Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 102.42 (2026)

Incidental compensation; medical treatment and expenses

✓ current as of July 2026

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

102.42102.42 Incidental compensation; medical treatment and expenses.

102.42(1)(1) Treatment of employee. Subject to the limitations under sub. (1p), the employer shall supply such medical, surgical, chiropractic, psychological, podiatric, dental, and hospital treatment, medicines, medical and surgical supplies, crutches, artificial members, appliances, and training in the use of artificial members and appliances, or, at the option of the employee, Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical treatment, medicines, and medical supplies, as may be reasonably required to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury, and to attain efficient use of artificial members and appliances, and in case of the employer’s neglect or refusal seasonably to do so, or in emergency until it is practicable for the employee to give notice of injury, the employer shall be liable for the reasonable expense incurred by or on behalf of the employee in providing such treatment, medicines, supplies, and training. When the employer has knowledge of the injury and the necessity for treatment, the employer’s failure to tender the necessary treatment, medicines, supplies, and training constitutes such neglect or refusal. The employer shall also be liable for reasonable expense incurred by the employee for necessary treatment to cure and relieve the employee from the effects of occupational disease prior to the time that the employee knew or should have known the nature of his or her disability and its relation to employment, and as to such treatment subs. (2) and (3) shall not apply. The obligation to furnish such treatment and appliances shall continue as required to prevent further deterioration in the condition of the employee or to maintain the existing status of such condition whether or not healing is completed.

102.42(1m)(1m) Liability for unnecessary treatment. If an employee who has sustained a compensable injury undertakes in good faith invasive treatment that is generally medically acceptable, but that is unnecessary, the employer shall pay disability indemnity for all disability incurred as a result of that treatment. An employer is not liable for disability indemnity for any disability incurred as a result of any unnecessary treatment undertaken in good faith that is noninvasive or not medically acceptable. This subsection applies to all findings that an employee has sustained a compensable injury, whether the finding results from a hearing, the default of a party, or a compromise or stipulation confirmed by the department.

102.42(1p)(1p) Liability for treatment of certain mental injuries. The employer of an employee whose injury is a mental injury that is compensable under s. 102.17 (9) is liable for the employee’s treatment of the mental injury for no more than 32 weeks after the injury is first reported.

102.42(2)(2) Choice of practitioner.

102.42(2)(a)(a) When the employer has notice of an injury and its relationship to the employment, the employer shall offer to the injured employee his or her choice of any physician, chiropractor, psychologist, dentist, physician assistant, advanced practice registered nurse, or podiatrist licensed to practice and practicing in this state for treatment of the injury. By mutual agreement, the employee may have the choice of any qualified practitioner not licensed in this state. In case of emergency, the employer may arrange for treatment without tendering a choice. After the emergency has passed the employee shall be given his or her choice of attending practitioner at the earliest opportunity. The employee has the right to a 2nd choice of attending practitioner on notice to the employer or its insurance carrier. Any further choice shall be by mutual agreement. Partners and clinics are considered to be one practitioner. Treatment by a practitioner on referral from another practitioner is considered to be treatment by one practitioner.

102.42(2)(b)(b) The employer is liable for the expense of reasonable travel to obtain treatment at the same rate as is provided for state officers and employees under s. 20.916 (8). The employer is not liable for the expense of unreasonable travel to obtain treatment.

102.42(3)(3) Practitioner choice unrestricted. If the employer fails to tender treatment as provided in sub. (1) or choice of an attending practitioner as provided in sub. (2), the employee’s right to choose the attending practitioner is not restricted and the employer is liable for the reasonable and necessary expense thereof.

102.42(4)(4) Christian Science. The liability of an employer for the cost of Christian Science treatment provided to an injured employee is limited to the usual and customary charge for that treatment.

102.42(5)(5) Artificial members. Liability for repair and replacement of prosthetic devices is limited to the effects of normal wear and tear. Artificial members furnished at the end of the healing period for cosmetic purposes only need not be duplicated.

102.42(6)(6) Treatment rejected by employee. Unless the employee has elected Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical, surgical, dental, or hospital treatment, no compensation shall be payable for the death or disability of an employee, if the death is caused, or insofar as the disability may be aggravated, caused, or continued by an unreasonable refusal or neglect to submit to or follow any competent and reasonable medical, surgical, or dental treatment or, in the case of tuberculosis, by refusal or neglect to submit to or follow hospital or medical treatment when found by the department to be necessary. The right to compensation accruing during a period of refusal or neglect to submit to or follow hospital or medical treatment when found by the department to be necessary in the case of tuberculosis shall be barred, irrespective of whether disability was aggravated, caused, or continued by that refusal or neglect.

102.42(8)(8) Award to state employee. Whenever the department makes an award on behalf of a state employee, the department shall file duplicate copies of the award with the subunit of the department of administration responsible for risk management. Upon receipt of the copies of the award, the department of administration shall promptly issue a voucher in payment of the award from the proper appropriation under s. 20.865 (1) (fm), (kr) or (ur), and shall transmit one copy of the voucher and the award to the officer, department, or agency by whom the affected employee is employed.

102.42(9)(9) Rehabilitation; physical and vocational.

102.42(9)(a)(a) One of the primary purposes of this chapter is restoration of an injured employee to gainful employment. To this end, the department shall employ a specialist in physical, medical and vocational rehabilitation.

102.42(9)(b)(b) Such specialist shall study the problems of rehabilitation, both physical and vocational and shall refer suitable cases to the department for vocational evaluation and training. The specialist shall investigate and maintain a directory of such rehabilitation facilities, private and public, as are capable of rendering competent rehabilitation service to seriously injured employees.

102.42(9)(c)(c) The specialist shall review and evaluate reported injuries for potential cases in which seriously injured employees may be in need of physical and medical rehabilitation and may confer with the injured employee, employer, insurance carrier or attending practitioner regarding treatment and rehabilitation.

102.42(10)(10) Access to employee. In the case of an inpatient hospitalization of an employee, a health care provider shall not restrict the employer’s or insurer’s case management personnel from access to records and participation in discharge planning when required to ensure that an injured worker with a disability has appropriate housing and transportation. This subsection does not allow an employer, an insurer, or case management personnel to direct care of the employee.

102.42 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 61; 1973 c. 150, 282; 1975 c. 147; 1977 c. 195 ss. 24 to 28, 45; 1977 c. 273; 1979 c. 278; 1981 c. 20; 1987 a. 179; 1989 a. 64; 1995 a. 27 ss. 3743m, 3744, 9130 (4); 1997 a. 3, 38; 1999 a. 9; 2001 a. 37; 2003 a. 144; 2005 a. 172; 2007 a. 185; 2015 a. 55; 2021 a. 29; 2023 a. 213; 2025 a. 33, 145; s. 35.17 correction in (10).

102.42 AnnotationThe requirement that medical treatment be supplied during the healing period, defined as prior to the time the condition becomes stationary, is not determined by reference to the percentage of disability, but by a determination that the injury has stabilized. Custodial care, as distinguished from nursing services, is not compensable. Mednicoff v. DILHR, 54 Wis. 2d 7, 194 N.W.2d 670 (1972).

102.42 AnnotationIn appropriate cases, the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations may postpone a determination of permanent disability for a reasonable period until after a claimant completes a competent and reasonable course of physical therapy or vocational rehabilitation as an essential part of the treatment required for full recovery and minimization of damages. Transamerica Insurance Co. v. DILHR, 54 Wis. 2d 272, 195 N.W.2d 656 (1972).

102.42 AnnotationAn employee who wishes to consult a second doctor on the panel after the first says no further treatment is needed may do so without notice or consent. If the second doctor prescribes an operation that increases the amount of disability, the employer is liable. Spencer v. DILHR, 55 Wis. 2d 525, 200 N.W.2d 611 (1972).

102.42 AnnotationSub. (7) [now sub. (6)] relieves an employer of liability when the employee refuses treatment provided by the employer, as required under sub. (1). An employee is not required to seek treatment from someone other than the employer. Klein Industrial Salvage v. DILHR, 80 Wis. 2d 457, 259 N.W.2d 124 (1977).

102.42 AnnotationUnder sub. (9) (a) and ss. 102.43 (5) and 102.61, the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations may extend temporary disability, travel expense, and maintenance costs beyond 40 weeks if additional training is warranted. Beloit Corp. v. LIRC, 152 Wis. 2d 579, 449 N.W.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1989).

102.42 AnnotationSub. (1) requires an employer to pay medical expenses even after a final order has been issued. Lisney v. LIRC, 171 Wis. 2d 499, 493 N.W.2d 14 (1992).

102.42 AnnotationSub. (2) (a) does not require an employer to consent to out-of-state health care expenses that result from a referral by an in-state practitioner selected in accordance with the statute. UFE Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274, 548 N.W.2d 57 (1996), 94-2794.

102.42 AnnotationThe continuing obligation to compensate an employee for work related medical expenses under this section 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.

102.42 AnnotationUnder sub. (2), an employee can seek reimbursement for expenses related to two practitioners regardless of whether they are the first two practitioners whom the employee has seen. Hermax Carpet Marts v. LIRC, 220 Wis. 2d 611, 583 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1119.

102.42 AnnotationSection 102.01 (2) (g) sets the date of injury of an occupational disease and s. 102.01 (1) provides that medical expenses incurred before an employee knows of the work-related injury are compensable. Read together, medical expenses in occupational disease cases are not compensable until the date of injury, but once the date is established all expenses associated with the disease, even if incurred before the date of injury, are compensable. United Wisconsin Insurance Co. v. LIRC, 229 Wis. 2d 416, 600 N.W.2d 186 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-3776.

102.42 AnnotationSpencer, 55 Wis. 2d 525 (1972), creates an exception to the general rule that compensation is permitted only if medical expenses are reasonably required and necessary. As long as a claimant engages in unnecessary and unreasonable treatment in good faith, the employer is responsible for payment. Honthaners Restaurants, Inc. v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 273, 240 Wis. 2d 234, 621 N.W.2d 660, 99-3002.

102.42 AnnotationAn employee is not eligible for benefits under sub. (1m) if the disability-causing treatment was directed at treating something other than the employee’s compensable injury. Because the claimant’s surgery treated her preexisting condition, not her compensable injury, her claim was disallowed. Flug v. LIRC, 2017 WI 72, 376 Wis. 2d 571, 898 N.W.2d 91, 15-1989.

102.42 AnnotationContinuing Payments for Medical Expenses in Worker’s Compensation Proceedings. Carnell & Woog. Wis. Law. Nov. 1993.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1936–2021 · leading case: Tracie L. Flug v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2017 WI 72 (Wis. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tracie L. Flug v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2017 WI 72 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 202× “Based on its reading of Wis. Stat. § 102.42 (1m) (2013-14),4 the court of appeals concluded no such relationship between injury and treatment was required.”

UFE Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 548 N.W.2d 57 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 31× “The issue in this case is whether Wis. Stat. § 102.42 (2)(a) (1993-94), 1 a section of the Worker's Compensation Act (the Act), requires UFE Incorporated (UFE) to pay the out-of-state health care expenses incurred by one of its employees without UFE's consent.”

United Wisconsin Ins. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 600 N.W.2d 186 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 32× “, defines "date of injury" in pertinent part as: "[i]n the case of disease, the date of disability or, if that date occurs after the cessation of all employment that contributed to the disability, the last day of work for *421 the last employer whose employment caused…”

Lisney v. LIRC, 493 N.W.2d 14 (Wis. 1992). · cites it 15× “The issue of law presented to this court is whether LIRC's order of dismissal violates sec. 102.42(1), Stats. 1989-90, of the Worker's Compensation Act.”

Lisney v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 478 N.W.2d 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 34× “[2] In this case there is no question that the commission is the agency charged by the legislature with the duty of applying and administering ch.”

Honthaners Restaurants, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI App 273 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 17× “It asserts that a finding that Stanislowski was "overdiagnosed and over-treated" is tantamount to a finding that Stanislowski's medical treatment was unreasonable and unnecessary and, therefore, an award of benefits runs contrary to the statute's mandate prohibiting recovery for…”

State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2013 WI 58 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 4× “82 (4) (no person shall be denied adoption because of religious belief in the use of spiritual means through prayer for healing); Wis. Stat. § 102.42 (6) ("Unless the employee shall have elected Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical .”

Hermax Carpet Marts v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 583 N.W.2d 662 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 25× “2 Nev *620 ertheless, Hermax argues that, according to its interpretation of § 102.42, Stats., it is not liable for the expenses related to Nehls's treatment by Dr.”

Jenkins v. Sabourin, 311 N.W.2d 600 (Wis. 1981). · cites it 5× “[8] Sec. 102.42, Stats. 1979-80, provides in part as follows: "102.”

Schenkoski v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 552 N.W.2d 120 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 22× “Schenkoski argues that DILHR is required to review the compromise despite the time limitation because § 102.42(1), Stats., imposes a continuing obligation on employers to compensate employees for work-related *112 medical expenses.”

Stubbe v. Guidant Mut. Ins., 2002 WI App 203 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “See Wis. Stat. § 102.42 (1); Lisney v. LIRC, 171 Wis.”

Beloit Corp. v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 449 N.W.2d 299 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “[8] These sections were amended by secs. 32 and 51, respectively, ch.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(1) — 17 cases

United Wisconsin Ins. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 600 N.W.2d 186 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “, defines "date of injury" in pertinent part as: "[i]n the case of disease, the date of disability or, if that date occurs after the cessation of all employment that contributed to the disability, the last day of work for *421 the last employer whose employment caused…”

Lisney v. LIRC, 493 N.W.2d 14 (Wis. 1992). “The issue of law presented to this court is whether LIRC's order of dismissal violates sec. 102.42(1), Stats. 1989-90, of the Worker's Compensation Act.”

Lisney v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 478 N.W.2d 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “[2] In this case there is no question that the commission is the agency charged by the legislature with the duty of applying and administering ch.”

Honthaners Restaurants, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI App 273 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “It asserts that a finding that Stanislowski was "overdiagnosed and over-treated" is tantamount to a finding that Stanislowski's medical treatment was unreasonable and unnecessary and, therefore, an award of benefits runs contrary to the statute's mandate prohibiting recovery for…”

Schenkoski v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 552 N.W.2d 120 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Schenkoski argues that DILHR is required to review the compromise despite the time limitation because § 102.42(1), Stats., imposes a continuing obligation on employers to compensate employees for work-related *112 medical expenses.”

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(10) — 1 case

Beloit Corp. v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 449 N.W.2d 299 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “[8] These sections were amended by secs. 32 and 51, respectively, ch.”

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(1m) — 2 cases

Tracie L. Flug v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2017 WI 72 (Wis. 2017). “Based on its reading of Wis. Stat. § 102.42 (1m) (2013-14),4 the court of appeals concluded no such relationship between injury and treatment was required.”

Payton-Myrick v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 921 N.W.2d 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(2) — 6 cases

Racine Steel Castings v. Hardy, 426 N.W.2d 33 (Wis. 1988).

Hermax Carpet Marts v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 583 N.W.2d 662 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “2 Nev *620 ertheless, Hermax argues that, according to its interpretation of § 102.42, Stats., it is not liable for the expenses related to Nehls's treatment by Dr.”

Racine Steel Castings v. Hardy, 407 N.W.2d 299 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(2)(a) — 3 cases

UFE Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 548 N.W.2d 57 (Wis. 1996). “The issue in this case is whether Wis. Stat. § 102.42 (2)(a) (1993-94), 1 a section of the Worker's Compensation Act (the Act), requires UFE Incorporated (UFE) to pay the out-of-state health care expenses incurred by one of its employees without UFE's consent.”

UFE Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 534 N.W.2d 627 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(6) — 1 case

ITW Deltar v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 593 N.W.2d 908 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(7) — 1 case

Klein Indus. Salvage v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 259 N.W.2d 124 (Wis. 1977).

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(9)(a) — 1 case

Beloit Corp. v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 449 N.W.2d 299 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “[8] These sections were amended by secs. 32 and 51, respectively, ch.”

— Wis. Stat. § 102.42(lm) — 1 case

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.