Wisconsin Legislature: Text

ETF 52.06 (6) (a) is amended to clarify when an applicant may withdraw an application for duty disability benefits.

ETF 52.06 (7) (a) is amended to clarify language.

ETF 52.06 (7) (b) is amended to clarify requirements for submitting certain duty disability applications under presumption statutes for heart, lung disease and certain cancers.

ETF 52.06 (7) (b) 1. and 2. are amended to clarify that service need not have been continuous and the current employer of a fire fighter may verify and certify past qualifying service.

ETF 52.06 (7) (b) 3. is amended to clarify how an employer certifies a fire fighter's qualifying medical examination.

ETF 52.06 (7) (bm) is created section to clarify requirements for employer certification when applying for duty disability benefits pursuant to s. 891.453, Stats.

ETF 52.06 (7) (c) is clarified regarding the use of evidence when the Department determines eligibility for duty disability benefits based on certain presumptive diseases.

ETF 52.07 (3) (b) is amended to clarify that the employer assigns the applicant to light duty even if a light duty position isn't available.

ETF 52.07 (3) (c) and (d) are amended to clarify what constitutes a reduction in pay for purposes of duty disability benefits administration.

ETF 52.07 (4) is amended to clarify and remove “merely" from the phrase “merely temporary."

ETF 52.08 (3) is amended to clarify that an employer or a physician may characterize a disability as temporary and then amend that determination.

ETF 52.12 (1) (a) 1., (1) (b), and (1) (c) are amended to clarify what is included in “monthly salary" for the purpose of administering duty disability benefits.

ETF 52.15 is created section to clarify how duty disability benefits are reduced based on years of service.

ETF 52.16 (4) (a) and (4) (c) are amended to clarify how worker's compensation benefits payable to a participant affect the participant's duty disability benefit.

ETF 52.22 (3) is created to clarify the limitations of applying for duty disability benefits based on certain presumptive diseases.

ETF 52.28 (2) (a) is amended to include certain determinations for duty disability benefits under presumptive disease statute 891.453, Stats., among appealable determinations.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations

None.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Please see attached Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The proposed rule is intended to clarify ETF's rules regarding the Duty Disability Program.

Accuracy, integrity, objectivity and consistency of data

The present rule changes were a result of examination of the Duty Disability Program, as administered, by the Disability Bureau of ETF. ETF conducted analysis with integrity in an accurate, objective, and consistent manner in accordance with its fiduciary responsibilities to its members.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report

The rule does not have an effect on small businesses because private employers and their employees do not participate in, and are not covered by, the Wisconsin Retirement System.

Effect on small business

There is no effect on small business.

Fiscal estimate

The rule will not have any fiscal effect on the administration of the Wisconsin Retirement System, nor will it have any fiscal effect on the private sector, the state or on any county, city, village, town, school district, technical college district, or sewerage districts.

Agency contact person

Mary Alice McGreevy, Compliance Officer, Department of Employee Trust Funds, P.O. Box 7931, Madison, WI 53707. Phone: (608) 267-2354. E-mail: maryalice.mcgreevy@etf.wi.gov.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Amend ETF 52 regarding the administration of the Duty Disability Program under s. 40.65, Stats.
Subject
Duty Disability Program.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The proposed rule would amend definitions in ETF s. 50.02 to clarify how terms are used by the Disability Bureau of ETF. The department has determined that other provisions should be amended to incorporate the procedures for administering the benefit that the department has developed since the chapter was promulgated in its entirety in 1998.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
There is no economic and fiscal impact on small business, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units and the state's economy as a whole. The rule changes update the rules to reflect procedural adjustments in administering the Duty Disability program.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rule language more accurately reflects the procedures used by the agency in administering the Duty Disability program. The agency does not see alternatives to achieving the policy goal of the rule amendments.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
There are no long range economic or fiscal impacts of the rule.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The proposed rule amendments do not have federal corollaries although approximately 38 states do have laws regarding presumptive diseases contracted or developed by fire fighters.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Illinois — Similar provisions regarding presumptive diseases at 40 ILCS 5 et seq. Iowa — Similar provisions regarding presumptive diseases at Iowa Code ss. 411 (1) and 411.6 Michigan — Similar provisions in Mich. Comp. Laws ss. 418.401 to 418.441 regarding presumptive diseases. Minnesota — Similar provisions in chapter 176 of the Minnesota Statutes. Minn. Stat. s. 176.011 et seq.