Section 102.16 - Submission of disputes, contributions by employees(1)(a) Any controversy concerning compensation or a violation of sub. (3), including a controversy in which the state may be a party, shall be submitted to the department in the manner and with the effect provided in this chapter.(b)1. In the case of a claim for compensation with respect to which no application has been filed under s. 102.17 (1) (a) 1 or with respect to which an application has been filed, but the application is not ready to be scheduled for a hearing, the department may review and set aside, modify, or confirm a compromise of the claim within one year after the date on which the compromise is filed with the department, the date on which an award has been entered based on the compromise, or the date on which an application for the department to take any of those actions is filed with the department.2. The department may conduct alternative dispute resolution activities for a case involving an employee who is not represented by an attorney with respect to which no application has been filed under s. 102.17 (1) (a) 1 or with respect to which an application has been filed, regardless of whether the application is ready to be scheduled for a hearing.(c) In the case of a claim for compensation with respect to which an application has been filed under s. 102.17 (1) (a) 1, if the application is ready to be scheduled for a hearing, the division may review and set aside, modify, or confirm a compromise of the claim within one year after the date on which the compromise is filed with the division, the date on which an award has been entered based on the compromise, or the date on which an application for the division to take any of those actions is filed with the division.(d) Unless the word "compromise" appears in a stipulation of settlement, the settlement shall not be considered a compromise, and further claim is not barred except as provided in s. 102.17 (4) regardless of whether an award is made. The employer, insurer, or dependent under s. 102.51 (5) shall have equal rights with the employee to have a compromise or any other stipulation of settlement reviewed under this subsection. Upon petition filed with the department or the division under this subsection, the department or the division may set aside the award or otherwise determine the rights of the parties.(1m)(a) If an insurer or self-insured employer concedes by compromise under sub. (1) or stipulation under s. 102.18 (1) (a) that the insurer or self-insured employer is liable under this chapter for any health services provided to an injured employee by a health service provider, but disputes the reasonableness of the fee charged by the health service provider, the department or the division may include in its order confirming the compromise or stipulation a determination made by the department under sub. (2) as to the reasonableness of the fee or, if such a determination has not yet been made, the department or the division may notify, or direct the insurer or self-insured employer to notify, the health service provider under sub. (2) (b) that the reasonableness of the fee is in dispute. The department or the division shall deny payment of a health service fee that the department determines under sub. (2) to be unreasonable. A health service provider and an insurer or self-insured employer that are parties to a fee dispute under this paragraph are bound by the department's determination under sub. (2) on the reasonableness of the disputed fee, unless that determination is set aside, reversed, or modified by the department under sub. (2) (f) or is set aside on judicial review as provided in sub. (2) (f).(b) If an insurer or self-insured employer concedes by compromise under sub. (1) or stipulation under s. 102.18 (1) (a) that the insurer or self-insured employer is liable under this chapter for any treatment provided to an injured employee by a health service provider, but disputes the necessity of the treatment, the department or the division may include in its order confirming the compromise or stipulation a determination made by the department under sub. (2m) as to the necessity of the treatment or, if such a determination has not yet been made, the department or the division may notify, or direct the insurer or self-insured employer to notify, the health service provider under sub. (2m) (b) that the necessity of the treatment is in dispute. Before determining under sub. (2m) the necessity of treatment provided to an injured employee, the department may, but is not required to, obtain the opinion of an expert selected by the department who is qualified as provided in sub. (2m) (c). The standards promulgated under sub. (2m) (g) shall be applied by an expert and by the department in rendering an opinion as to, and in determining, necessity of treatment under this paragraph. In cases in which no standards promulgated under sub. (2m) (g) apply, the department shall find the facts regarding necessity of treatment. The department or the division shall deny payment for any treatment that the department determines under sub. (2m) to be unnecessary. A health service provider and an insurer or self-insured employer that are parties to a dispute under this paragraph over the necessity of treatment are bound by the department's determination under sub. (2m) on the necessity of the disputed treatment, unless that determination is set aside, reversed, or modified by the department under sub. (2m) (e) or is set aside on judicial review as provided in sub. (2m) (e).(c) If an insurer or self-insured employer concedes by compromise under sub. (1) or stipulation under s. 102.18 (1) (a) that the insurer or self-insured employer is liable under this chapter for the cost of a prescription drug dispensed under s. 102.425 (2) for outpatient use by an injured employee, but disputes the reasonableness of the amount charged for the prescription drug, the department or the division may include in its order confirming the compromise or stipulation a determination made by the department under s. 102.425 (4m) as to the reasonableness of the prescription drug charge or, if such a determination has not yet been made, the department or the division may notify, or direct the insurer or self-insured employer to notify, the pharmacist or practitioner dispensing the prescription drug under s. 102.425 (4m) (b) that the reasonableness of the prescription drug charge is in dispute. The department or the division shall deny payment of a prescription drug charge that the department determines under s. 102.425 (4m) to be unreasonable. A pharmacist or practitioner and an insurer or self-insured employer that are parties to a dispute under this paragraph over the reasonableness of a prescription drug charge are bound by the department's determination under s. 102.425 (4m) on the reasonableness of the disputed prescription drug charge, unless that determination is set aside, reversed, or modified by the department under s. 102.425 (4m) (e) or is set aside on judicial review as provided in s. 102.425 (4m) (e).(2)(a) Except as provided in this paragraph, the department has jurisdiction under this subsection, the department and the division have jurisdiction under sub. (1m) (a), and the division has jurisdiction under s. 102.17 to resolve a dispute between a health service provider and an insurer or self-insured employer over the reasonableness of a fee charged by the health service provider for health services provided to an injured employee who claims benefits under this chapter. A health service provider may not submit a fee dispute to the department under this subsection before all treatment by the health service provider of the employee's injury has ended if the amount in controversy, whether based on a single charge or a combination of charges for one or more days of service, is less than $25. After all treatment by a health service provider of an employee's injury has ended, the health service provider may submit any fee dispute to the department, regardless of the amount in controversy. The department shall deny payment of a health service fee that the department determines under this subsection to be unreasonable.(am) A health service provider and an insurer or self-insured employer that are parties to a fee dispute under this subsection are bound by the department's determination under this subsection on the reasonableness of the disputed fee, unless that determination is set aside on judicial review as provided in par. (f).(b) An insurer or self-insured employer that disputes the reasonableness of a fee charged by a health service provider or the department or the division under sub. (1m) (a) or s. 102.18 (1) (bg) 1 shall provide reasonable written notice to the health service provider that the fee is being disputed. After receiving reasonable written notice under this paragraph or under sub. (1m) (a) or s. 102.18 (1) (bg) 1 that a health service fee is being disputed, a health service provider may not collect the disputed fee from, or bring an action for collection of the disputed fee against, the employee who received the services for which the fee was charged.(c) After a fee dispute is submitted to the department, the insurer or self-insured employer that is a party to the dispute shall provide to the department information on that fee and information on fees charged by other health service providers for comparable services. The insurer or self-insured employer shall obtain the information on comparable fees from a database that is certified by the department under par. (h). Except as provided in par. (e) 1., if the insurer or self-insured employer does not provide the information required under this paragraph, the department shall determine that the disputed fee is reasonable and order that it be paid. If the insurer or self-insured employer provides the information required under this paragraph, the department shall use that information to determine the reasonableness of the disputed fee.(d) The department shall analyze the information provided to the department under par. (c) according to the criteria provided in this paragraph to determine the reasonableness of the disputed fee. Except as provided in 2011 Wisconsin Act 183, section 30 (2) (b), the department shall determine that a disputed fee is reasonable and order that the disputed fee be paid if that fee is at or below the mean fee for the health service procedure for which the disputed fee was charged, plus 1.2 standard deviations from that mean, as shown by data from a database that is certified by the department under par. (h). Except as provided in 2011 Wisconsin Act 183, section 30 (2) (b), the department shall determine that a disputed fee is unreasonable and order that a reasonable fee be paid if the disputed fee is above the mean fee for the health service procedure for which the disputed fee was charged, plus 1.2 standard deviations from that mean, as shown by data from a database that is certified by the department under par. (h), unless the health service provider proves to the satisfaction of the department that a higher fee is justified because the service provided in the disputed case was more difficult or more complicated to provide than in the usual case.(e)1. Subject to subd. 2., if an insurer or self-insured employer that disputes the reasonableness of a fee charged by a health service provider cannot provide information on fees charged by other health service providers for comparable services because the database to which the insurer or self-insured employer subscribes is not able to provide accurate information for the health service procedure at issue, the department may use any other information that the department considers to be reliable and relevant to the disputed fee to determine the reasonableness of the disputed fee.2. Notwithstanding subd. 1., the department may use only a hospital radiology database that has been certified by the department under par. (h) to determine the reasonableness of a hospital fee for radiology services.(f) Within 30 days after a determination under this subsection, the department may set aside, reverse, or modify the determination for any reason that the department considers sufficient. Within 60 days after a determination under this subsection, the department may set aside, reverse, or modify the determination on grounds of mistake. A health service provider, insurer, or self-insured employer that is aggrieved by a determination of the department under this subsection may seek judicial review of that determination in the same manner that compensation claims are reviewed under s. 102.23.(g) Section 102.13 (1) (e) does not apply to the fee dispute resolution process under this subsection.(h) The department shall promulgate rules establishing procedures and requirements for the fee dispute resolution process under this subsection, including rules specifying the standards that health service fee databases must meet for certification under this paragraph. Using those standards, the department shall certify databases of the health service fees that various health service providers charge. In certifying databases under this paragraph, the department shall certify at least one database of hospital fees for radiology services, including diagnostic and interventional radiology, diagnostic ultrasound and nuclear medicine.(2m)(a) Except as provided in this paragraph, the department has jurisdiction under this subsection, the department and the division have jurisdiction under sub. (1m) (b), and the division has jurisdiction under s. 102.17 to resolve a dispute between a health service provider and an insurer or self-insured employer over the necessity of treatment provided for an injured employee who claims benefits under this chapter. A health service provider may not submit a dispute over necessity of treatment to the department under this subsection before all treatment by the health service provider of the employee's injury has ended if the amount in controversy, whether based on a single charge or a combination of charges for one or more days of service, is less than $25. After all treatment by a health service provider of an employee's injury has ended, the health service provider may submit any dispute over necessity of treatment to the department, regardless of the amount in controversy. The department shall deny payment for any treatment that the department determines under this subsection to be unnecessary.(am) A health service provider and an insurer or self-insured employer that are parties to a dispute under this subsection over the necessity of treatment are bound by the department's determination under this subsection on the necessity of the disputed treatment, unless that determination is set aside on judicial review as provided in par. (e).(b) An insurer or self-insured employer that disputes the necessity of treatment provided by a health service provider or the department or the division under sub. (1m) (b) or s. 102.18 (1) (bg) 2 shall provide reasonable written notice to the health service provider that the necessity of that treatment is being disputed. After receiving reasonable written notice under this paragraph or under sub. (1m) (b) or s. 102.18 (1) (bg) 2 that the necessity of treatment is being disputed, a health service provider may not collect a fee for that disputed treatment from, or bring an action for collection of the fee for that disputed treatment against, the employee who received the treatment.(c) Before determining under this subsection the necessity of treatment provided for an injured employee who claims benefits under this chapter, the department shall obtain a written opinion on the necessity of the treatment in dispute from an expert selected by the department. To qualify as an expert, a person must be licensed to practice the same health care profession as the individual health service provider whose treatment is under review and must either be performing services for an impartial health care services review organization or be a member of an independent panel of experts established by the department under par. (f). The standards promulgated under par. (g) shall be applied by an expert and by the department in rendering an opinion as to, and in determining, necessity of treatment under this paragraph. In cases in which no standards promulgated under sub. (2m) (g) apply, the department shall find the facts regarding necessity of treatment. The department shall adopt the written opinion of the expert as the department's determination on the issues covered in the written opinion, unless the health service provider or the insurer or self-insured employer present clear and convincing written evidence that the expert's opinion is in error.(d) The department may charge a party to a dispute over the necessity of treatment provided for an injured employee who claims benefits under this chapter for the full cost of obtaining the written opinion of the expert under par. (c). The department shall charge the insurer or self-insured employer for the full cost of obtaining the written opinion of the expert for the first dispute that a particular individual health service provider is involved in, unless the department determines that the individual health service provider's position in the dispute is frivolous or based on fraudulent representations. In a subsequent dispute involving the same individual health service provider, the department shall charge the losing party to the dispute for the full cost of obtaining the written opinion of the expert.(e) Within 30 days after a determination under this subsection, the department may set aside, reverse, or modify the determination for any reason that the department considers sufficient. Within 60 days after a determination under this subsection, the department may set aside, reverse, or modify the determination on grounds of mistake. A health service provider, insurer, or self-insured employer that is aggrieved by a determination of the department under this subsection may seek judicial review of that determination in the same manner that compensation claims are reviewed under s. 102.23.(f) The department may contract with an impartial health care services review organization to provide the expert opinions required under par. (c), or establish a panel of experts to provide those opinions, or both. If the department establishes a panel of experts to provide the expert opinions required under par. (c), the department may pay the members of that panel a reasonable fee, plus actual and necessary expenses, for their services.(g) The department shall promulgate rules establishing procedures and requirements for the necessity of treatment dispute resolution process under this subsection, including rules setting the fees under par. (f) and rules establishing standards for determining the necessity of treatment provided to an injured employee. Before the department may amend the rules establishing those standards, the department shall establish an advisory committee under s. 227.13 composed of health care providers providing treatment under s. 102.42 to advise the department and the council on worker's compensation on amending those rules.(3) No employer subject to this chapter may solicit, receive, or collect any money from an employee or any other person or make any deduction from their wages, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of discharging any liability under this chapter or recovering premiums paid on a contract described under s. 102.31 (1) (a) or a policy described under s. 102.315 (3), (4), or (5) (a); nor may any employer subject to this chapter sell to an employee or other person, or solicit or require the employee or other person to purchase, medical, chiropractic, podiatric, psychological, dental, or hospital tickets or contracts for medical, surgical, hospital, or other health care treatment that is required to be furnished by that employer.(4) The department and the division have jurisdiction to pass on any question arising out of sub. (3) and to order the employer to reimburse an employee or other person for any sum deducted from wages or paid by him or her in violation of that subsection. In addition to the penalty provided in s. 102.85 (1), any employer violating sub. (3) shall be liable to an injured employee for the reasonable value of the necessary services rendered to that employee under any arrangement made in violation of sub. (3) without regard to that employee's actual disbursements for those services.(5) Except as provided in s. 102.28 (3), no agreement by an employee to waive the right to compensation is valid.Amended by Acts 2021 ch, 232,s 24, eff. 4/10/2022.Amended by Acts 2021 ch, 232,s 23, eff. 4/10/2022.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 366,s 56, eff. 4/18/2018.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2793d, eff. 1/1/2016.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2787d, eff. 1/1/2016.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2785d, eff. 1/1/2016.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2778d, eff. 1/1/2016.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2776d, eff. 1/1/2016.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2775d, eff. 1/1/2016.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2774d, eff. 1/1/2016.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2773d, eff. 1/1/2016.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 2772d, eff. 1/1/2016.1975 c. 147, 200; 1977 c. 195; 1981 c. 92, 314; 1983 a. 98; 1985 a. 83; 1989 a. 64; 1991 a. 85; 1993 a. 81; 1995 a. 117; 1997 a. 38; 1999 a. 14, 185; 2001 a. 37; 2003 a. 144; 2005 a. 172; 2007 a. 185; 2009 a. 206; 2011 a. 183. The continuing obligation to compensate an employee for work related medical expenses under s. 102.42 does not allow agency review of compromise agreements after the one-year statute of limitations in s. 102.16(1) has run if the employee incurs medical expenses after that time. Schenkoski v. LIRC, 203 Wis. 2d 109, 552 N.W.2d 120 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0051. An appeal under sub. (2m) (e) of a department determination may be served under s. 102.23(1) (b) on the department or the commission. McDonough v. DWD, 227 Wis. 2d 271, 595 N.W.2d 686 (1999), 97-3711. The Department of Workforce Development does not possess authority to independently determine, for worker's compensation purposes, the reasonableness and medical necessity of a protectively-placed injured employee's court-ordered transfer to the least restrictive environment under ch. 55. The department's authority is limited to resolving disputes regarding the reasonableness or necessity of treatment provided to an injured employee, which permits the department to evaluate the treatment an employee receives within a placement, but not the placement itself. LaBeree v. Wausau Insurance Companies, 2010 WI App 148, 330 Wis. 2d 101, 793 N.W.2d 77, 09-1628.