102.23 (5). Bosco v. LIRC, 2004 WI 77, 272 Wis. 2d 586, 681 N.W.2d 157, 030662. Sub. (1) (d) does not prohibit determinations in excess of the highest medical assessment in evidence, but rather creates a presumption of reasonableness for awards that fall within the prescribed range. The statute does not state that an award outside of the prescribed range is unreasonable and does not prohibit the Department of Workforce Development from setting minimum loss of use percentages by administrative rule. DaimlerChrysler v. LIRC, 2007 WI 15, 299 Wis. 2d 1, 727 N.W.2d 311, 05-0544. Sub. (1) (bp) does not govern the conduct of the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) or its agent and does not impose any penalty on DWD or its agent for bad faith conduct in administering the uninsured employers fund. Sub. (1) (bp) constitutes the exclusive remedy for the bad faith conduct of an employer or an in-
24
surance carrier. Because sub. (1) (bp) does not apply to DWD’s agent, it does not provide an exclusive remedy for the agent’s bad faith. Moreover, s. 102.81 (1) (a) exempts DWD and its agent from paying an employee the statutory penalties and interest imposed on an employer or an insurance carrier for their misdeeds, but nothing in s. 102.81 (1) (a) exempts DWD or its agent from liability for its bad faith conduct in processing claims. Aslakson v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., 2007 WI 39, 300 Wis. 2d 92, 729 N.W.2d 712, 04-2588. Because the parties explicitly stated the only claim against the employer was for accidental injury, the employer could not “know the charges or claims” against it included an occupational disease claim. It never had an opportunity to be heard on “the probative force of the evidence adduced by both sides” as applied to the occupational disease claim, or on the law applicable to the occupational disease claim, either during the hearing or in its brief to the Labor and Industry Review Commission. As such, the employer was denied both due process and a “fair hearing” under sub. (1) (a). Waste Management Inc. v. LIRC, 2008 WI App 50, 308 Wis. 2d 763, 747 N.W.2d 782, 07-2405. Once a permanent partial disability award is made, the worker’s compensation statutes provide only limited provision for reopening. The statutes do not provide for the reopening of a final award two years after it is rendered in the event the employer rehires the employee. Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. LIRC, 2009 WI App 40, 316 Wis. 2d 516, 765 N.W.2d 850, 08-1977. Case law appears to define an order “awarding or denying compensation” in sub. (3) synonymously with an order reaching the merits of the applicant’s claim. Although the administrative decisions in this case contemplated the possibility of future action by the claimant, the dismissal was not procedural or rooted in standing doctrines like ripeness but based on a finding that the claimant presented insufficient evidence to substantiate it and did reach the merits. LaBeree v. LIRC, 2010 WI App 148, 330 Wis. 2d 101, 793 N.W.2d 77, 09-1628. The automatic-stay provisions of the federal bankruptcy code froze an employer’s obligation to pay claims, including worker’s compensation, that were not due at the time of the employer’s bankruptcy filing. Accordingly, obligations that became due after filing were not in default and no late-payment penalty could be assessed under sub. (1) (bp). Grede Foundries, Inc. v. LIRC, 2012 WI App 86, 343 Wis. 2d 517, 819 N.W.2d 850, 11-2636.