STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

KEVIN FRIEDERS, Applicant

ABBEY ON LAKE GENEVA, Employer

MICHIGAN MUTUAL INS CO, Insurer

WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECISION
Claim No. 97002313

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.

ORDER

The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.

Dated and mailed November 19, 1997
friedke.wsd : 132 : 8  ND § 5.46

Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

David B. Falstad, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The applicant has petitioned for commission review of the adverse order of the administrative law judge which dismissed his application because the statute of limitations had run. The applicant argues in his petition that the commission's note attached to its order in Kulinski v. Inland Diesel Inc., WC Hearing No. 92-078876 (Aug. 3, 1993), articulated a policy to the effect that an insurer's obligation to make treatment expenses for a compensable injury continues after the statute of limitations has run where the applicant has properly notified the employer and received initial treatment.

The commission's August 3 order in Kulinski was followed by a second order dated February 7, 1994. To the extent the commission's August 3 order indicated that the insurer's obligation to pay medical expenses survived the running of the statute of limitations, that order was issued in error. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Lisney v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 171 Wis. 2nd 499, (1992), held that based on Wis. Stat. § 102.42 (1) a final order did not end an insurer's obligation to pay medical expenses "subject to the statute of limitations." The commission does not find such reference to the statute of limitations to be ambiguous. The employer's obligation to pay for treatment expenses is an obligation that is extinguished upon running of the statute of limitations. For these reasons, the commission affirms the administrative law judge's order dismissing the application.

cc:

ATTORNEY BRIAN W RIEMER
RIEMER LAW OFFICES

ATTORNEY JAMES G NOWAKOWSKI
HALLING & CAYO SC

[ Search WC Decisions ]  - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]