Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 440.20 (2026)
Disciplinary proceedings
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
440.20(1)(1) Any person may file a complaint before the department or any examining board, affiliated credentialing board or board in the department and request the department, examining board, affiliated credentialing board or board to commence disciplinary proceedings against any holder of a credential.
440.20(3)(3) The burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings before the department or any examining board, affiliated credentialing board or board in the department is a preponderance of the evidence.
440.20(4)(a)(a) The department or appropriate examining board, affiliated credentialing board, or board in the department may reprimand the holder of a credential or deny, limit, suspend, or revoke the credential of any person who intentionally violates s. 252.14 (2) or intentionally discloses the results of a blood test in violation of s. 252.15 (3m) (b) or (f) or (5m).
440.20(4)(b)(b) The grounds for discipline specified under par. (a) are in addition to any grounds for discipline specified in chs. 440 to 480.
440.20(5)(a)(a) The department, or the appropriate credentialing board or other board in the department, may reprimand a credential holder, or may deny, limit, suspend, or revoke a credential, if the credential holder fails to respond, to the satisfaction of the department, credentialing board, or other board in the department, within 30 days to a request for information from the department, credentialing board, or other board in the department in connection with an investigation of alleged misconduct of the credential holder.
440.20(5)(b)(b) The grounds for discipline specified under par. (a) are in addition to any grounds for discipline specified in chs. 440 to 480.
440.20 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 418; 1979 c. 34; 1985 a. 29; 1989 a. 31, 201; 1991 a. 39; 1993 a. 16, 27, 102, 107, 490; 2009 a. 209; 2013 a. 124; 2017 a. 331.
440.20 AnnotationThe constitutionality of sub. (3) is upheld. Gandhi v. Medical Examining Board, 168 Wis. 2d 299, 483 N.W.2d 295 (Ct. App. 1992).
440.20 AnnotationLaches is not available in any proceeding brought by the state in its sovereign capacity to protect a public right. A disciplinary proceeding is brought by the state in its sovereign capacity to protect a right of the public—the right to have licensed psychologists comply with the requirements of their licenses. Stein v. Psychology Examining Board, 2003 WI App 147, 265 Wis. 2d 781, 668 N.W.2d 112, 02-2726.
440.20 AnnotationA hearing is not required for a complaint filed under this section. 68 Atty. Gen. 30.
440.20 AnnotationThe “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof under sub. (3) does not violate the due process rights of a licensee. 75 Atty. Gen. 76.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1992–2010 · leading case: Gandhi v. State Med. Examining Bd., 483 N.W.2d 295 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Gandhi v. State Med. Examining Bd., 483 N.W.2d 295 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “In 1985, the legislature changed the burden of proof as witnessed by sec. 440.20(3), Stats. (1985-86), which read: The burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings before the department or any examining board is clear and convincing evidence, for proceedings concerning violations…”
Sierra Club v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2010 WI App 89 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “Code *743 § 440.20(3). 16 Consistent with these regulations, the permit issued in this case included a 20% overall opacity limit.”
Wis. Stat. § 440.20(3): 2 cases
Gandhi v. State Med. Examining Bd., 483 N.W.2d 295 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “In 1985, the legislature changed the burden of proof as witnessed by sec. 440.20(3), Stats. (1985-86), which read: The burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings before the department or any examining board is clear and convincing evidence, for proceedings concerning violations…”
Sierra Club v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2010 WI App 89 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “Code *743 § 440.20(3). 16 Consistent with these regulations, the permit issued in this case included a 20% overall opacity limit.”
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.