Generally, in Wisconsin, when it comes to workers compensation injury claims, the concept of fault is not relevant, meaning if an employee clumsily trips over a box on the floor and blows out their knee, workers compensation benefits cannot be denied because they were negligent. Yet, there is a category of claims in workers compensation where the concept of “fault” is punishable and that is with Penalty Claims against employers and insurance carriers under Chapter 102.

Client R.S. hired Mays Law Office to represent him in the recovery of workers compensation benefits due to a work injury to his shoulder that occurred in January 2022 while working for a home food delivery service. Attorney Pierobon Mays litigated the claim and it successfully settled. With this, the parties entered into a written Compromise Agreement under Wisconsin Chapter 102 which governs workers compensation claims and benefits in Wisconsin. The assigned judge approved the Agreement and issued an Order dated June 15, 2023. Under Wisconsin law, the workers compensation insurance carrier has 21 days to issue payment to the injured worker. Meaning, the check must be dropped in the mail by Day 21, which in this case was July 5, 2023. Payment of the monies set forth in the June 15, 2023 Order was not received by R.S. within the 21 days prescribed in the Order. Always advocating for her clients, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays filed two penalty claims on behalf of Client R.S. The first was Delay in Payment which under Wisconsin Statute 102.22 reads:

If any sum that the department or the division (Office of Worker’s Compensation Hearings) orders to be paid is NOT PAID WHEN DUE, that sum shall bear interest at the rate of 10%

In addition, Attorney Pierobon Mays also filed for Bad Faith which under Wisconsin Statute sec. 102.18 reads in relevant part:

If the division determines that the insurance carrier failed to make payments as a result of malice or bad faith. The division may include a penalty in an award to an employee for each event or occurrence of malice or bad faith. The division may award an amount that the division considers just, not to exceed the lesser of 200 percent of total compensation due or $30,000 for each event or occurrence of malice or bad faith.

Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays alleged both Bad Faith and Delay In Payment due to the workers compensation carrier’s failure to timely pay the monies per the Order of June 15, 2023.  Remember, payment was due to be issued no later than July 5, 2023 but the insurance carrier did not issue payment until July 14, 2023 – 10 days past the 21-day deadline, which only occurred because Attorney Pierobon Mays hounded the insurance carrier for payment.  What angered Attorney Pierobon Mays was the fact that the Attorney for the workers compensation carrier received the issued Order in plenty of time for payment to be made.  Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays even sent a courtesy reminder e-mail prior to the deadline reminding him of such Order and encouraged communication of the deadline by him to his client!  Yet, to Attorney Pierobon Mays’ dismay, the check was still not issued timely, and more time passed despite Attorney Pierobon Mays inquiring as to the late issuance of them.  To date, the only explanation that has ever been provided by opposing counsel was that R.S’s file was transferred from one office to another office, which might have caused the delay but such is unknown.  

Ultimately, the workers compensation carrier knew they were in a no-win situation by being hit with both penalty claims and needed to save face with the Division for their bad behavior, so they conceded (waved the white flag) and accepted responsibility for the Delay in Payment Penalty of 10% for the amounts owed under the Order to R.S.

While this was good for R.S, Attorney Pierobon Mays was not going to take her foot off the insurance company’s neck. She demanded more for R.S. under the second penalty claim, Bad Faith. In Wisconsin, Bad Faith will be found when the insurance carrier lacks a reasonable basis for the suspension/delay of benefits. Meaning administrative mistakes can be made and forgiven without penalty, but there must be some credible evidence in favor of giving an insurance company the benefit of the doubt in their error. Attorney Pierobon Mays needed to demonstrate that the insurance carrier acted with an absence of honest, intelligent action or consideration based upon a knowledge of the facts and circumstances. So bad faith cannot be unintentional.

In this case, considering the facts and circumstances, the worker’s compensation carrier was represented by competent legal counsel who had timely written notice of the dated Order. In addition, Attorney Pierobon Mays even communicated the on-coming deadline with their legal counsel. Claiming an absence of an honest intelligent error on the part of the insurance carrier was not likely where they had an attorney advising them.

Ultimately, the worker’s compensation carrier decided to settle the Bad Faith Penalty claim rather than pay on-going legal fees to its legal counsel to fight a losing claim that could cost them as much as $30,000. Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays encouraged Client R.S. to accept the settlement, who was pleased considering he was only delayed his original monies by 10 days. Moreover, he did not incur any financial hardship over the 10-day delay. The expression “a bird in the hand is better than one in the bush” rings true as litigation can take months to resolve, and it can never be predicted what a Judge might do at a hearing with an insurance company claiming all sorts of reasons for an honest error.

Mays Law Office never stops advocating for their clients. Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays is involved from the first to the last phone call. She knows the law and holds the workers compensation insurance carrier to it. She has no fear when it comes to holding insurance companies accountable to her client’s. Perhaps this is another reason why Mays Law Office has a 5-Star rating with their clients for satisfaction of representation. If you feel that you have been unfairly treated in the timeliness and recovery of benefits, then call Mays Law Office. Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays will speak directly to you and is happy to offer a free consultation to answer all of your questions and review your workers compensation injury claim.

You face severe consequences if arrested for driving under the influence in Wisconsin. Wisconsin law establishes two separate drunk driving offenses—operating while intoxicated (OWI) and working with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC)—both carry steep penalties.

As a result, if you are facing charges after a drunk driving arrest, you need to defend yourself by all means available. Depending on the circumstances of your case, this may involve asserting various constitutional rights.

Using Your Constitutional Protections When Charged with OWI or PAC

Your constitutional rights protect you during all phases of your drunk driving case—from the moment the police pull you over through the end of your trial. If the police, prosecutors, or the court violate your constitutional rights, this may entitle you to a dismissal, retrial, or other remedies. Since an OWI or PAC conviction can negatively impact all aspects of your life, it is essential to make sure that you assert your constitutional rights to the fullest extent possible.

The constitutional protections that apply in Wisconsin OWI/PAC cases include:

1. Your Constitutional Rights While Driving

When driving, the police cannot stop you for any reason. Under the Fourth Amendment, to conduct a traffic stop, the police must have “reasonable suspicion” that you have committed (or are in the process of achieving) a traffic offense or crime. If the police stopped you without reasonable suspicion, all the evidence they obtained due to your traffic stop may be inadmissible in court. Without admissible evidence, prosecutors won’t be able to secure a conviction.

Racial profiling is an example of a reason for a traffic stop that lacks reasonable suspicion. If the police pulled you over because of your skin color, you do not deserve to face any consequences due to your unconstitutional traffic stop.

2. The Protection Against Warrantless Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment also prohibits the police from conducting warrantless searches and seizures in many cases. While there are some exceptions, the general rule is that the police need a warrant to search your vehicle. The exceptions include:

• Plain View – If the police can see into your vehicle through the glass or an open window, they can observe anything in plain view.
• Exigent Circumstances – If the police believe you may flee the scene with evidence in your vehicle, these “exigent circumstances” may justify a warrantless search.
• Consent – Finally, if you consent to a search (whether you realize you agree), the police can search your vehicle without a warrant.

If the police search for a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, this can also render any evidence inadmissible in court. Once again, if prosecutors don’t have proof they can use to prove that you were driving while intoxicated or with a prohibited alcohol concentration, you may be entitled to walk free.

3. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

The privilege against self-incrimination exists under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You do not have to say anything prosecutors can use against you—even if asked directly by the police during an OWI/PAC stop.

Once the police place you in custody, they must read your Miranda rights. This well-known speech from movies and TV shows includes, “Anything you say can and will be used against you in court.” If the police fail to read your Miranda rights before interrogating you in custody, you may be entitled to keep anything you said out of your criminal trial.

4. The Constitutional Requirement for Probable Cause to Make an Arrest

Going back to the Fourth Amendment, the police must have “probable cause” to make an arrest. This is a higher standard than “reasonable suspicion.” While a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC), failure of the field sobriety tests (FSTs), stumbling, slurred speech, and impaired driving may all establish probable cause, if the police lacked probable cause, this can serve as a defense in your OWI or PAC case as well.

5. Your Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles you to a fair trial. This means you are entitled to know the evidence prosecutors intend to use against you in court. It also means that prosecutors must generally disclose any exculpatory evidence that they have in their possession. If prosecutors withhold evidence before your OWI or PAC trial, this violation of your Sixth Amendment rights may provide grounds to seek a dismissal.

6. Your Constitutional Right to a Trial By an Impartial Jury

In Wisconsin, you have the right to a trial by jury when facing an OWI or PAC charge. Under the Sixth Amendment, if you request a jury trial, the jurors who decide your fate must be impartial. If the court allows for a biased or discriminatory jury and you get convicted, this may provide grounds to challenge your conviction.

7. Your Constitutional Right to an Attorney

Finally, and most importantly, in many respects, you also have the constitutional right to an attorney. You can (and should) hire an attorney to represent you at all stages of your OWI or PAC case, from your initial appearance through your trial. Your attorney will be able to determine if police, prosecutors, or the court have violated your constitutional rights. If so, your attorney can take appropriate legal action on your behalf. Of course, this is in addition to asserting any other defenses you may have available.

Discuss Your Drunk Driving Case with an Experience Defense Lawyer in Madison, WI

Are you facing an OWI or PAC charge in Wisconsin? If so, we encourage you to contact us promptly for more information. To discuss your case with an experienced defense lawyer in Madison, WI, as soon as possible, call 608-302-6614 or request a free consultation online today.

Denied benefits after suffering a work injury?  If so, never assume that a denial of Wisconsin workers compensation benefits is appropriate.  Here is an example of an injured Wisconsin worker who had his workers compensation benefits wrongfully denied.  After hiring Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays of Mays Law Office, she got him his benefits within just one week. 

J. L. hired Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays of Mays Law Office on July 18, 2023 after his workers compensation claim for lost time benefits was denied by the workers compensation insurance carrier who claimed that accommodating work would have been available for Mr. Langsted had he not voluntarily terminated his position after being injured at his employer’s place of business.

As background, in Wisconsin, an injured worker is entitled to temporary total disability, or lost time benefits, for actual wages lost while healing due to a work injury.  The healing period is when the injured worker is undergoing medical treatment, therapy, and rest yet still suffering from the injury.  In J.L.’s case, he was restricted from any and all level of work, and therefore suffering complete wage loss. In this case, Wisconsin law requires that he receive 2/3 of his average weekly wage tax free.  Such lost time benefits continue until the treating medical doctor believes that he has reached a healing plateau, or maximum medical improvement.       

Before hiring Mays Law Office, J. L. made multiple attempts on his own to get the Insurance Adjusters to respond to his communications of complete wage loss, but he could not get them to return his messages and inquiries.

Immediately after being hired by J.L. on July 18, 2023, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays sent an email to the involved Adjuster and her Supervisor providing the history of documented physical restrictions and informing them of the above Wisconsin law on lost time benefits when injured on the job.  Mays Law Office received no response so Attorney Pierobon Mays left detailed voice messages with both Adjusters on Friday July 21 and 25, 2023 verbally warning that a penalty claim for Bad Faith would be filed with the Wisconsin Office of Workers Compensation Hearings, on behalf of J.L, by Mays Law Office if the Wisconsin law was not followed.  In the process, Mays Law Office also procured a supportive report from J.L.’s medical doctor clarifying, in writing, the doctor’s opinion on cause and physical restrictions. 

For background, a penalty claim for Bad Faith in Wisconsin can trigger an additional award of either 200% of the total benefit amount due the injured worker or $30,000 if the insurance company’s failure to pay benefits is due to malice, reckless disregard, or bad faith.  Wisconsin case law has defined reckless disregard as an “absence of honest, intelligent action or consideration based upon the knowledge of the facts and circumstances.”  So, a workers compensation adjuster who knowingly does not follow Wisconsin’s law after being instructed on it, as done by Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays in this case, walks a fine line that crosses over into bad faith for intentional bad behavior if they stubbornly choose to continue to not pay an injured worker his entitled workers compensation benefits.

Within one week, on July 25, 2023, after considering Attorney Lisa Pierobon’s Mays communications and intended involvement, the Adjuster was forced to accept J.L.’s claim for lost time benefits going back to July 20, 2023 and into the future.

If it had not been for Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays with her 27 years of experience in knowing the intricacies of Wisconsin workers compensation law and acting quickly and aggressively, J. L. would still be without his lost time benefits.  The Adjusters continued to assert their denial of benefits based on an alleged claim that J.L. voluntarily terminated his job with the employer claiming that such employer would have had accommodating work available for him had he not quit and therefore he waived any lost-time benefits.  However, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays informed the Adjusters that such an argument was irrelevant because the restrictions of No Work for J.L. by his medical doctor immediately triggered the payment of lost time benefits regardless of whether J.L. quit or did not quit.  In essence, the Adjusters needed to be educated on the Wisconsin law and instructed on what the repercussions would be if they did not follow it.

Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays takes great pride in regularly catching workers compensation insurance carriers in their wrong doings.  Some Wisconsin worker’s compensation attorneys will not take on claims unless there is serious permanent disability suffered by the injured worker and then they wait to pursue the injured workers claim for months only to settle it before a hearing.  If Attorney Pierobon Mays spots a missed benefit that an injured worker is entitled to, such as medical treatment and mileage reimbursement, she will instruct the worker how to pursue it with the adjuster.  If complicated, like in J.L.’s case, she will take on the fight and go after the worker’s compensation insurance carrier immediately.  Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays has built a strong reputation on being aggressive and swift in such claims.  Fellow attorneys, insurance adjusters and carriers know her reputation for being a strong advocate for her client’s and her client’s have spoken out too.  Check out the Google reviews for Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays and Mays Law Office.  They have achieved a 5 Star rating from Google based on positive comments and reviews from their past client’s.

Do not hesitate to call Mays Law Office and request a free consultation with Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays.  She is always happy to speak with injured Wisconsin workers who have questions about their work injury and benefits.  She will patiently review the facts and circumstances of your injury, medical treatment, and explain all workers compensation benefits available to you under Wisconsin law.  Lisa will give her thoughts and suggestions and take notes to save in the event future discussions are necessary.  When applicable, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays will schedule an in-office meeting with you if formal legal representation is warranted.

As much as the attorneys at Mays Law Office relish achieving a win in a good old-fashioned dogfight in the courtroom, it is often determined and calculated advocacy outside the courtroom that is the best and sometimes only path to success.  Some of Attorney John Orth’s recent accomplishments illustrate this truth. 

While on probation for 10 counts of theft and robbery, R.A. was arrested for 14 additional counts of criminal charges, primarily theft and drug possession.  She was confined to jail on a probation hold and proceedings to revoke her probation were initiated.  Both episodes were clearly motivated by R.A.’s addiction.  Despite the severity of both the original and new charges, Attorney Orth was able to persuade both her probation agent and the prosecuting attorney that the inadequacy of her previous treatment plan was the root cause of reoffending.  After helping her to secure placement at a long-term treatment facility, Attorney Orth was able to avoid the revocation of her probation and secure a disposition on the new charges that avoided any further reincarceration. 

F.J. was charged with felony stalking based on repeated threats of physical harm to a roommate.  While in jail, F.J.’s former guardian contacted Attorney Orth to defend F.J.  Upon digging into the circumstances surrounding his case and meeting with him, it became evident that F.J., a young man with no prior criminal record who had endured a tremendously tragic childhood, was in the midst of a mental health crisis.  Attorney Orth’s first priority was to ensure that F.J.’s mental health needs were met.  Once F.J. was stabilized, Attorney Orth was able to quickly convince the prosecuting attorney that F.J. had no criminal intentions and that he simply needed help.  Within two weeks of F.J. being charged, Attorney Orth was able get the charge reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor and secure a disposition that would result in F.J.’s record being expunged upon completion of two years of probation.

R.E. was out for dinner with a relative and unbeknownst to him, law enforcement was in the process of searching his car in the restaurant parking lot under dubious pretenses.  The search resulted in the confiscation of a firearm (lawfully owned by R.E.) and a substantial quantity of suspected marijuana.  He was arrested and charged with possession of THC with intent to deliver, a Class I Felony.  Between the questionable grounds for searching the vehicle in the first place and strong evidence that R.E. had no connection to or even knowledge of the contraband seized from his vehicle, Attorney Orth had no doubt that he would be able to secure dismissal of the charge, whether through pre-trial litigation, or if need be, through a not guilty verdict at trial.  However, for an upstanding young man like R.E., justice delayed would be justice denied and Attorney Orth was determined that R.E. not be subjected to legal meat grinder that the criminal justice system can often be.  By opening the channels of communication with the District Attorney’s Office before R.E. had even had a bail hearing and vigorously advocating on behalf of R.E., Attorney Orth was able to get the case against R.E. dismissed outright within a mere seven days of it being filed.

S.R. was charged with criminal disorderly conduct, unlawful use of a telephone and harassment stemming from a bitter dispute with the staff of a healthcare facility in which his wife was a patient.  While the healthcare facility staff was adamant that S.R. be prosecuted for his actions, Attorney Orth was able to successfully portray the altercations as uncharacteristic outbursts caused by the unique circumstances of dealing with the stresses of his wife’s illness and all charges against S.R. were dismissed outright.

D.B. was charged with two criminal counts of disorderly conduct as acts of domestic abuse after his wife contacted police and alleged that he had engaged in threatening and abusive conduct towards her and the elder of their two sons.  Being domestic abuse-related offenses, a conviction on either count would result in a lifetime ban on the possession of firearm.  In addition to being an avid hunter, D.B. was greatly concerned about how a conviction could impact his prospects of child custody and placement in a parallel family law case.  Beyond the criminal charges, D.B.s wife filed a petition for a domestic abuse injunction to prohibit her from having further contact with her and barring him from returning to his home.  While previous counsel was unable to prevent the injunction from being granted, Attorney Orth was able to turn the testimony of D.B.’s wife at the injunction hearing against her.  Pointing to inconsistencies between her statements to police, her testimony at the hearing, and her statements in her injunction petition, coupled with statements from other family members gathered by a privately retained independent investigator, Attorney Orth was able to convince the prosecuting attorney that the State would be unable to secure a criminal conviction.  The charges were reduced to a single non-criminal, non-domestic civil ticket for a nominal monetary forfeiture.

Client N.B. turned to our office with serious drug charges including maintaining a drug trafficking place and possession of cocaine.  Her arrest was the culmination of an investigation including dozens of controlled drug purchases at her place of business by confidential informants working under the supervision of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and local law enforcement.  Moreover, cocaine was found on her person when she was booked into jail.  While N.B. was lawfully residing in the U.S., she was not a citizen and potentially subject to deportation.  And any federally recognized drug conviction is grounds for deportation.  Given the extent of incriminating evidence, the prospect of running the table with not guilty verdicts at trial would be unlikely at best.  However, working with investigators Attorney Orth was able to substantiate that N.B. was in fact trapped against her will in a toxic relationship with a manipulative and violent drug dealer who was forcing her to allow him to use her place of business as a front for his criminal activity.  Attorney Orth was then able to persuade the prosecuting attorney to drop all criminal charges against N.B. and instead simply issue her a non-criminal ticket, little more than a warning, thus avoiding any criminal record or danger of deportation.

All drivers in Wisconsin are subject to the state’s “implied consent” law. This law comes into play when the police pull you over on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI); and if you violate the state’s implied consent law during your traffic stop, this can have serious consequences.

Not only can it have serious consequences in your DUI case, but you can also face charges under Wisconsin’s implied consent law. While Wisconsin’s DUI laws and the implied consent law go hand-in-hand, an implied consent violation is its own stand-alone offense. This means that even if you aren’t guilty of DUI, you can still be found guilty of an implied consent violation. As we discuss below, implied consent violations carry significant penalties—and, again, these penalties apply regardless of whether you are guilty of DUI.

What is Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law

Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law: An Overview

The first step toward understanding Wisconsin’s implied consent law is understanding what is meant by “implied consent.” Section 343.305(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes defines this term as follows:

“Any person who . . . operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state. . . is deemed to have given consent to one or more tests of his or her breath, blood or urine, for the purpose of determining the presence or quantity in his or her blood or breath, of alcohol, controlled substances, . . . or other drugs . . . when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer [] or when required to do so under [Wisconsin’s DUI laws].”

In short, the act of driving on Wisconsin’s public roads acts as your voluntary consent (or implied consent) to a breath, blood, or urine test when the police pull you over on suspicion of DUI. If you refuse to take a breath, blood, or urine test when requested to do so, this can be prosecuted as an implied consent violation. However, there are conditions on your obligation to submit to testing (most often a breath test conducted using a breathalyzer device); and, if the police officer who pulls you over does not satisfy all of these conditions, then you may be within your right to refuse to provide a sample.

For example, Section 343.305(4) of the Wisconsin Statute states that the officer must provide the following information when requesting a breath, blood, or urine test:

• “You have either been arrested for an offense that involves driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, or you are the operator of a vehicle that was involved in an accident that caused the death of, great bodily harm to, or substantial bodily harm to a person, or you are suspected of driving or being on duty time with respect to a commercial motor vehicle after consuming an intoxicating beverage.
• “This law enforcement agency now wants to test one or more samples of your breath, blood or urine to determine the concentration of alcohol or drugs in your system. If any test shows more alcohol in your system than the law permits while driving, your operating privilege will be suspended. If you refuse to take any test that this agency requests, your operating privilege will be revoked and you will be subject to other penalties. The test results or the fact that you refused testing can be used against you in court.
• “If you take all the requested tests, you may choose to take further tests. You may take the alternative test that this law enforcement agency provides free of charge. You also may have a test conducted by a qualified person of your choice at your expense. You, however, will have to make your own arrangements for that test.
• “If you have a commercial driver’s license or were operating a commercial motor vehicle, other consequences may result from positive test results or from refusing testing, such as being placed out of service or disqualified.”

Wisconsin’s implied consent law includes specific testing requirements as well. These requirements range from specific procedures for breath tests and blood draws to certification requirements for individuals who conduct breath, blood, and urine analyses. Failure to comply with the applicable requirements can render the test results invalid or unreliable—and raising questions about the validity or reliability of a breath, blood, or urine test can be a key defense strategy in many DUI cases.

Consequences of Violating Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law

As mentioned above, if you violate Wisconsin’s implied consent law by refusing to submit to testing (when the police have met all applicable requirements), you can face significant penalties regardless of whether you are ultimately found guilty of DUI. In Wisconsin, the penalties for implied consent violations can include:

• Driver’s license suspension (12 months)
• Mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device (IID)
• Alcohol assessment and treatment

If sentenced to an IID or alcohol assessment and treatment, you will be required to comply at your expense; and, if you lose your driver’s license, you will have to pay to get your license reinstated when the suspension ends.

Even more importantly, if you unlawfully refuse a breath, blood, or urine test, prosecutors can use your refusal against you in your DUI case. Essentially, they can say that the fact that you refused testing shows that you knew you were too drunk to drive. Of course, this isn’t necessarily the case, and most Wisconsin residents aren’t familiar with the implied consent law’s requirements. This is a fact (among many others) that an experienced defense lawyer may be able to use in your favor. With substantial fines, surcharges, and possibly even jail time on the table, you will need to work with an experienced defense lawyer to fight your DUI (and your implied consent violation) by all means available.

Discuss Your Case with an Experienced DUI Defense Lawyer in Madison, WI

If you are facing the consequences of refusing a breath, blood, or urine test during a DUI stop in Wisconsin, we encourage you to contact us promptly for more information. Call 608-257-0440 or request a free consultation online to speak with an experienced DUI defense lawyer in Madison, WI as soon as possible.