Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 943.395 (2026)
Fraudulent insurance and employee benefit program claims
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
943.395(1)(1) Whoever, knowing it to be false or fraudulent, does any of the following may be penalized as provided in sub. (2):
943.395(1)(a)(a) Presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim, or any proof in support of such claim, to be paid under any contract or certificate of insurance.
943.395(1)(b)(b) Prepares, makes or subscribes to a false or fraudulent account, certificate, affidavit, proof of loss or other document or writing, with knowledge that the same may be presented or used in support of a claim for payment under a policy of insurance.
943.395(1)(c)(c) Presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim or benefit application, or any false or fraudulent proof in support of such a claim or benefit application, or false or fraudulent information which would affect a future claim or benefit application, to be paid under any employee benefit program created by ch. 40.
943.395(1)(d)(d) Makes any misrepresentation in or with reference to any application for membership or documentary or other proof for the purpose of obtaining membership in or noninsurance benefit from any fraternal subject to chs. 600 to 646, for himself or herself or any other person.
943.395(1)(e)(e) Presents an application for worker’s compensation insurance coverage that is false or fraudulent or that falsely or fraudulently misclassifies employees to lower worker’s compensation insurance premiums.
943.395(2)(a)(a) Is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the claim or benefit does not exceed $2,500.
943.395 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 214; 1975 c. 373, 421; 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 89; 1981 c. 96; 1987 a. 349; 1991 a. 39; 2001 a. 16, 109; 2015 a. 197 s. 51; 2025 a. 145.
943.395 AnnotationThe “value of the claim” under sub. (2) refers to the amount of the entire claim and not the fraudulent portion. State v. Briggs, 214 Wis. 2d 281, 571 N.W.2d 881 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0439.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: State v. Briggs, 571 N.W.2d 881 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Briggs, 571 N.W.2d 881 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Briggs's second argument is that his right to a unanimous verdict was violated because, based on bis proffered interpretation of § 943.395, Stats., the State had the burden of specifying in its information and complaint the items on the proof of loss alleged to be false or…”
State v. West, 571 N.W.2d 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “2 Count one charged West with a violation of § 943.395(2) (a), Stats. That statute reads, "(2) Whoever violates this section: (a) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the claim or benefit does not exceed $1,000.”
State v. DeSmidt, 454 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1990). “(1983-84), and four counts of insurance fraud, in violation of sec. 943.395, Stats. (1983-84). A preliminary examination was held and on January 23, 1987, the circuit court bound Dr.”
Logan v. State, 48 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. App. 2001). “" would refer only to property fraudulently claimed or to the total amount claimed is an open issue under Utah law, as no court has addressed the question.”
State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016). “”); Wis. Stat. § 943.395 (l)(a) (2011) (“Whoever, knowing it to be false or fraudulent, does any of the following may be penalized[:] .”
United States ex rel. Bergman v. Abbot Labs., 995 F. Supp. 2d 357 (E.D. Pa. 2014). “Nevertheless, because they do still include criminally fraudulent behavior within that range, the statutes may have some punitive character.”
Karen Widenski v. ProHealth Care, Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 943.395. Finally, we conclude Widenski’s general assertion of a duty to investigate is not cognizable under the statutes.”
Amended June 22, 2016 State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas (Iowa 2016). “”); Wis. Stat. § 943.395 (1)(a) (2011) (“Whoever, knowing it to be false or fraudulent, does any of the following may be penalized[:] .”
State v. Kevin Joseph Grant (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§§ 943.395(1)(a), (2)(b); 973.01(2)(b)9., (d)6.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.395(1) — 1 case
State v. Briggs, 571 N.W.2d 881 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Briggs's second argument is that his right to a unanimous verdict was violated because, based on bis proffered interpretation of § 943.395, Stats., the State had the burden of specifying in its information and complaint the items on the proof of loss alleged to be false or…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.395(1)(a) — 2 cases
Karen Widenski v. ProHealth Care, Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 943.395. Finally, we conclude Widenski’s general assertion of a duty to investigate is not cognizable under the statutes.”
State v. Kevin Joseph Grant (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§§ 943.395(1)(a), (2)(b); 973.01(2)(b)9., (d)6.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.395(2) — 1 case
State v. West, 571 N.W.2d 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “2 Count one charged West with a violation of § 943.395(2) (a), Stats. That statute reads, "(2) Whoever violates this section: (a) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the claim or benefit does not exceed $1,000.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.395(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Briggs, 571 N.W.2d 881 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Briggs's second argument is that his right to a unanimous verdict was violated because, based on bis proffered interpretation of § 943.395, Stats., the State had the burden of specifying in its information and complaint the items on the proof of loss alleged to be false or…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.395(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Briggs, 571 N.W.2d 881 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Briggs's second argument is that his right to a unanimous verdict was violated because, based on bis proffered interpretation of § 943.395, Stats., the State had the burden of specifying in its information and complaint the items on the proof of loss alleged to be false or…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.395(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. West, 571 N.W.2d 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “2 Count one charged West with a violation of § 943.395(2) (a), Stats. That statute reads, "(2) Whoever violates this section: (a) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the claim or benefit does not exceed $1,000.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.395(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Briggs, 571 N.W.2d 881 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Briggs's second argument is that his right to a unanimous verdict was violated because, based on bis proffered interpretation of § 943.395, Stats., the State had the burden of specifying in its information and complaint the items on the proof of loss alleged to be false or…”
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.