Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (2026)

Judicial review

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

102.23102.23 Judicial review.

102.23(1)(1)

102.23(1)(a)(a)

102.23(1)(a)1.1. The findings of fact made by the commission acting within its powers shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive. The order or award granting or denying compensation, either interlocutory or final, whether judgment has been rendered on the order or award or not, is subject to review only as provided in this section and not under ch. 227 or s. 801.02. The commission shall identify in the order or award the persons that must be made parties to an action for review of the order or award.

102.23(1)(a)2.2. Within 30 days after the date of an order or award made by the commission, any party aggrieved by the order or award may commence an action in circuit court for review of the order or award by serving a complaint as provided in par. (b) and filing the summons and complaint with the clerk of the circuit court. The summons and complaint shall name the party commencing the action as the plaintiff and shall name as defendants the commission and all persons identified by the commission under subd. 1. If the circuit court determines that any other person is necessary for the proper resolution of the action, the circuit court may join that person as a party to the action, unless joinder of the person would unduly delay the resolution of the action. If the circuit court is satisfied that a party in interest has been prejudiced because of an exceptional delay in the receipt of a copy of any finding or order, the circuit court may extend the time within which an action may be commenced by an additional 30 days.

102.23(1)(a)3.3. The proceedings shall be in the circuit court of the county where the plaintiff resides, except that if the plaintiff is a state agency, the proceedings shall be in the circuit court of the county where the defendant resides. The proceedings may be brought in any circuit court if all parties stipulate and that court agrees.

102.23(1)(b)(b) In such an action a complaint shall be served with an authenticated copy of the summons. The complaint need not be verified, but shall state the grounds upon which a review is sought. Service upon a commissioner or agent authorized by the commission to accept service constitutes complete service on all parties, but there shall be left with the person so served as many copies of the summons and complaint as there are defendants, and the commission shall mail one copy to each other defendant.

102.23(1)(c)(c) The commission shall serve its answer to the complaint within 20 days after the service of the complaint. Except as provided in par. (cm), any other defendant may serve an answer to the complaint within 20 days after the service of the complaint, which answer may, by way of counterclaim or cross complaint, ask for the review of the order or award referred to in the complaint, with the same effect as if the defendant had commenced a separate action for the review of the order or award.

102.23(1)(cm)(cm) If a defendant in an action brought under par. (a) is an insurance company, the insurance company may serve an answer to the complaint within 45 days after the service of the complaint.

102.23(1)(d)(d) The commission shall make return to the court of all documents and papers on file in the matter, all testimony that has been taken, and the commission’s order, findings, and award. Such return of the commission when filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court shall, with the papers specified in s. 809.15, constitute a judgment roll in the action; and it shall not be necessary to have a transcript approved. The action may thereupon be brought on for hearing before the court upon the record by any party on 10 days’ notice to the other; subject, however, to the provisions of law for a change of the place of trial or the calling in of another judge.

102.23(1)(e)(e) Upon such hearing, the court may confirm or set aside such order or award; and any judgment which may theretofore have been rendered thereon; but the same shall be set aside only upon the following grounds:

102.23(1)(e)1.1. That the commission acted without or in excess of its powers.

102.23(1)(e)2.2. That the order or award was procured by fraud.

102.23(1)(e)3.3. That the findings of fact by the commission do not support the order or award.

102.23(2)(2) Upon the trial of an action for review of an order or award, the court shall disregard any irregularity or error of the commission or the department unless it is made to affirmatively appear that the plaintiff was damaged by that irregularity or error.

102.23(3)(3) The record in any case shall be transmitted to the department within 5 days after expiration of the time for appeal from the order or judgment of the court, unless an appeal is taken from that order or judgment.

102.23(4)(4) Whenever an award is made against the state the attorney general may bring an action for review thereof in the same manner and upon the same grounds as are provided by sub. (1).

102.23(5)(5) When an action for review involves only the question of liability as between the employer and one or more insurance companies or as between several insurance companies, a party that has been ordered by the department, the commission, or a court to pay compensation is not relieved from paying compensation as ordered.

102.23(6)(6) If the commission’s order or award depends on any fact found by the commission, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the commission as to the weight or credibility of the evidence on any finding of fact. The court may, however, set aside the commission’s order or award and remand the case to the commission if the commission’s order or award depends on any material and controverted finding of fact that is not supported by credible and substantial evidence.

102.23 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 150; 1975 c. 199; Sup. Ct. Order, 73 Wis. 2d xxxi (1976); 1977 c. 29; 1977 c. 187 ss. 59, 135; 1977 c. 195, 272, 447; Sup. Ct. Order, 83 Wis. 2d xiii (1978); 1979 c. 278; 1981 c. 390 s. 252; 1983 a. 98, 122, 538; 1985 a. 83; 1997 a. 187; 2001 a. 37; 2005 a. 172, 442; 2015 a. 55, 180; 2025 a. 33.

102.23 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1976: The procedure for initiating a petition for judicial review under ch. 102 is governed by the provisions of s. 102.23 rather than the provisions for initiating a civil action under s. 801.02. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1977]

102.23 AnnotationThe fact that a party appealing from a Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR) order as to unemployment compensation labeled his petition “under s. 227.15” [now s. 227.52], is immaterial since the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction. An answer by DILHR that s. 227.15 [now s. 227.52] gave no jurisdiction amounted to an appearance, and DILHR 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).

102.23 AnnotationA 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).

102.23 AnnotationA challenge to the constitutionality of sub. (1) was not sustained since it was manifest from the statute that the legislature intended to have the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations 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).

102.23 AnnotationWhen 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).

102.23 AnnotationAn employer whose unemployment compensation account is not affected by the Labor and Industry Review Commission’s determination has no standing to seek judicial review. Cornwell Personnel Associates, Ltd. v. DILHR, 92 Wis. 2d 53, 284 N.W.2d 706 (Ct. App. 1979).

102.23 AnnotationAn agency’s mixed conclusions of law and findings of fact may be analyzed by using two 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, Inc. v. DILHR, 105 Wis. 2d 447, 313 N.W.2d 858 (Ct. App. 1981).

102.23 AnnotationA failure to properly serve the Labor and Industry Review Commission pursuant to sub. (1) (b) results in a jurisdictional defect rather than a mere technical error. Gomez v. LIRC, 153 Wis. 2d 686, 451 N.W.2d 475 (Ct. App. 1989).

102.23 AnnotationDiscretionary reversal is not applicable to judicial review of Labor and Industry Review Commission orders under this chapter. There is no power to reopen a matter that has been fully determined under this chapter. Kwaterski v. LIRC, 158 Wis. 2d 112, 462 N.W.2d 534 (Ct. App. 1990).

102.23 AnnotationA Labor and Industry Review Commission 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. LIRC, 226 Wis. 2d 778, 595 N.W.2d 23 (1999), 97-2747.

102.23 AnnotationAn appeal under s. 102.16 (2m) (e) of a Department of Workforce Development determination may be served under sub. (1) (b) on the department or the Labor and Industry Review Commission. McDonough v. DWD, 227 Wis. 2d 271, 595 N.W.2d 686 (1999), 97-3711.

102.23 AnnotationUnder 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 the Labor and Industry Review Commission 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. LIRC, 2002 WI 72, 253 Wis. 2d 426, 645 N.W.2d 870, 00-3548.

102.23 AnnotationThe 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.

102.23 AnnotationSub. (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. LIRC, 2004 WI 77, 272 Wis. 2d 586, 681 N.W.2d 157, 03-0662.

102.23 AnnotationBecause 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. LIRC, 2004 WI 77, 272 Wis. 2d 586, 681 N.W.2d 157, 03-0662.

102.23 AnnotationDefault judgment is unavailable to plaintiffs under this section when the employer has timely answered. Ellis v. DOA, 2011 WI App 67, 333 Wis. 2d 228, 800 N.W.2d 6, 10-1374.

102.23 AnnotationUnder Miller Brewing Co., 166 Wis. 2d 830 (1992), an “adverse party” for worker’s compensation actions in circuit court includes any party bound by the Labor and Industry Review 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.

102.23 AnnotationFailure 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. LIRC, 2013 WI 64, 349 Wis. 2d 234, 833 N.W.2d 665, 11-0203.

102.23 AnnotationThe 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. DWD v. LIRC, 2015 WI App 56, 364 Wis. 2d 514, 869 N.W.2d 163, 14-2221.

102.23 AnnotationThe 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.

102.23 AnnotationJudicial Review of Workmen’s Compensation Cases. Haferman. 1973 WLR 576.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 226 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1924–2026 · leading case: Xcel Energy Servs., Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2013 WI 64 (Wis. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Xcel Energy Servs., Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2013 WI 64 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 124× “¶2 We conclude that the circuit court had competency to adjudicate Xcel's complaint, notwithstanding Xcel's omission of ACE, because ACE was not an "adverse party" for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (1)(a). In reaching this conclusion, we reaffirm our decision in Miller Brewing…”

Bosco v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2004 WI 77 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 79× “Polishing's employee, Cesare Bosco, during the appeal on the merits of his worker's compensation claim, even though Shelby conceded that Bosco suffered permanent total disability caused by occupational exposure while he was employed *593 at A.”

DaimlerChrysler v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2007 WI 15 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 22× “¶ 9 DaimlerChrysler then brought an action for judicial review under Wis. Stat. § 102.23 . The Kenosha County Circuit Court, Judge Wilbur W.”

Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2016 WI App 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 58× “See Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (l)(a). *614 ¶ 2. This case involves an appeal by DWD to the circuit court contesting an award by LIRC of unemployment benefits for seven individuals.”

CBS, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 579 N.W.2d 668 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 34× “See Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (1)(a). Additionally, Wis.”

McDonough v. State Dep't of Workforce Dev., 595 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 32× “The order stated that it would become final within 30 days unless appealed to the circuit court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (l)(a). ¶ 4. McDonough filed a summons and complaint with the Wood County Circuit Court on April 28,1997, within the 30 days allowed to seek judicial…”

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2018). · cites it 4× “, Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (establishing procedures for judicial review of workers compensation orders).”

Bosco v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2003 WI App 219 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 42× “This appeal is brought under the Worker's Compensation Act; specifically at issue is the interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (5) (2001-02). 1 A.T.”

Princess House, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 330 N.W.2d 169 (Wis. 1983). · cites it 12× “However, the parties point out that this court has never addressed the standard of review subsequent to the statutory revision of 1977, which added (6) to sec. 102.23, Stats. Sec. 108.10(4), Stats.”

Tracie L. Flug v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2017 WI 72 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 13× “" Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (1)(a)1. Ms. Flug does not challenge the Commission's findings of fact here, so we accept them as presented by the Commission.”

Miller Brewing Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 495 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. 1993). · cites it 14× “Section 102.23(1) (a) should not be a trap for lawyers and litigants.”

Beecher v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2004 WI 88 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 8× “Based on all the evidence presented, LIRC concluded that Beecher sustained a loss of earning capacity of 60 percent, and awarded benefits accordingly.”

Show all 226 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(1) — 31 cases

Miller Brewing Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 495 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. 1993). “Section 102.23(1) (a) should not be a trap for lawyers and litigants.”

L & H Wrecking Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 339 N.W.2d 344 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).

Schiller v. State, Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 309 N.W.2d 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).

Miller Brewing Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 480 N.W.2d 532 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).

Aparacor, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 293 N.W.2d 545 (Wis. 1980).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(1)(a) — 23 cases

Xcel Energy Servs., Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2013 WI 64 (Wis. 2013). “¶2 We conclude that the circuit court had competency to adjudicate Xcel's complaint, notwithstanding Xcel's omission of ACE, because ACE was not an "adverse party" for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (1)(a). In reaching this conclusion, we reaffirm our decision in Miller Brewing…”

Miller Brewing Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 495 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. 1993). “Section 102.23(1) (a) should not be a trap for lawyers and litigants.”

Miller Brewing Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 480 N.W.2d 532 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).

Brandt v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 466 N.W.2d 673 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 2001 WI 30 (Wis. 2001).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(1)(b) — 2 cases

McDonough v. State Dep't of Workforce Dev., 595 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 1999). “The order stated that it would become final within 30 days unless appealed to the circuit court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (l)(a). ¶ 4. McDonough filed a summons and complaint with the Wood County Circuit Court on April 28,1997, within the 30 days allowed to seek judicial…”

Gomez v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 451 N.W.2d 475 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(1)(c) — 2 cases

Ellis v. State, 2011 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).

Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2015 WI App 56 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(1)(e) — 22 cases

Lisney v. LIRC, 493 N.W.2d 14 (Wis. 1992).

Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Milk Processors, Cannery, Dairy Employees & Helpers Local No. 695 v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 452 N.W.2d 368 (Wis. 1990).

Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 2001 WI 30 (Wis. 2001).

Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 595 N.W.2d 23 (Wis. 1999).

Wright v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 565 N.W.2d 221 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(1)(f) — 1 case

Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 595 N.W.2d 23 (Wis. 1999).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(2) — 3 cases

Pfister & Vogel Tanning Co. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 273 N.W.2d 293 (Wis. 1979).

Vocational, Technical & Adult Educ., Dist. 13 v. Dep't of Indus., 251 N.W.2d 41 (Wis. 1977).

Zimbrick v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI App 106 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(5) — 2 cases

Bosco v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2004 WI 77 (Wis. 2004). “Polishing's employee, Cesare Bosco, during the appeal on the merits of his worker's compensation claim, even though Shelby conceded that Bosco suffered permanent total disability caused by occupational exposure while he was employed *593 at A.”

Bosco v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2003 WI App 219 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “This appeal is brought under the Worker's Compensation Act; specifically at issue is the interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (5) (2001-02). 1 A.T.”

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(6) — 78 cases

Princess House, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 330 N.W.2d 169 (Wis. 1983). “However, the parties point out that this court has never addressed the standard of review subsequent to the statutory revision of 1977, which added (6) to sec. 102.23, Stats. Sec. 108.10(4), Stats.”

Langhus v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 557 N.W.2d 450 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).

DaimlerChrysler v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2007 WI 15 (Wis. 2007). “¶ 9 DaimlerChrysler then brought an action for judicial review under Wis. Stat. § 102.23 . The Kenosha County Circuit Court, Judge Wilbur W.”

Lange v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 573 N.W.2d 856 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).

Town of Russell Volunteer Fire Dep't v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 589 N.W.2d 445 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(l)(a) — 22 cases

Brandt v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 466 N.W.2d 673 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

Brandt v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 480 N.W.2d 494 (Wis. 1992).

Miller Brewing Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 495 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. 1993). “Section 102.23(1) (a) should not be a trap for lawyers and litigants.”

Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2016 WI App 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “See Wis. Stat. § 102.23 (l)(a). *614 ¶ 2. This case involves an appeal by DWD to the circuit court contesting an award by LIRC of unemployment benefits for seven individuals.”

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(l)(b) — 2 cases

Gomez v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 451 N.W.2d 475 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(l)(d) — 1 case

— Wis. Stat. § 102.23(l)(e) — 9 cases

Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Milk Processors, Cannery, Dairy Employees & Helpers Local No. 695 v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 452 N.W.2d 368 (Wis. 1990).

Doering v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 523 N.W.2d 142 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).

West Bend Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 438 N.W.2d 823 (Wis. 1989).

Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 2001 WI 30 (Wis. 2001).

Advance Die Casting Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 453 N.W.2d 487 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).

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.