DOCSLIB.ORG

Wisconsin Worker's Compensation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wisconsin Worker's Compensation Updated 2019−20 Wis. Stats. Published and certified under s. 35.18. September 17, 2021. 1 Updated 19−20 Wis. Stats. WORKER'S COMPENSATION 102.01 CHAPTER 102 WORKER’S COMPENSATION 102.01 Definitions. 102.40 Reports not evidence in actions. 102.03 Conditions of liability. 102.42 Incidental compensation. 102.04 Definition of employer. 102.425 Prescription and nonprescription drug treatment. 102.05 Election by employer, withdrawal. 102.43 Weekly compensation schedule. 102.06 Joint liability of employer and contractor. 102.44 Maximum limitations. 102.07 Employee defined. 102.45 Benefits payable to minors; how paid. 102.075 Election by sole proprietor, partner or member. 102.46 Death benefit. 102.076 Election by corporate officer. 102.47 Death benefit, continued. 102.077 Election by school district or private school. 102.475 Death benefit; law enforcement and correctional officers, fire fighters, res- 102.078 Election by real estate firm. cue squad members, diving team members, national or state guard mem- 102.08 Administration for state employees. bers and emergency management personnel. 102.11 Earnings, method of computation. 102.48 Death benefit, continued. 102.12 Notice of injury, exception, laches. 102.49 Additional death benefit for children, state fund. 102.123 Statement of employee. 102.50 Burial expenses. 102.125 Fraud reporting, investigation, and prosecution. 102.51 Dependents. 102.13 Examination; competent witnesses; exclusion of evidence; autopsy. 102.52 Permanent partial disability schedule. 102.14 Jurisdiction of department and division; advisory committee. 102.53 Multiple injury variations. 102.15 Rules of procedure; transcripts. 102.54 Injury to dominant hand. 102.16 Submission of disputes, contributions by employees. 102.55 Application of schedules. 102.17 Procedure; notice of hearing; witnesses, contempt; testimony, medical 102.555 Occupational deafness; definitions. examination. 102.56 Disfigurement. 102.175 Apportionment of liability. 102.565 Toxic or hazardous exposure; medical examination; conditions of liability. 102.18 Findings, orders and awards. 102.57 Violations of safety provisions, penalty. 102.19 Alien dependents; payments through consular officers. 102.195 Employees confined in institutions; payment of benefits. 102.58 Decreased compensation. 102.20 Judgment on award. 102.59 Preexisting disability, indemnity. 102.21 Payment of awards by local governmental units. 102.60 Minor illegally employed. 102.22 Penalty for delayed payments; interest. 102.61 Indemnity under rehabilitation law. 102.23 Judicial review. 102.62 Primary and secondary liability; unchangeable. 102.24 Remanding record. 102.63 Refunds by state. 102.25 Appeal from judgment on award. 102.64 Attorney general shall represent state and commission. 102.26 Fees and costs. 102.65 Work injury supplemental benefit fund. 102.27 Claims and awards protected; exceptions. 102.66 Payment of certain barred claims. 102.28 Preference of claims; worker’s compensation insurance. 102.75 Administrative expenses. 102.29 Third party liability. 102.80 Uninsured employers fund. 102.30 Other insurance not affected; liability of insured employer. 102.81 Compensation for injured employee of uninsured employer. 102.31 Worker’s compensation insurance; policy regulations. 102.82 Uninsured employer payments. 102.315 Worker’s compensation insurance; employee leasing companies. 102.83 Collection of uninsured employer payments. 102.32 Continuing liability; guarantee settlement, gross payment. 102.835 Levy for delinquent payments. 102.33 Forms and records; public access. 102.84 Preference of required payments. 102.35 Penalties. 102.85 Uninsured employers; penalties. 102.37 Employers’ records. 102.87 Citation procedure. 102.38 Records and reports of payments. 102.88 Penalties; repeaters. 102.39 Rules and general orders; application of statutes. 102.89 Parties to a violation. Cross−reference: See also ch. DWD 80, Wis. adm. code. aids and eyeglasses, but, in the case of hearing aids or eyeglasses, only if such damage or destruction resulted from accident which 102.01 Definitions. (1) This chapter may be referred to as also caused personal injury entitling the employee to compensa- the “Worker’s Compensation Act” and allowances, recoveries tion therefor either for disability or treatment. and liabilities under this chapter constitute “Worker’s Compensa- tion”. (d) “Local governmental unit” means a political subdivision of this state; a special purpose district or taxing jurisdiction, as (2) In this chapter: defined in s. 70.114 (1) (f), in this state; an instrumentality, corpo- (ad) “Administrator” means the administrator of the division ration, combination, or subunit of any of the foregoing; or any of hearings and appeals in the department of administration. other public or quasi−public corporation. (af) “Commission” means the labor and industry review com- (dm) “Order” means any decision, rule, regulation, direction, mission. requirement, or standard of the department or the division, or any (ag) “Commissioner” means a member of the commission. other determination arrived at or decision made by the department (am) “Compensation” means worker’s compensation. or the division. (ap) “Department” means the department of workforce devel- (e) “Primary compensation and death benefit” means com- opment. pensation or indemnity for disability or death benefit, other than (ar) “Division” means the division of hearings and appeals in increased, double or treble compensation or death benefit. the department of administration. (eg) “Religious sect” means a religious body of persons, or a (bm) “General order” means such order as applies generally division of a religious body of persons, who unite in holding cer- throughout the state to all persons, employments, places of tain special doctrines or opinions concerning religion that distin- employment or public buildings, or all persons, employments or guish those persons from others holding the same general reli- places of employment or public buildings of a class under the gious beliefs. jurisdiction of the department. All other orders of the department (em) “Secretary” means the secretary of workforce develop- shall be considered special orders. ment. (c) “Injury” means mental or physical harm to an employee (f) “Temporary help agency” means an employer who places caused by accident or disease, and also means damage to or its employee with or leases its employees to another employer destruction of artificial members, dental appliances, teeth, hearing who controls the employee’s work activities and compensates the 2019−20 Wisconsin Statutes updated through 2021 Wis. Act 79 and through all Supreme Court and Controlled Substances Board Orders filed before and in effect on September 17, 2021. Published and certified under s. 35.18. Changes effective after September 17, 2021, are designated by NOTES. (Published 9−17−21) Updated 2019−20 Wis. Stats. Published and certified under s. 35.18. September 17, 2021. 102.01 WORKER'S COMPENSATION Updated 19−20 Wis. Stats. 2 first employer for the employee’s services, regardless of the dura- cue squad member, or diving team member while responding to tion of the services. a call for assistance, from the time of the call for assistance to the (g) Except as provided in s. 102.555 with respect to occupa- time of his or her return from responding to that call, including tional deafness, “time of injury”, “occurrence of injury”, or “date traveling to and from any place to respond to and return from that of injury” means: call, but excluding any deviations for private or personal pur- 1. In the case of accidental injury, the date of the accident poses; or any fire fighter or municipal utility employee responding which caused the injury. to a call for assistance outside the limits of his or her city or village, unless that response is in violation of law, is performing service 2. In the case of disease, the date of disability or, if that date growing out of and incidental to employment. occurs after the cessation of all employment that contributed to the disability, the last day of work for the last employer whose 3. An employee is not performing service growing out of and employment caused disability. incidental to his or her employment while going to or from employment in a private or group or employer−sponsored car (gm) “Wisconsin compensation rating bureau” means the pool, van pool, commuter bus service, or other ride−sharing pro- bureau provided for in s. 626.06. gram in which the employee participates voluntarily and the sole (h) “Uninsured employer” means an employer that is in viola- purpose of which is the mass transportation of employees to and tion of s. 102.28 (2). from employment. An employee is not performing service grow- (j) “Uninsured employers fund” means the fund established ing out of and incidental to employment while engaging in a pro- under s. 102.80 (1). gram, event, or activity designed to improve the physical well−be- (jm) “Uninsured employer surcharge” means the surcharge ing of the employee, whether or not the program, event, or activity under s. 102.85 (4). is located on the employer’s premises, if participation in the pro- (k) “Workweek” means a calendar week, starting on Sunday gram, event, or activity is voluntary and the employee receives no and ending on Saturday. compensation for participation. History: 1975 c. 147 ss. 7 to 13, 54; 1975 c. 200; 1979 c. 89, 278; 1981 c. 92; 1983 4. The premises of the employer include the premises of any a. 98, 189; 1985 a. 83; 1987 a. 179; 1989 a. 64; 1995 a. 27 ss. 3737 to 3741, 9130 (4); other person on whose premises the employee performs service. 1995 a. 117, 417; 1997 a. 3; 1999 a. 9, 14; 2001 a. 37; 2003 a. 139; 2007 a. 20; 2015 a. 55, 180. 5. To enhance the morale and efficiency of public employees In an occupational disease claim, the examiner may find the date of injury to be in this state and attract qualified personnel to the public service, other than the last day of work. Royal−Globe Insurance Co.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Day Fines in American Courts
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs NalionallnSlilute ofJustice Day Fines in American Courts: The Staten Island and Milwaukee Experiments sa p c About the National Institute of Justice The National Institute of Justice is the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, est'~blished to prevent and redu-::e crime and to improve the criminal justice system. Specific mandates established by Congress in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 direct the National Institute of Justice to: III Sponsor special projects and research·and development prugrums that will improve and strengthen lhe criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime. III Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovatiYe or promising approaches for improving criminal justice. III Del'e/op new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice. III Evaluate the effectiveness oj criminal justice programs ana identify programs that promise' to be successful if continued or repeated. .. Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as private organizations to improve criminal justice. III Carry out research on criminal behavior. II Develop new methods oj crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency. The National Institute of Justice has a long history of accomplishments, including the following: .. Basic research on career criminals that led to development of special police and prosecutor units to deal with repeat offenders. III Research that confirmed the link between drugs and crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Those Who Blow the Whistle on Government Wrongdoing
    Statement of Glenn A. Fine Principal Deputy Inspector General, Performing the Duties of the Inspector General, Department of Defense for a Hearing on Protecting Those Who Blow the Whistle on Government Wrongdoing Before the Subcommittee on Government Operations Committee on Oversight and Reform U.S. House of Representatives January 28, 2020 Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Meadows, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today for this hearing on the contributions of federal whistleblowers and the need to protect them from reprisal. I. INTRODUCTION My testimony will focus on the important work of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) relating to whistleblowers. I am the DoD Principal Deputy Inspector General, Performing the Duties of the Inspector General, and have been serving as the head of the DoD OIG for over 4 years. Prior to this position, in addition to working as an attorney in private practice, I was the Inspector General of the Department of Justice for 11 years, from 2000 to 2011. In my testimony today, I will discuss the significant contributions of whistleblowers, why the protection of whistleblowers is so important, how the DoD OIG evaluates and investigates whistleblower disclosures and complaints of reprisal, and several best practices we have implemented at the DoD OIG to improve our timeliness and efficiency in whistleblower investigations. Specifically, my testimony discusses: • the mission and responsibilities of the DoD OIG, • the importance of whistleblowers and the need to protect them from reprisal, • examples of cases resulting from whistleblower disclosures, • the DoD OIG’s investigative processes, • best practices that the DoD OIG has implemented to improve the timeliness and efficiency of reprisal investigations, 1 • the need for DoD management to take timely corrective action on substantiated whistleblower reprisal investigations, and • the need for adequate resources to handle these important responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Misdemeanors
    MISDEMEANORS STUDY ON RECORD RETENTION, AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS OF RECORDS REGARDING FINE- ONLY MISDEMEANORS As directed by SB 47, 85th Legislature (Due 1/1/19) Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Class C Misdemeanor Records For “Children Under Age 18” ................................................................... 4 Data Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Survey Results .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Access and Availability .............................................................................................................................. 4 Adult Records ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Records Access and Availability Policy .................................................................................................. 6 Records “Related to a Child
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: the Day Fine
    Document Title: Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine Author(s): Edwin W. Zedlewski Document No.: NCJ 230401 Date Received: May 2010 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this National Institute of Justice (NIJ) produced report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 1 Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine Edwin W. Zedlewski April 2010 NCJ 230401 Discussion Paper Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine Edwin W. Zedlewski April 2010 NCJ 230401 The opinions and conclusions expressed in this document are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice. Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine Introduction Corrections populations in the U.S. have risen at alarming rates. From 1990 to 2007, probation populations rose 61 percent, with 4.3 million persons on probation as of December 31, 2007 (Bonczar and Glaze, 1999, 2008). Parole populations have risen 55 percent to a level of 824,000 persons (Bonczar and Glaze, 1999, 2008). Incarceration sentences have expanded by even greater amounts — jail populations rose 93 percent (to 780,000), and prison populations rose 311 percent (to 2.3 million inmates) over the same interval (Beck and Gilliard, 1996; Sabol and West, 2008) More than 7.2 million persons are under correctional supervision today (Bonczar and Glaze, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Damages Surprisingly Victims?
    10 Damages Personal Injury [10.10] What remedy does (and should) the legal system provide to tort victims? Although they may occasionally obtain injunctions intended to prevent ongoing harm, almost all successful tort claimants obtain money damages.’ A surprisingly large number of difficult and contested issues arise, however, in determining just how much money should be awarded. This chapter explores those issues. Part of the problem is factual uncertainty, especially, but not only, with respect to losses that will occur in the future, that is, after the trial or settlement of the case. But, in addition, there are fundamental legal questions at issue that centrally arise from disputes about the underlying reasons for awarding tort damages in the first place; whether tort law is ultimately compensatory, a deterrent or concerned with corrective justice is discussed in Chapter 1. The focus of this chapter will be on damages for bodily injury (and death). The material is organised in this way. First, the question of whether damages should be paid in a lump sum or periodically is addressed. Secondly, consideration is given to the strength of the proof plaintiffs must offer in order successfully to claim their damages. 2 So, The focus then shifts to the specific types of recoveries that are allowed. thirdly, considerable attention is given to what are typically termed pecuniary losses — (a) expenses incurred (or to be incurred) because of the harm the tortfeasor has imposed on the victim and (b) the victim’s lost income or lost earning power. Fourthly, compensatory awards for non-pecuniary losses (for example, pain and suffering) are explored.
    [Show full text]
  • Day Fines: Reviving the Idea and Reversing the (Costly) Punitive Trend
    DAY FINES: REVIVING THE IDEA AND REVERSING THE (COSTLY) PUNITIVE TREND Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko* “Pecuniary punishments should always be regulated by the fortune of the offender. The relative amount of the fine should be fixed, not its absolute amount. ...”1 INTRODUCTION For more than four decades, the United States has operated under “tough on crime” policies. This approach has led to the well-known prison crisis. Over the years, the number and costs of prisons in the United States has increased, the overcrowding problem has expanded, and court orders mandating the release of prisoners have become a common practice.2 In the last four decades, imprisonment became the “ordinary sanction.”3 Consequently, in 2015, the United States witnessed an astonishing rate of 666 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population.4 This expedited growth in incarceration led to the absurd situation where Americans constitute five percent of the global population, yet detain twenty-five percent of the world’s prisoners.5 This is a costly policy for the American taxpayer. For example, in 2015, California spent over 8.5 billion dollars on prisons alone,6 or approximately twenty-three million dollars per day.7 * Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE), Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. I would like to thank Michael Faure, Christoph Engel, Louis Visscher, Paul Mevis, Anne-Lise Sibony, and Claire Mansfield for their valuable comments. In addition, I am grateful to the participants of the 1st Topics Workshop in Criminology at Erasmus University Rotterdam, Law and Market Behaviour International Research Network Conference in Dublin, and faculty seminars at Bologna University and at Erasmus University Rotterdam for their useful suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Infringement
    COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Mark Miller Jackson Walker L.L.P. 112 E. Pecan, Suite 2400 San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 978-7700 [email protected] This paper was first published in the State Bar of Texas Corporate Counsel Section Corporate Counsel Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2011) The author appreciates the State Bar’s permission to update and re-publish it. THE AUTHOR Mark Miller is a shareholder with Jackson Walker L.L.P., a Texas law firm with offices in San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Ft. Worth, and San Angelo. He is Chair of the firm’s intellectual property section and concentrates on transactions and litigation concerning intellectual property, franchising, and antitrust. Mr. Miller received his B.A. in Chemistry from Austin College in 1974 and his J.D. from St. Mary’s University in 1978. He was an Associate Editor for St. Mary’s Law Journal; admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 1978; served on the Admissions Committee for the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, and been selected as one of the best intellectual property lawyers in San Antonio. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits, the District Courts for the Western, Southern, and Northern Districts of Texas, and the Texas Supreme Court. He is a member of the American Bar Association’s Forum Committee on Franchising, and the ABA Antitrust Section’s Committee on Franchising. Mr. Miller is a frequent speaker and writer, including “Neglected Copyright Litigation Issues,” State Bar of Texas, Intellectual Property Section, Annual Meeting, 2009, “Unintentional Franchising,” 36 St.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Use Structured Fines (Day Fines) As an Intermediate Sanction
    T O EN F J U.S. Department of Justice TM U R ST A I P C E E D B O J Office of Justice Programs C S F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR Bureau of Justice Assistance JUSTICE Bureau of Justice Assistance How To Use Structured Fines (Day Fines) as an Intermediate Sanction Monograph Bureau of Justice Assistance How To Use Structured Fines (Day Fines) as an Intermediate Sanction November 1996 Monograph NCJ 156242 This document was prepared by The Justice Management Institute and the Vera Institute of Justice, supported by grant number 91–DD–CX–0016(S–2), awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. © Vera Institute of Justice 1996. All rights reserved. Bureau of Justice Assistance 633 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20531 U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1–800–421–6770 Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse 1–800–688–4252 Bureau of Justice Assistance Internet Address http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Comparative Law: Variety and Uniformity in Ancient and Modern Tort Law
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1986 Rethinking Comparative Law: Variety and Uniformity in Ancient and Modern Tort Law Saul Levmore Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Saul Levmore, "Rethinking Comparative Law: Variety and Uniformity in Ancient and Modern Tort Law," 61 Tulane Law Review 235 (1986). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TULANE LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 DECEMBER 1986 NUMBER 2 RETHINKING COMPARATIVE LAW: VARIETY AND UNIFORMITY IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TORT LAW SAUL LEVMORE* Ancient codes and customary laws have a great deal of sub- ject matter in common with one another and with contemporary legal systems. It could hardly be otherwise. Any system of rules that seeks to regulate behavior or resolve disputes in a commu- nity that is too large to rely solely on informal sanctions, but that is large enough for its rules to have been' recorded in a way that allowed survival to the present day, must deal with murder, theft, accident prevention, insolvent debtors, and other circum- stances in which, for various reasons, purely private agreements and enforcement mechanisms are likely to be inferior to more formal rules and arrangements. Indeed, nearly every legal sys- tem of which we are aware, from ancient Babylon to our own, not only contains rules about murder and theft but also deals with inheritance, marital obligations, and those mundane mat- ters that are the stuff of private law.
    [Show full text]
  • Intuitions About Penalties and Compensation in the Context of Tort Law
    Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7:17-33 (1993) © 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers Intuitions about Penalties and Compensation in the Context of Tort Law JONATHAN BARON Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3SI5 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6196 I LAN A RITOV* Department of Industrial Enffncering and Management, Ben-Gurion University, P.O. Box 653, Beer Sheeva 84105, Isrnel Abstract Students, retired judges, economists, and others made judgments of appropriate penalties and compen,sation for hypothetical injuries. In some scenarios, compensation was paid by the government and penalties were paid to the government, so the two could differ. Penalties were generally uninfluenced by their deterrent effect on future behavior. Penalties were greater when they were paid directly to the victim than when they were paid to the government. Compensation was affected by whether injuries were caused by people or by nature, or by acts vs, omissions. These effects are not justified according to consequentialist views of penalties and compensation. We suggest that people are overgeneralizing reasonable rules and that such overgeneralization may be in- volved in perverse effects of tort law. Key words: tort law, penalties, compensations, intuitive judgments When one person (or group) harms another, people often think that the injurer should compensate the victim. Tort law can compel compensation. Such a transaction not only compensates the victim but also punishes the injurer. When the injurer compensates the victim, as when a child is induced to give back something she has taken or when a victim sues an injurer in court, punishment and compensation are linked together. Sometimes these functions are separated.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Chapter 12. Punishments
    PENAL CODE TITLE 3. PUNISHMENTS CHAPTER 12. PUNISHMENTS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec.A12.01.AAPUNISHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE. (a) A person adjudged guilty of an offense under this code shall be punished in accordance with this chapter and the Code of Criminal Procedure. (b)AAPenal laws enacted after the effective date of this code shall be classified for punishment purposes in accordance with this chapter. (c)AAThis chapter does not deprive a court of authority conferred by law to forfeit property, dissolve a corporation, suspend or cancel a license or permit, remove a person from office, cite for contempt, or impose any other civil penalty. The civil penalty may be included in the sentence. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec.A12.02.AACLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES. Offenses are designated as felonies or misdemeanors. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec.A12.03.AACLASSIFICATION OF MISDEMEANORS. (a) Misdemeanors are classified according to the relative seriousness of the offense into three categories: (1)AAClass A misdemeanors; (2)AAClass B misdemeanors; (3)AAClass C misdemeanors. (b)AAAn offense designated a misdemeanor in this code without specification as to punishment or category is a Class C misdemeanor. 1 (c)AAConviction of a Class C misdemeanor does not impose any legal disability or disadvantage. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p.
    [Show full text]