Wis. Stat. § 102.23
Wis. Stat. § 102.23
The fact that a party appealing from a DILHR order as to unemployment compensation labeled his petition "under 227.15" [now 227.52], is immaterial since the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction. An answer by the department that s. 227.15 [now 227.52] gave no jurisdiction amounted to an appearance, and the department could not later claim that the court had no personal jurisdiction because the appellant had not served a summons and complaint. Lees v. DILHR, 49 Wis. 2d 491, 182 N.W.2d 245 (1971). A finding of fact, whether ultimate or evidentiary, is still in its essential nature a fact, whereas a conclusion of law accepts those facts, and by judicial reasoning results from the application of rules or concepts of law to those facts whether undisputed or not. Kress Packing Co. v. Kottwitz, 61 Wis. 2d 175, 212 N.W.2d 97 (1973). A challenge to the constitutionality of sub. (1) was not sustained since it is manifest from the statute that the legislature intended to have the department be the real party in interest and not a mere nominal party. Hunter v. DILHR, 64 Wis. 2d 97, 218 N.W.2d 314 (1974). When the claimant timely appealed an adverse worker's compensation decision in good faith, but erroneously captioned the appeal, the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the action. Cruz v. DILHR, 81 Wis. 2d 442, 260 N.W.2d 692 (1978). An employer whose unemployment compensation account is not affected by the commission's determination has no standing to seek judicial review. Cornwell Personnel Associates v. DILHR, 92 Wis. 2d 53, 284 N.W.2d 706 (Ct. App. 1979). An agency's mixed conclusions of law and findings of fact may be analyzed by using 2 methods: 1) the analytical method of separating law from fact; or 2) the practical or policy method that avoids law and fact labels and searches for a rational basis for the agency's decision. United Way of Greater Milwaukee v. DILHR, 105 Wis. 2d 447, 313 N.W.2d 858 (Ct. App. 1981). A failure to properly serve the commission pursuant to sub. (1) (b) results in a jurisdictional defect rather than a mere technical error. Gomez v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 153 Wis. 2d 686, 451 N.W.2d 475 (Ct. App. 1989). Discretionary reversal is not applicable to judicial review of LIRC orders under ch. 102. There is no power to reopen a matter that has been fully determined under ch. 102. Kwaterski v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 158 Wis. 2d 112, 462 N.W.2d 534 (Ct. App. 1990). A LIRC decision is to be upheld unless it directly contravenes the words of the statute, is clearly contrary to legislative intent, or is otherwise without a rational basis. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 226 Wis. 2d 778, 595 N.W.2d 23 (1999), 97-2747. An appeal under s. 102.16(2m) (e) of a department determination may be served under sub. (1) (b) on the department or the commission. McDonough v. Department of Workforce Development, 227 Wis. 2d 271, 595 N.W.2d 686 (1999), 97-3711. Under sub. (1) (a), judicial review is available only from an order or award granting or denying compensation. Judicial review by common law certiorari was not available for a claim that LIRC failed to act within the statutory time limitations under s. 102.18(4), which would be subject to judicial review of any subsequent order or award granting or denying compensation in that case. Vidal v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 2002 WI 72, 253 Wis. 2d 426, 645 N.W.2d 870, 00-3548. The plaintiff complied with the requirement of sub. (1) that every adverse party be made a defendant by naming the defendant's insurer in the caption of the summons and complaint, which were timely filed and served even though the insurer was not mentioned in the complaint's body. Selaiden v. Columbia Hospital, 2002 WI App 99, 253 Wis. 2d 553, 644 N.W.2d 690, 01-2046. Sub. (5) requires an employer to make payment to a disabled employee pending appeal of a date of injury defense in an occupational disease case when the employer's liability is not disputed on appeal and the only question is who will pay benefits. Bosco v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 2004 WI 77, 272 Wis. 2d 586, 681 N.W.2d 157, 03-0662. Because s. 102.18(1) (bp) specifically allows for the imposition of bad faith penalties on an employer for failure to pay benefits and because sub. (5) specifically directs the employer to pay benefits pending an appeal when the only issue is who will pay benefits, an employer may be subject to bad faith penalties under s. 102.18(1) (bp), independent from its insurer, when it fails to pay benefits in accordance with sub. (5). Bosco v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 2004 WI 77, 272 Wis. 2d 586, 681 N.W.2d 157, 03-0662. Under Miller an "adverse party" for worker's compensation actions in circuit court includes any party bound by the Commission's order or award granting or denying compensation to the claimant. The interests of an adverse party need not necessarily be adverse to the party filing a circuit court action. Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. LIRC, 2012 WI App 19, 339 Wis. 2d 413, 810 N.W.2d 865, 11-0203. Default judgment is unavailable to plaintiffs under this section when the employer has timely answered. Ellis v. Department of Administration, 2011 WI App 67, 333 Wis. 2d 228, 800 N.W.2d 6, 10-1374. Failure to name an adverse party as a defendant under sub. (1) (a) deprives the circuit court of competency and requires dismissal of the complaint. "Adverse party" includes every party whose interest in relation to the judgment or decree appealed from is in conflict with the modification or reversal sought by the action for judicial review. Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 2013 WI 64, 349 Wis. 2d 234, 833 N.W.2d 665, 11-0203. The only reasonable reading of sub. (1) (c)'s plain language is that a stipulation is only required from active parties. To require the Department of Workforce Development to obtain stipulations to venue from parties who have not responded to the action and have not expressed any interest in participating is unreasonable and does not further the purpose of preventing inconvenience or hardship to parties involved in the action. The stipulation of the parties is not required prior to the filing of the action. Department of Workforce Development v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 2015 WI App 56, 364 Wis. 2d 514, 869 N.W.2d 163, 14-2221. The venue provision of sub. (1) (a) is central to the statutory scheme, and as such, failure to comply with its mandates deprived the circuit court of the competency to hear the cases. DWD v. LIRC, 2016 WI App 21, 367 Wis. 2d 609, 877 N.W.2d 620, 14-2928. Judicial review of workmen's compensation cases. Haferman, 1973 WLR 576.