Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 102.12 (2026)
Notice of injury, exception, laches
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
102.12102.12 Notice of injury, exception, laches. No claim for compensation may be maintained unless, within 30 days after the occurrence of the injury or within 30 days after the employee knew or ought to have known the nature of his or her disability and its relation to the employment, actual notice was received by the employer or by an officer, manager or designated representative of an employer. If no representative has been designated by posters placed in one or more conspicuous places where notices to employees are customarily posted, then notice received by any superior is sufficient. Absence of notice does not bar recovery if it is found that the employer was not misled by that absence. Regardless of whether notice was received, if no payment of compensation, other than medical treatment or burial expense, is made, and if no application is filed with the department within 2 years after the date of the injury or death or the date the employee or his or her dependent knew or ought to have known the nature of the disability and its relation to the employment, the right to compensation for the injury or death is barred, except that the right to compensation is not barred if the employer knew or should have known, within the 2-year period, that the employee had sustained the injury on which the claim is based. Issuance of notice of a hearing on the motion of the department has the same effect for the purposes of this section as the filing of an application. This section does not affect any claim barred under s. 102.17 (4).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1929–2023 · leading case: Borello v. U.S. Oil Co., 388 N.W.2d 140 (Wis. 1986).
Borello v. U.S. Oil Co., 388 N.W.2d 140 (Wis. 1986). “The court recognized that in workers compensation cases the legislature by sec. 102.12, Stats., had recognized a discovery rule.”
Jutton-Kelly Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 264 N.W. 630 (Wis. 1936). “cation for an award by the Wisconsin Industrial Commission was opposed by the plaintiffs in the proceedings before the commission, as well as in the subsequent trial in circuit court and on this appeal, on the grounds, (1) that he and his employer were not subject to the…”
City of Milwaukee v. Indus. Comm'n, 124 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. 1963). “The city also claimed that no notice was given within two years of the date of the alleged injury, and that Jamerson’s claim was barred by the limitations contained in sec. 102.12, Stats. *132 At the hearing before the examiner, Jamerson testified that he injured his back…”
Zabkowicz v. Indus. Comm'n, 58 N.W.2d 677 (Wis. 1953). “An occupational disease, within the act, is a disease, such as silicosis, which is acquired as the result and an incident of working in an industry over an extended period of time.”
Acme Body Works v. Indus. Comm'n, 234 N.W. 756 (Wis. 1931). “17 extend beyond six years from the date of injury or death or from the date that compensation (other than medical treatment or burial expenses) was last paid, whichever date is most recent.”
Manitowoc Cnty. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 276 N.W.2d 755 (Wis. 1979). “*435 ISSUE #1: IS THERE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DILHR’S FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE CLAIMANT’S INJURY? Sec. 102.12, Stats. 1973, provides in pertinent part: “102.”
Int'l Paper Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2001 WI App 248 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “" Kohler concluded that because the worker's claim for permanent total disability benefits was time-barred by Wis. Stat. § 102.12 (1929), the maximum amount that might have accrued to him was zero.”
McCluskey v. Thranow, 142 N.W.2d 787 (Wis. 1966). “” Sec. 102.12, Stats. No similar exception appears in the statute of limitations pertaining to personal injuries.”
Sentinel News Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 271 N.W. 413 (Wis. 1937). “Sec. 102.12, Stats., provides: “. . . Regardless of whether notice was received, if no payment of compensation (other than medical treatment or burial expense) is made, and no application filed with the commission within two years from the date of the injury or death, or from…”
Andrzeczak v. Indus. Comm'n, 20 N.W.2d 551 (Wis. 1945). “The commission denied plaintiff’s application for compensation on the ground that his claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, sec. 102.12, Stats. The facts are not in dispute, and are set forth in the findings and order of the Industrial Commission as follows:…”
Kohler Co. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 167 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. 1969). “Respondent contends that the claim here involved is barred by the failure to give notice under sec. 102.12, Stats., particularly the portion thereof requiring a claimant to give notice within two years from the date of injury.”
Larson v. Indus. Comm'n, 271 N.W. 835 (Wis. 1937). “Defendant contends that the claim of plaintiff was barred by sec. 102.12, Stats. 1931, which provides: “.”
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.