Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2026)
Health care worker protection
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
146.997(1)(c)(c) “Health care facility” means a facility, as defined in s. 647.01 (4), or any hospital, nursing home, community-based residential facility, county home, county infirmary, county hospital, county mental health complex or other place licensed or approved by the department of health services under s. 49.70, 49.71, 49.72, 50.03, 50.35, 51.08 or 51.09 or a facility under s. 45.50, 51.05, 51.06, 233.40, 233.41, 233.42 or 252.10.
146.997(1)(d)3.3. A dentist or dental therapist who is licensed under ch. 447 or who holds a compact privilege under subch. II of ch. 447.
146.997(1)(d)4.4. A physician, physician assistant, podiatrist, perfusionist, physical therapist, physical therapist assistant, occupational therapist, occupational therapy assistant, or genetic counselor licensed under ch. 448; a physical therapist or physical therapist assistant who holds a compact privilege under subch. XI of ch. 448; an occupational therapist or occupational therapy assistant who holds a compact privilege under subch. XII of ch. 448; or a physician assistant who holds a compact privilege under subch. XIII of ch. 448.
146.997(1)(d)5.5. A respiratory care practitioner who is certified under ch. 448 or who holds a compact privilege under subch. XV of ch. 448.
146.997(1)(d)6.6. A dietitian who is certified under subch. V of ch. 448 or who holds a compact privilege under subch. XIV of ch. 448.
146.997(1)(d)10.10. A psychologist who is licensed under ch. 455, who is exercising the temporary authorization to practice, as defined in s. 455.50 (2) (o), in this state, or who is practicing under the authority to practice interjurisdictional telepsychology, as defined in s. 455.50 (2) (b).
146.997(1)(d)11.11. A social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional counselor, as those terms are defined in subch. I of ch. 457.
146.997(1)(d)12.12. A speech-language pathologist or audiologist who is licensed under subch. II of ch. 459 or who holds a compact privilege under subch. III of ch. 459, or a speech and language pathologist licensed by the department of public instruction.
146.997(1)(d)14.14. An emergency medical services practitioner licensed under s. 256.15 (5) or an emergency medical responder.
146.997(1)(d)16.16. A corporation or limited liability company of any providers specified under subds. 1. to 14. that provides health care services.
146.997(1)(d)17.17. A cooperative health care association organized under s. 185.981 that directly provides services through salaried employees in its own facility.
146.997(2)(a)(a) Any employee of a health care facility or of a health care provider who is aware of any information, the disclosure of which is not expressly prohibited by any state law or rule or any federal law or regulation, that would lead a reasonable person to believe any of the following may report that information to any agency, as defined in s. 111.32 (6) (a), of the state; to any professionally recognized accrediting or standard-setting body that has accredited, certified or otherwise approved the health care facility or health care provider; to any officer or director of the health care facility or health care provider; or to any employee of the health care facility or health care provider who is in a supervisory capacity or in a position to take corrective action:
146.997(2)(a)1.1. That the health care facility or health care provider or any employee of the health care facility or health care provider has violated any state law or rule or federal law or regulation.
146.997(2)(a)2.2. That there exists any situation in which the quality of any health care service provided by the health care facility or health care provider or by any employee of the health care facility or health care provider violates any standard established by any state law or rule or federal law or regulation or any clinical or ethical standard established by a professionally recognized accrediting or standard-setting body and poses a potential risk to public health or safety.
146.997(2)(b)(b) An agency or accrediting or standard-setting body that receives a report under par. (a) shall, within 5 days after receiving the report, notify the health care facility or health provider that is the subject of the report, in writing, that a report alleging a violation specified in par. (a) 1. or 2. has been received and provide the health care facility or health care provider with a written summary of the contents of the report, unless the agency, or accrediting or standard-setting body determines that providing that notification and summary would jeopardize an ongoing investigation of a violation alleged in the report. The notification and summary may not disclose the identity of the person who made the report.
146.997(2)(c)(c) Any employee of a health care facility or health care provider may initiate, participate in or testify in any action or proceeding in which a violation specified in par. (a) 1. or 2. is alleged.
146.997(2)(d)(d) Any employee of a health care facility or health care provider may provide any information relating to an alleged violation specified in par. (a) 1. or 2. to any legislator or legislative committee.
146.997(3)(a)(a) No health care facility or health care provider and no employee of a health care facility or health care provider may take disciplinary action against, or threaten to take disciplinary action against, any person because the person reported in good faith any information under sub. (2) (a), in good faith initiated, participated in or testified in any action or proceeding under sub. (2) (c) or provided in good faith any information under sub. (2) (d) or because the health care facility, health care provider or employee believes that the person reported in good faith any information under sub. (2) (a), in good faith initiated, participated in or testified in any action or proceeding under sub. (2) (c) or provided in good faith any information under sub. (2) (d).
146.997(3)(b)(b) No health care facility or health care provider and no employee of a health care facility or health care provider may take disciplinary action against, or threaten to take disciplinary action against, any person on whose behalf another person reported in good faith any information under sub. (2) (a), in good faith initiated, participated in or testified in any action or proceeding under sub. (2) (c) or provided in good faith any information under sub. (2) (d) or because the health care facility, health care provider or employee believes that another person reported in good faith any information under sub. (2) (a), in good faith initiated, participated in or testified in any action or proceeding under sub. (2) (c) or provided in good faith any information under sub. (2) (d) on that person’s behalf.
146.997(3)(c)(c) For purposes of pars. (a) and (b), an employee is not acting in good faith if the employee reports any information under sub. (2) (a) that the employee knows or should know is false or misleading, initiates, participates in or testifies in any action or proceeding under sub. (2) (c) based on information that the employee knows or should know is false or misleading or provides any information under sub. (2) (d) that the employee knows or should know is false or misleading.
146.997(4)(a)(a) Any employee of a health care facility or health care provider who is subjected to disciplinary action, or who is threatened with disciplinary action, in violation of sub. (3) may file a complaint with the department under s. 106.54 (6). If the department finds that a violation of sub. (3) has been committed, the department may take such action under s. 111.39 as will effectuate the purpose of this section.
146.997(4)(c)(c) Section 111.322 (2m) applies to a disciplinary action arising in connection with any proceeding under par. (a).
146.997(5)(5) Civil penalty. Any health care facility or health care provider and any employee of a health care facility or health care provider who takes disciplinary action against, or who threatens to take disciplinary action against, any person in violation of sub. (3) may be required to forfeit not more than $1,000 for a first violation, not more than $5,000 for a violation committed within 12 months of a previous violation and not more than $10,000 for a violation committed within 12 months of 2 or more previous violations. The 12-month period shall be measured by using the dates of the violations that resulted in convictions.
146.997(6)(6) Posting of notice. Each health care facility and health care provider shall post, in one or more conspicuous places where notices to employees are customarily posted, a notice in a form approved by the department setting forth employees’ rights under this section. Any health care facility or health care provider that violates this subsection shall forfeit not more than $100 for each offense.
146.997 HistoryHistory: 1999 a. 176, 186; 2001 a. 38, 70, 74, 89, 105; 2003 a. 33; 2005 a. 22; 2007 a. 20 s. 9121 (6) (a); 2007 a. 130; 2009 a. 165, 355; 2015 a. 265; 2017 a. 12; 2019 a. 100; 2021 a. 23 ss. 23, 71; 2021 a. 100, 123, 130, 131, 251; 2023 a. 55, 56, 81, 87, 88; 2025 a. 20, 76, 128, 129, 130, 232.
146.997 AnnotationThis section applies only to employees, a category that does not include interns who do not receive compensation or tangible benefits. Because the plaintiff received no compensation or tangible benefits, she was not an employee of the defendant and was not entitled to anti-retaliation protection under sub. (3) (a). Masri v. LIRC, 2014 WI 81, 356 Wis. 2d 405, 850 N.W.2d 298, 12-1047.
146.997 AnnotationWisconsin Health Care Workers: Whistleblower Protection. Neuser. Wis. Law. Mar. 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014).
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Asma Masri appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ("LIRC") determination that she was not an employee protected by Wisconsin's health care worker protection statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2011-12), 1 and that, therefore, she was…”
Goggins v. Rogers Mem'l Hosp. Inc., 2004 WI App 113 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Goggins further contends that the court improperly characterized her claim as one for retaliatory discharge, governed by the Department of Workforce Development under Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2001-02), 1 which deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Charnai Sherry v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 146.997 (2023-34).1 Following an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) dismissed Sherry’s complaint on the basis that Sherry failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that FSI disciplined Sherry for reporting quality of care concerns about Sivadasan.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(1) — 2 cases
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Asma Masri appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ("LIRC") determination that she was not an employee protected by Wisconsin's health care worker protection statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2011-12), 1 and that, therefore, she was…”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(1)(b) — 1 case
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(2) — 1 case
Charnai Sherry v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 146.997 (2023-34).1 Following an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) dismissed Sherry’s complaint on the basis that Sherry failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that FSI disciplined Sherry for reporting quality of care concerns about Sivadasan.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(2)(a) — 2 cases
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Asma Masri appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ("LIRC") determination that she was not an employee protected by Wisconsin's health care worker protection statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2011-12), 1 and that, therefore, she was…”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(3) — 2 cases
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Asma Masri appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ("LIRC") determination that she was not an employee protected by Wisconsin's health care worker protection statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2011-12), 1 and that, therefore, she was…”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(3)(a) — 2 cases
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Asma Masri appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ("LIRC") determination that she was not an employee protected by Wisconsin's health care worker protection statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2011-12), 1 and that, therefore, she was…”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(3)(c) — 1 case
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(4) — 1 case
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(4)(a) — 3 cases
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Asma Masri appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ("LIRC") determination that she was not an employee protected by Wisconsin's health care worker protection statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2011-12), 1 and that, therefore, she was…”
Charnai Sherry v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 146.997 (2023-34).1 Following an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) dismissed Sherry’s complaint on the basis that Sherry failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that FSI disciplined Sherry for reporting quality of care concerns about Sivadasan.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(a) — 1 case
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Asma Masri appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ("LIRC") determination that she was not an employee protected by Wisconsin's health care worker protection statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2011-12), 1 and that, therefore, she was…”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.997(l)(b) — 2 cases
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997, we must also determine the level of deference, if any, to grant LIRC, which, in conjunction with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), is charged with administering the statute.”
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Asma Masri appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ("LIRC") determination that she was not an employee protected by Wisconsin's health care worker protection statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.997 (2011-12), 1 and that, therefore, she was…”
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.