102.42 claimed by the injured employee. The itemized statement shall include, if applicable, information relating to any travel expenses incurred by the injured employee in obtaining treatment including the injured employee’s destination, number of trips, round trip mileage, and meal and lodging expenses. The department may not admit into evidence any information relating to medical expenses and incidental compensation under s. 102.42 claimed by an injured employee if the injured employee failed to file with the department and serve on all parties at least 15 days before the date of the hearing an itemized statement of the medical expenses and incidental compensation under s. 102.42 claimed by the injured employee, unless the department is satisfied that there is good cause for the failure to file and serve the itemized statement. (9) (a) In this subsection: 1e. “Emergency medical responder” has the meaning given in s. 256.01 (4p). 1g. “Emergency medical services practitioner” has the meaning given in s. 256.01 (5). 1m. “ Firefighter” means any person employed on a full-time or part-time basis by the state or any political subdivision as a member or officer of a fire department, including the 1st class cities and state fire marshal and deputies, or an individual who volunteers as a member or officer of such a department. 2. “Post-traumatic stress disorder” means that condition, as described in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association. (b) Subject to par. (c), in the case of a mental injury that is not accompanied by a physical injury and that results in a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder in a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 23.33 (1) (ig), an emergency medical responder, an emergency medical services practitioner, or a firefighter, the claim for compensation for the mental injury, in order to be compensable under this chapter, is subject to all of the following: 1. The mental injury must satisfy all of the following conditions: a. The diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is made by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. b. The conditions of liability under s. 102.03 (1) are proven by the preponderance of the evidence. 2. The mental injury may not be a result of any of the following actions taken in good faith by the employer: a. A disciplinary action. b. A work evaluation. c. A job transfer. d. A layoff. e. A demotion. f. A termination. 3. The diagnosis does not need to be based on unusual stress
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
102.175
of greater dimensions than the day-to-day emotional strain and tension experienced by similarly situated employees. (c) No individual may receive compensation for a claim of mental injury under this subsection more than 3 times in his or her lifetime. The limitation under this paragraph applies irrespective of whether the individual becomes employed by a different employer or in a different position with the same employer. History: 1971 c. 148; 1971 c. 213 s. 5; 1973 c. 150, 282; Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 774 (1975); 1975 c. 147 ss. 20, 54; 1975 c. 199, 200; 1977 c. 29, 195, 273; 1979 c. 278; 1981 c. 92, 314; 1981 c. 317 s. 2202; 1981 c. 380; 1981 c. 391 s. 211; 1985 a. 83; 1989 a. 64, 139, 359; 1991 a. 85; 1993 a. 81, 492; 1995 a. 27, 117; 1997 a. 38, 191, 237; 1999 a. 9; 2001 a. 37; 2003 a. 144; 2005 a. 172; 2007 a. 185; 2009 a. 180, 206; 2011 a. 183; 2013 a. 36; 2015 a. 55, 180; 2021 a. 29, 232; 2021 a. 238 s. 45; 2023 a. 213; 2025 a. 33, 127, 145. Cross-reference: See also ch. DWD 80, Wis. adm. code. A plaintiff-employer was not deprived of any substantial due process rights by the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations’ refusal to invoke its rule requiring inspection of the opposing parties’ medical reports when the plaintiff had ample notice of the nature of the employee’s claim. Theodore Fleisner, Inc. v. DILHR, 65 Wis. 2d 317, 222 N.W.2d 600 (1974). Under the facts of this case, the refusal to grant an employer’s request for adjournment was a denial of due process. Bituminous Casualty Co. v. DILHR, 97 Wis. 2d 730, 295 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1980). Sub. (1) (d) does not create a presumption that evidence presented by treating physicians is correct. The statute enforces the idea that the Labor and Industry Review Commission determines the weight to be given medical witnesses. Conradt v. Mt. Carmel School Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 197 Wis. 2d 60, 539 N.W.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2842. The Labor and Industry Review Commission’s authority under sub. (1) (a) to control its calendar and manage its internal affairs necessarily implies the power to deny an applicant’s motion to withdraw an application for hearing. An appellant’s failure to appear at a hearing after a motion to withdraw the application was denied was grounds for entry of a default judgment under s. 102.18 (1) (a). Baldwin v. LIRC, 228 Wis. 2d 601, 599 N.W.2d 8 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3090. In the absence of testimony in conflict with a claimant’s medical experts, the Labor and Industry Review Commission may reject the expert evidence if there is countervailing testimony raising legitimate doubt about the employee’s injury. Kowalchuk v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 85, 234 Wis. 2d 203, 610 N.W.2d 122, 99-1183. It was reasonable for the Labor and Industry Review Commission to conclude that the statute of limitations under sub. (4) for death benefits begins to run at the time of death, rather than the time of injury. International Paper Co. v. LIRC, 2001 WI App 248, 248 Wis. 2d 348, 635 N.W.2d 823, 01-0126. Neither sub. (1) (d) or (g) provides a statutory right to cross-examine an independent physician appointed by the Department of Workforce Development (DWD). When the legislature drafted sub. (1) (g), it chose to use the general term “rebut.” Because it did not specify the right to cross-examination, it appears the legislature left to DWD’s discretion whether to allow cross-examination in circumstances where it might provide relevant and probative evidence. Sub. (1) (d) governs experts that are presented by a party to establish a prima facie case, not experts appointed by DWD to provide an impartial report. The Labor and Industry Review Commission did not violate the plaintiff’s due process rights when it declined to remand for cross-examination. Aurora Consolidated Health Care v. LIRC, 2012 WI 49, 340 Wis. 2d 367, 814 N.W.2d 824, 10-0208. Prehearing Discovery Under Wisconsin’s Worker’s Compensation Act: A Review and Critique. Towers. 68 MLR 597 (1985).