Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 102.08 (2026)
Administration for state employees
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
102.08102.08 Administration for state employees. The department of administration has responsibility for the timely delivery of benefits payable under this chapter to employees of the state and their dependents and other functions of the state as an employer under this chapter. The department of administration may delegate this authority to employing departments and agencies and require such reports as it deems necessary to accomplish this purpose. The department of administration or its delegated authorities shall file with the department of workforce development the reports that are required of all employers. The department of workforce development shall monitor the delivery of benefits to state employees and their dependents and shall consult with and advise the department of administration in the manner and at the times necessary to ensure prompt and proper delivery.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1925–2022 · leading case: Volunteers of Am. of Madison, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 141 N.W.2d 890 (Wis. 1966).
Volunteers of Am. of Madison, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 141 N.W.2d 890 (Wis. 1966). “The statute in question is sec. 102.08, Stats., which provides: "Epileptics and persons who are totally blind may elect not to be subject to the provisions of this chapter for injuries resulting because of such epilepsy or blindness and still remain subject to its provisions for…”
Acuity Mut. Ins. v. Olivas, 2007 WI 12 (Wis. 2007). “Although the Kress Packing test has been supplanted by Wis. Stat. § 102.08 (b) for deciding independent contractor status for purposes of the Act, [33] the Labor Ready case demonstrates that the Kress Packing test continues to have vitality in determining whether a person is an…”
Mulder v. Acme-Cleveland Corp., 290 N.W.2d 276 (Wis. 1980). “, Kohler moved to dismiss Acme’s third party complaint and General Electric’s cross-complaint, asserting the defense that sec. 102.08(2), Stats., 1 gives it immunity from any liability other than worker’s compensation.”
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “Wis. Stat. §§ 102.08 (12)(b)2.b. and 102.”
Guse v. Indus. Comm'n, 205 N.W. 428 (Wis. 1925). “employee, is as follows: “Every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including aliens, all helpers and assistants of employees, whether paid by the employers or employee, if employed with the knowledge, actual or…”
Cnty. of Barron v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2010 WI App 149 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 97 (1973),] has been supplanted by Wis. Stat. § 102.08 (b) for deciding independent contractor status[,].”
Schwab v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 162 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. 1968). “The principal issue raised on this appeal is whether there is credible evidence from which the commission could infer that at the time of his accident Charles Schwab was not performing services incidental to his employment and that his injuries and eventual death therefrom did…”
Tews Lime & Cement Co. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 158 N.W.2d 377 (Wis. 1968). “The court said the legislative policy of sec. 102.08 is: “.'. . to aid epileptics in obtaining employment by permitting them to elect not to be subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Act with respect to injuries resulting because of the epilepsy.”
Ploetz v. Indus. Comm'n, 217 N.W. 325 (Wis. 1928). ““(4) Every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including aliens, all helpers and assistants of employees, whether paid by the employers or employee, if employed with the knowledge, actual or constructive, of the…”
Schanen v. Indus. Comm'n, 228 N.W. 520 (Wis. 1930). “be construed to mean: “Every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including aliens, all helpers and assistants of employees, whether paid by the employers or employee, if employed with the knowledge, actual or…”
Coleman v. Am. Universal Ins. Co., 273 N.W.2d 220 (Wis. 1979). “1973, the provision in effect at the time the plaintiff was injured on the premises of Sentry Foods, stated: “Where such conditions exist the right to the recovery of compensation pursuant to this chapter shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer and the workmen’s…”
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Com'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “§§ 102.08(12)(b)2.b. and 102.08(12)(bm)4.”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.08(12)(b) — 1 case
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Com'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “§§ 102.08(12)(b)2.b. and 102.08(12)(bm)4.”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.08(2) — 2 cases
Mulder v. Acme-Cleveland Corp., 290 N.W.2d 276 (Wis. 1980). “, Kohler moved to dismiss Acme’s third party complaint and General Electric’s cross-complaint, asserting the defense that sec. 102.08(2), Stats., 1 gives it immunity from any liability other than worker’s compensation.”
Coleman v. Am. Universal Ins. Co., 273 N.W.2d 220 (Wis. 1979). “1973, the provision in effect at the time the plaintiff was injured on the premises of Sentry Foods, stated: “Where such conditions exist the right to the recovery of compensation pursuant to this chapter shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer and the workmen’s…”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.08(b) — 1 case
SK Mgmt., LLC v. Donald L. King (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.