield law, ruling that lawmakers validly suspended the common-law medical malpractice cause of action against health-care providers during the pandemic.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Without a cause of action, they had no state constitutional right to a jury trial.”

— Chief Justice

The takeaway

This ruling reinforces the power of state governments to enact liability shield laws during public health emergencies, potentially making it more difficult for patients to seek legal recourse for medical malpractice. It highlights the tensions between protecting healthcare providers and preserving patients' rights during times of crisis.