Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 907.06 (2026)
Court appointed experts
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
907.06(1)(1) Appointment. The judge may on the judge’s own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The judge may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint witnesses of the judge’s own selection. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the judge unless the expert witness consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of the witness’s duties by the judge in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of the witness’s findings, if any; the witness’s deposition may be taken by any party; and the witness may be called to testify by the judge or any party. The witness shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling the expert witness as a witness.
907.06(2)(2) Compensation. Expert witnesses so appointed are entitled to reasonable compensation in whatever sum the judge may allow. The compensation thus fixed is payable from funds which may be provided by law in criminal cases and cases involving just compensation under ch. 32. In civil cases the compensation shall be paid by the parties in such proportion and at such time as the judge directs, and thereafter charged in like manner as other costs but without the limitation upon expert witness fees prescribed by s. 814.04 (2).
907.06(3)(3) Disclosure of appointment. In the exercise of discretion, the judge may authorize disclosure to the jury of the fact that the court appointed the expert witness.
907.06(4)(4) Parties’ experts of own selection. Nothing in this rule limits the parties in calling expert witnesses of their own selection.
907.06(5)(5) Appointment in criminal cases. This section shall not apply to the appointment of experts as provided by s. 971.16.
907.06 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R215 (1973); Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 784; 1991 a. 32.
907.06 AnnotationAs sub. (1) prevents a court from compelling an expert to testify, it logically follows that a litigant should not be able to so compel an expert and a privilege to refuse to testify is implied. Burnett v. Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72, 589 N.W.2d 21 (1999), 96-3356.
907.06 AnnotationUnder Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72 (1999), a person asserting the privilege not to offer expert opinion testimony can be required to give that testimony only if: 1) there are compelling circumstances present; 2) there is a plan for reasonable compensation of the expert; and 3) the expert will not be required to do additional preparation for the testimony. An exact question requiring expert opinion testimony and a clear assertion of the privilege are required for a court to decide whether compelling circumstances exist. Alt does not apply to observations made by a person’s treating physician relating to the care or treatment provided to the patient. Glenn v. Plante, 2004 WI 24, 269 Wis. 2d 575, 676 N.W.2d 413, 02-1426.
907.06 AnnotationUnder Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72 (1999), and Glenn, 2004 WI 24, a medical witness must testify about the witness’s own conduct relevant to the case, including observations and thought processes, treatment of the patient, why certain actions were taken, what institutional rules the witness believed applied, and the witness’s training and education pertaining to the relevant subject. Subject to the compelling need exception recognized in Alt and Glenn, a medical witness who is unwilling to testify as an expert cannot be forced to give an opinion of the standard of care applicable to another person or of the treatment provided by another person. A medical witness who is alleged to have caused injury to the plaintiff by medical negligence may be required to give an opinion on the standard of care governing the witness’s own conduct. Carney-Hayes v. Northwest Wisconsin Home Care, Inc., 2005 WI 118, 284 Wis. 2d 56, 699 N.W.2d 524, 03-1801.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Carney-Hayes Ex Rel. McCormack v. Nw. Wisconsin Home Care, Inc., 2005 WI 118 (Wis. 2005).
Carney-Hayes Ex Rel. McCormack v. Nw. Wisconsin Home Care, Inc., 2005 WI 118 (Wis. 2005). “The Alt court held that Acosta did not have to answer these questions, recognizing a privilege inherent in Wis. Stat. § 907.06 . [3] That statute, entitled "Court Appointed Experts," allows a circuit judge to appoint an expert, but provides that "An expert witness shall not be…”
Imposition of Sanctions in Alt v. Cline, 589 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 1999). “We conclude that a witness's privilege to refuse to provide expert testimony is inherent in Wis. Stat. § 907.06 . Any other result would be inconsistent and fly in the face of logic.”
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2010 WI 54 (Wis. 2010). “As such, Hauser argues that the court erred by preventing him from using all of the tools of the adversary system to challenge and counter the special magistrate's conclusions. ś 76 The Wisconsin statutes authorize a court to appoint a referee to determine "matters of account"…”
Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist., 2008 WI 89 (Wis. 2008). “06 (1) precluding expert witnesses from being appointed against their will; cases identifying qualified privileges for journalists under Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and cases that address the importance of protecting candor in the decision-making process.”
State v. Anthony James Jendusa, 2021 WI 24 (Wis. 2021). “Alt based this privilege on the text of Wis. Stat. § 907.06 , which predicated a court's appointment of an expert witness on the expert witness' "consent[].”
Glenn v. Plante, 2004 WI 24 (Wis. 2004). “8 We concluded that Wis. Stat. § 907.06 conferred a privilege on witnesses to refuse to provide such expert opinion testimony.”
Konsul v. Asensio, 316 Neb. 874 (Neb. 2024). “2d 21, 26 (1999) that “a witness’s privilege to refuse to provide expert testimony is inherent in Wis. Stat. § 907.06 ,” which required consent of a court-appointed expert witness.”
Payment of Witness Fees in State v. Huisman, 482 N.W.2d 665 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “2 The SPD suggests that because Derozier had already been appointed by the court to examine Huisman, Finne could have merely subpoenaed him pursuant to sec. 907.06, Stats. Even if this were true, the statute does not suggest compensation by the county.”
Aurora Consol. Health Care & Sentry Ins. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2012 WI 49 (Wis. 2012). “Additionally, Wis. Stat. § 907.06 (1), which deals with court-appointed experts, expressly provides that the experts shall be subject to cross-examination: .”
Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 79 (Wis. 2023). “26 It is What 26 are the parameters of the consultant's responsibilities, and under what constitutional or statutory authority do they operate? Are they and their decisions reviewable and subject to cross-examination, as court-appointed expert witnesses are? Wis. Stat. § 907.06…”
Herro v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 227 N.W.2d 456 (Wis. 1975). “Sec. 907.06, Stats., Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, 59 Wis.”
F. R. v. T. B., 593 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Spierer was a court-appointed witness, and his compensation was governed by § 907.06, Stats. T.B. disagrees, stating that the trial court never formally appointed Dr.”
— Wis. Stat. § 907.06(1) — 7 cases
Carney-Hayes Ex Rel. McCormack v. Nw. Wisconsin Home Care, Inc., 2005 WI 118 (Wis. 2005). “The Alt court held that Acosta did not have to answer these questions, recognizing a privilege inherent in Wis. Stat. § 907.06 . [3] That statute, entitled "Court Appointed Experts," allows a circuit judge to appoint an expert, but provides that "An expert witness shall not be…”
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2010 WI 54 (Wis. 2010). “As such, Hauser argues that the court erred by preventing him from using all of the tools of the adversary system to challenge and counter the special magistrate's conclusions. ś 76 The Wisconsin statutes authorize a court to appoint a referee to determine "matters of account"…”
Imposition of Sanctions in Alt v. Cline, 589 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 1999). “We conclude that a witness's privilege to refuse to provide expert testimony is inherent in Wis. Stat. § 907.06 . Any other result would be inconsistent and fly in the face of logic.”
Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist., 2008 WI 89 (Wis. 2008). “06 (1) precluding expert witnesses from being appointed against their will; cases identifying qualified privileges for journalists under Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and cases that address the importance of protecting candor in the decision-making process.”
F. R. v. T. B., 593 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Spierer was a court-appointed witness, and his compensation was governed by § 907.06, Stats. T.B. disagrees, stating that the trial court never formally appointed Dr.”
— Wis. Stat. § 907.06(2) — 4 cases
Payment of Witness Fees in State v. Huisman, 482 N.W.2d 665 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “2 The SPD suggests that because Derozier had already been appointed by the court to examine Huisman, Finne could have merely subpoenaed him pursuant to sec. 907.06, Stats. Even if this were true, the statute does not suggest compensation by the county.”
Ethelyn I.C. v. Waukesha Cnty., 584 N.W.2d 211 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
F. R. v. T. B., 593 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Spierer was a court-appointed witness, and his compensation was governed by § 907.06, Stats. T.B. disagrees, stating that the trial court never formally appointed Dr.”
Fr v. Tb, 593 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
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.