Wisconsin Senate Bill SB229

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/29/25
• Refer: 4/29/25

Caption

Transferring adjudicatory functions for worker’s compensation from the Division of Hearings and Appeals in the Department of Administration to the Department of Workforce Development. (FE)

Impact

The enactment of SB229 would significantly alter how worker's compensation claims are managed within the state. By consolidating adjudication functions, the DWD will have the authority to expedite the resolution of claims, potentially leading to faster decision-making and payment processes for injured workers. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of maintaining cost controls while ensuring that proper oversight is exerted over health service providers and insurers involved in such claims. Notably, the bill mandates that health service providers may not collect fees for disputed treatments during the adjudication process, which emphasizes the intention to protect workers during claim disputes.

Summary

Senate Bill 229 aims to streamline worker's compensation processes in Wisconsin by transferring the adjudicatory functions related to disputed claims from the Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA) in the Department of Administration to the Department of Workforce Development (DWD). This change is intended to create a more cohesive administrative framework under one department, thereby improving efficiency in handling worker's compensation claims. The bill outlines the responsibilities and jurisdictions of the DWD as it relates to resolving disputes between health service providers and insurers regarding the necessity and reasonableness of treatment costs for injured employees.

Contention

Some points of contention surrounding SB229 include concerns from stakeholders about the adequacy of resources and staffing at the DWD to handle increased responsibilities. Critics worry that the consolidation might lead to slower responses if the department is not adequately funded or staffed. The bill may also face scrutiny from health service providers who fear that stringent regulations on the necessity of treatment could limit their practice and autonomy when treating injured employees. Overall, while the intentions behind the bill are aimed at efficiency and clarity, debates on implementation and fairness in the adjudication process are likely to persist.