Work injuries rarely stay neatly contained within one legal bucket. In Wisconsin, a single incident can simultaneously trigger worker’s compensation rights, ADA accommodation obligations, FMLA protections, and short and long-term disability (STD/LTD) issues.

For employment attorneys on both sides, understanding how these systems overlap is essential for preventing procedural landmines, avoiding retaliation claims, and guiding clients toward legally sound decisions that also make practical business sense.

This article provides an integrated overview of how these regimes interact, the timing and documentation challenges they create, and strategies for managing light duty return-to-work scenarios without creating downstream liability.

The Worker’s Compensation Process in Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s worker’s compensation system is largely no-fault: if an employee sustains a work injury arising out of employment, benefits follow regardless of employer fault. Those benefits may include:

• medical treatment
• temporary disability (TTD) or partial disability benefits (two-thirds of the worker’s average weekly wage while they are in the healing period)
• permanent disability ratings
• vocational retraining in some cases

For many employers and insurers, the comp claim becomes the primary source of medical documentation and the first place return-to-work timelines are formalized. However, this medical information is often created with a narrow purpose – compensability and work restrictions – not the broader context of ADA or FMLA compliance. That mismatch is where issues start.

The ADA Layer: Reasonable Accommodation and Light Duty

The ADA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities unless it creates undue hardship. A work-related injury does not automatically equal an ADA-covered disability, but many developing injuries, particularly those involving long healing periods, meet the definition.

Light Duty Created for Workplace Injuries Only

Wisconsin employers often have formal or informal “light duty” programs exclusively for worker’s comp claimants. However, the ADA prohibits limiting light duty to on-the-job injuries if the employer could offer such modifications as reasonable accommodations to non-work-injured employees. A seemingly harmless comp practice can inadvertently establish that certain modified tasks are feasible, undermining later ADA undue-hardship arguments.

Doctor-Imposed Restrictions versus Employer Flexibility

Worker’s comp doctors typically write fixed, task-specific restrictions (“no lifting over 10 lbs.,” “sedentary only,” etc.). ADA accommodation, however, requires individualized assessments and interactive discussions. When employers follow comp restrictions without engaging in an ADA interactive process, exposure risk increases.

The Risk of “Maximum Medical Improvement” Missteps

A comp finding of MMI does not mean the employer is relieved from ADA obligations. Employees may still need accommodation to continue performing essential functions, even permanently. For attorneys, ensuring HR teams understand the difference between comp medical assessments and ADA accommodation obligations is key.

FMLA: The Critical Timing Trap

For eligible employees, the FMLA provides up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave for serious health conditions, including many work injuries. The catch is timing.

Worker’s compensation leave can run concurrently with FMLA, but only if:

• the employer is FMLA-covered;
• the employee is eligible; and
• the employer properly designates the leave in writing.

If the employer fails to designate the time off as FMLA leave, the employee may later claim they still have 12 weeks of FMLA available even after being off work for months due to a comp injury. The lack of designation can also expose an employer to liability if a legally protected absence is treated as abandonment or noncompliance, even in an at-will state like Wisconsin. In addition, the failure to designate often creates confusion when the employee later asks for more leave or requests accommodations.

FMLA also intersects with ADA. After FMLA time expires, the ADA may still require extended leave if it doesn’t impose undue hardship. Employers often mishandle this by automatically terminating an employee once FMLA expires, ignoring ADA obligations.

For practitioners, the timeline – date of injury, first report, comp medical notes, FMLA designation, return-to-work communications – is often the decisive liability factor.

STD and LTD: The Often-Ignored Fourth Layer

While STD and LTD do not follow a statutory scheme like comp, ADA, or FMLA, it often plays a major role in how employers handle injured workers. STD/LTD carriers frequently request the same medical records being generated for comp purposes, yet the standards for such claims differ:

• STD/LTD evaluates long-term work capacity, not work-relatedness.
• STD/LTD claim decisions may conflict with employer arguments in ADA matters (e.g., an employer insisting an employee can perform essential functions while STD/LTD carriers find them disabled).
• STD plans often disallow claims for work-related injuries, although LTD plans typically do not have such a provision.

Attorneys must be mindful of how STD/LTD claims shape employee expectations and may influence litigation posture.

The Medical Record Minefield

Medical documentation in these cases is notoriously inconsistent. Worker’s compensation doctors, treating physicians, IMEs, independent experts, and specialists may all have overlapping but incomplete perspectives.

Different Systems, Different Questions

Doctors evaluating comp claims are asked, “Is this work-related and what are the restrictions?”

The ADA focuses on, “Can this employee perform essential job functions with or without accommodation?” Doctors determining FMLA ask, “Is the condition a serious health condition requiring leave?”

These conflicting frameworks often produce contradictory medical opinions.

An employer may receive a comp work-restriction slip and rely on it, unaware that a treating physician has written conflicting notes for FMLA purposes. Or an IME could unexpectedly tighten or broaden restrictions, pushing the employer into ADA accommodation territory.

Retaliation Risks: The Overlapping Exposure Zone

Wisconsin employees injured at work may trigger protection under multiple retaliation statutes simultaneously:

• Wis. Stat. section 102.35(3) – prohibits an employer from refusing to rehire an employee without reasonable cause, provided suitable employment is available within the employee's physical and mental limitations.
• Wisconsin FMLA and federal FMLA – protect eligible employees from interference with their right to take leave for serious health conditions. They also prohibit retaliation, meaning an employer cannot take adverse action against an employee for using or requesting FMLA leave.
• ADA and the Rehabilitation Act – prohibit retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodation.

A single adverse action (termination, light-duty denial, schedule change, or negative performance review) can therefore create multiple overlapping retaliation claims, even when the employer believes the action is justified for attendance or performance.

For defense attorneys, ensuring documentation aligns with legitimate business reasons is critical. For plaintiff attorneys, identifying which statute offers the strongest burden of proof or damages structure can shape strategy.

Practical Strategies for Employment Attorneys

For defense counsel:

• Ensure early and accurate FMLA designation to prevent timing blow-ups.
• Document interactive process efforts separately from comp communications.
• Audit light-duty programs to avoid ADA inconsistencies.
• Coordinate claims managers and HR so decisions are unified and defensible.

For plaintiff counsel:

• Track all injury-related communications, as the retaliation timeline often reveals the best claim.
• Request complete medical records, not just documents related to a work injury.
• Push for ADA accommodations post-FMLA, especially where return-to-work is feasible.
• Watch for inconsistencies in employer explanations regarding essential functions.

Conclusion

Work injuries in Wisconsin sit at the center of a complex web of worker’s compensation rules, ADA accommodation obligations, FMLA job protections, and sometimes STD/LTD claims.

For employment attorneys on both sides, understanding how these systems intersect is not optional. It’s the key to giving accurate, strategic, and defensible advice.

By anticipating timing challenges, coordinating medical documentation, and carefully managing light duty and return-to-work communications, attorneys can help clients avoid unnecessary liability and create more stable, predictable outcomes for injured workers and employers alike.

This article was originally published on the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Labor & Employment Law Section Blog. Visit the State Bar sections or the Labor & Employment Law Section webpages to learn more about the benefits of section membership.