Title: Friendly Village Nursing and Rehab, LLC v. State, Department of Workforce Development
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2020AP000520
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 26, 2022

2022 WI 4 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP520 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Friendly Village Nursing and Rehab, LLC and 
Friendly Village Healthcare Center, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
     v. 
State of Wisconsin Department of  Workforce 
Development and State of Wisconsin Labor and 
Industry Review Commission, 
          Defendants-Respondents, 
     v. 
Rhinelander Healthcare Operator 150, LLC, 
          Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 395 Wis. 2d 701,954 N.W.2d 392 
PDC No:2021 WI App 9 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 26, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 25, 2021   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Oneida   
 
JUDGE: 
Michael H. Bloom   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
DALLET, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in 
which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.  
ROGGENSACK, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ZIEGLER, 
C.J., and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners, there were briefs 
filed by Alon Stein and Stein Law Offices, Des Plaines, Illinois. 
There was an oral argument Alon Stein. 
 
For the defendants-respondents, there was a brief filed by 
Ryan X. Farrell and The Department of Workforce Development; with 
 
 
2 
whom on the brief was Kim T. Castelaz and The Labor and Industry 
Review Commission.  There was oral argument by Ryan X. Farrell.  
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 4 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject 
to further editing and 
modification.  The final 
version will appear in 
the bound volume of the 
official reports.   
No.  2020AP520 
(L.C. 
No. 
2019CV121) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Friendly Village Nursing and Rehab, LLC and 
Friendly Village Healthcare Center, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce 
Development and State of Wisconsin Labor and 
Industry Review Commission, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents, 
 
     v. 
 
Rhinelander Healthcare Operator 150, LLC, 
 
          Defendant. 
FILED 
 
JAN 26, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
DALLET, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which 
ANN 
WALSH 
BRADLEY, 
HAGEDORN, 
and 
KAROFSKY, 
JJ., 
joined.  
ROGGENSACK, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ZIEGLER, C.J., 
and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined. 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the court of appeals.  Affirmed. 
 
No.  2020AP520 
2 
 
¶1 
REBECCA FRANK DALLET, J.   After purchasing Friendly 
Village Nursing and Rehab, Eden Senior Care1 untimely filed its 
application with the Department of Workforce Development to 
succeed the unemployment insurance account of Friendly Village's 
previous owner.  This was a potentially costly mistake, because 
successors generally pay lower rates for unemployment insurance 
than non-successors.  See generally Wis. Stat. § 108.18 (2019–
20).2  Eden's mistake was not necessarily fatal if it was "a result 
of excusable neglect."  See § 108.16(8)(b)4.  The Labor and 
Industry Review Commission, however, concluded that the record was 
insufficient to establish that Eden's application was late because 
of excusable neglect.  Eden challenges that conclusion and claims 
that the Commission also erred by failing to apply the "interests 
of justice" factors in its analysis.  We disagree.  The "interests 
of justice" factors are not a necessary component of the excusable-
neglect analysis under § 108.16(8)(b)4., and Eden has failed to 
demonstrate excusable neglect for filing its application late. 
I 
¶2 
Eden Senior Care is an Illinois company that purchases 
and rehabilitates nursing homes.  On September 1, 2017, Eden 
                                                 
1 Eden Senior Care is the parent company of Friendly Village 
Nursing and Rehab, LLC.  In addition to Friendly Village Nursing 
and Rehab being the name of one of Eden's subsidiaries, it is also 
the name of the nursing home at issue here.  Therefore, to avoid 
confusion between Friendly Village the company and Friendly 
Village the place, we use "Eden" to refer to the company. 
2 All subsequent statutory references are to the 2019–20 
version unless otherwise indicated. 
No.  2020AP520 
3 
 
purchased its first two nursing homes in Wisconsin, including 
Friendly Village Nursing and Rehab.3  The acquisition triggered 
several statutory requirements, among them registration and 
reporting of a business transfer.  Eden could comply with those 
two requirements by submitting two Department forms:  the Employer 
Registration Report and the Report of Business Transfer. 
¶3 
The 
Employer 
Registration 
Report 
serves 
several 
purposes.  One purpose is that it provides a means for a business 
new to Wisconsin to meet the requirement that it register with the 
Department of Workforce Development.  See Wis. Admin. Code 
§ DWD 110.04 (May 2020).4  Another purpose is that it helps the 
Department determine whether the business is an "employer" as 
defined by Wis. Stat. § 108.02(13).  If the business is an 
employer, it is required to contribute to the state's unemployment-
insurance fund.  See Wis. Stat. §§ 108.16, 108.18.   
¶4 
Additionally, the Employer Registration Report alerts 
the Department that the new business is taking over an already 
existing business, in which case the transferee (the new business) 
may be eligible to acquire (or succeed) the previous employer's 
unemployment-account "experience."  See § 108.16(8).  If the 
previous employer has a high amount of account experience, then 
the transferee will likely benefit from succeeding that experience 
as, generally, the more account experience a business has, the 
                                                 
3 Eden also purchased Northpoint Nursing and Rehab; that 
purchase is not at issue here. 
4 All subsequent references to the Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 
are to the May 2020 version. 
No.  2020AP520 
4 
 
lower its contribution to the unemployment-insurance fund.  See 
§ 108.18.  The Employer Registration Report, however, does not 
state those implications directly.  The closest it gets is a 
question that asks whether the new business acquired its "activity 
from a previous employer," borrowing from the language of 
§ 108.16(8)(a).  See § 108.16(8)(a) ("[A] business is deemed 
transferred if any asset or any activity of an employer . . . is 
transferred in whole or in part . . . .").  In any event, the 
Employer Registration Report is not part of the statutory 
requirements for succeeding a previous owner's unemployment-
account 
experience; 
those 
requirements 
are 
laid 
out 
in 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4.5 
¶5 
The second form relevant to Eden's statutory obligations 
is the Report of Business Transfer.  Any time one business is 
transferred to another, the Department must be notified within 30 
days of the transfer, even if both the transferee and transferor 
have previously operated in the state.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(k); Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 115.03.  Completing and 
returning the Report of Business Transfer to the Department 
satisfies this notice requirement.  A transferee who wants to 
acquire the previous employer's unemployment-account experience 
must file a "written application . . . requesting that it be 
deemed a successor."  See Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(b)4.  The Report 
                                                 
5 All businesses, new to Wisconsin or previously established, 
are subject to the same requirements for succeeding a prior owner's 
unemployment-account experience.  The Employer Registration 
Report, however, applies only to businesses new to Wisconsin. 
No.  2020AP520 
5 
 
of Business Transfer also satisfies this requirement if the 
transferee checks a box on the form indicating that "[t]his is 
[its] application to acquire the account experience of the former 
owner."6  The Report of Business Transfer is available online as 
part of the Department's "Handbook for Employers,"7 which includes 
detailed instructions for how to fill out the form, as well as how 
to contact the Department with any questions. 
¶6 
Although the Employer Registration Report and the Report 
of Business Transfer serve different purposes, there is one 
relevant connection between them.  In the Employer Registration 
Report, when a new business answers "yes" to the question "Did you 
acquire this activity from a previous employer?," the Department 
typically contacts the business and alerts it to the Report of 
Business Transfer.  There is no statutory requirement, however, 
that the Department do so.  See generally Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8); 
Wis. Admin. Code § DWD ch. 115.  Rather, the statutes place 
compliance with all registration and application requirements 
squarely on businesses.  See Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(b)4., (k); 
Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 115.03. 
                                                 
6 Although reporting a transfer is required——both generally 
and to acquire the previous employer's unemployment-account 
experience——using the Report of Business Transfer is not.  Under 
Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(k) and Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 115.03, 
parties are required only to "notify the [D]epartment in writing."  
As for applying to acquire a previous employer's unemployment-
account experience, Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(b)4. similarly requires 
transferees to submit only a "written application." 
7 https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/ui201/t6201.htm. 
No.  2020AP520 
6 
 
¶7 
Here, Eden directed its Senior Business Analyst——
a 22-year-old with bachelor's degrees in communications and 
biology——to complete the Employer Registration Report in early 
August 2017.  In response to the question "Did you acquire this 
activity from a previous employer?" the analyst answered "no."  
That response meant that the Department did not contact Eden 
regarding the Report of Business Transfer since, as far as the 
Department knew, Eden was not involved in a business transfer.8   
¶8 
Eden 
filed 
its 
Report 
of 
Business 
Transfer 
on 
March 13, 2018,9 and indicated that it was using that form as its 
application to succeed the previous employer's unemployment-
account experience.  The application was roughly six weeks late, 
as Eden's September 1, 2017 acquisition date set its application 
due date as January 31, 2018.  Eden traces its untimely application 
to the Department's failure to contact it regarding the Report of 
Business Transfer.  That failure, Eden says, was caused by its 
analyst's "misunderstanding" of the question on the Employer 
Registration Report regarding whether it had acquired an 
"activity" from a previous employer. 
                                                 
8 The dissent asserts that Eden notified the Department of 
the business transfer in August 2017 via the Employer Registration 
Report.  But by answering "no" to whether it acquired a previous 
employer's activity, Eden notified the Department that there was 
no transfer. 
9 Both Eden and Friendly Village's previous owner signed the 
Report of Business Transfer, thereby notifying the Department of 
the transfer.  Both were late in doing so, however, because the 
notice was due no later than October 1, 2017.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(k) (requiring notice to the Department within 30 days 
of the transfer). 
No.  2020AP520 
7 
 
¶9 
According to Eden, it was not until February 2018 that 
it learned it even had the option to acquire the prior owner's 
unemployment-account experience.  After filing its successorship 
application in mid-March, Eden emailed the Department, explaining 
that its application was late due to an "error in completing our 
initial DWD account application," adding that it was "new to the 
Wisconsin operations space and [was] not familiar with how the 
[unemployment-insurance] process worked."  The Department found 
that Eden's explanation did not amount to excusable neglect and 
therefore it rejected the application.10 
¶10 Eden appealed to an administrative law judge.  After a 
hearing at which only the Department employee who handled Eden's 
application and Eden's corporate manager testified, the ALJ 
reversed the Department's determination.  The ALJ concluded that 
Eden had moved quickly to remedy its mistake and that Eden had not 
acted in bad faith.  The ALJ also noted that accepting Eden's 
untimely application "served the interests of justice." 
¶11 The Department appealed that decision to the Commission, 
which reversed.  The Commission concluded that the record contained 
insufficient evidence to warrant a finding of excusable neglect.  
Specifically, it noted that the analyst who filled out the Employer 
Registration Report did not testify, so there was "no competent 
                                                 
10 The Department accepted Eden's untimely successorship 
application related to Northpoint Nursing and Rehab after 
determining that certain registration forms were mistakenly mailed 
to Eden's power of attorney's address rather than its corporate 
address.  The record contains no evidence of a similar problem 
regarding Friendly Village Nursing and Rehab. 
No.  2020AP520 
8 
 
evidence establishing the nature of his error."  It explained that, 
because Eden's central business is acquiring and rehabilitating 
nursing homes, Eden's failing to be aware of the law regarding 
registering such business transfers was "less excusable than it 
otherwise 
might 
be," 
even 
accounting 
for 
the 
analyst's 
inexperience.  The Commission also concluded that Eden's prompt 
remedy did "not eliminate the requirement that a dilatory party 
demonstrate excusable neglect for its initial failure to meet the 
statutory deadline." 
¶12 Eden appealed to the circuit court,11 arguing that the 
Commission erred because it failed to consider whether the 
"interests-of-justice factors"12 supported a finding of excusable 
neglect.  Eden asserted that in Casper v. American International 
Southern Insurance Co., 2011 WI 81, 336 Wis. 2d 267, 800 
N.W.2d 880, we held that analyzing those factors is a necessary 
part of every excusable-neglect analysis.  The circuit court 
rejected 
that 
argument 
and 
affirmed 
the 
Commission's 
determination, as did the court of appeals.   
II 
¶13 Our review is limited to the Commission's decision, not 
the circuit court's or the court of appeals'.  Operton v. LIRC, 
2017 WI 46, ¶18, 375 Wis. 2d 1, 894 N.W.2d 426.  We defer to the 
                                                 
11 The Honorable Michael H. Bloom of the Oneida County Circuit 
Court presided. 
12 See Connor v. Connor, 2001 WI 49, ¶41, 243 Wis. 2d 279, 627 
N.W.2d 182. 
No.  2020AP520 
9 
 
Commission's findings of fact so long as there is "substantial and 
credible evidence" to support them, id., but we review its legal 
conclusions de novo, Wis. Bell, Inc. v. LIRC, 2018 WI 76, ¶29, 382 
Wis. 2d 624, 914 N.W.2d 1. 
III 
¶14 To qualify as a successor to an acquired business's 
"unemployment account experience," the transferee must meet two 
statutory requirements.  First, it must establish that a business 
was, in fact, transferred.  Under Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(a), a 
transfer occurs when a business's "asset or activity" is conveyed 
to another business "by any means, other than in the ordinary 
course of business."  Second, the transferee must satisfy the 
Department that it meets all four successorship conditions in 
§ 108.16(8)(b):  the transferee must continue the transferor's 
business with generally the same employees, the transfer must have 
included at least 25 percent of the transferor's total business, 
the transferee must be subject to certain statutory financing 
provisions, and it must file a timely successorship application.  
There is no dispute that Eden is a transferee or that it meets the 
first three successorship conditions.  Our focus is therefore on 
only the timeliness of Eden's successorship application. 
¶15 A timely successorship application is one that the 
Department receives no later than "the contribution payment due 
date for the first full quarter following the date of the 
transfer."  § 108.16(8)(b)4.  Up to 90 days after that deadline, 
however, the Department may accept a late application, but only if 
No.  2020AP520 
10 
 
"the transferee satisfies the [D]epartment that the application 
was late as a result of excusable neglect."  Id.13  Here, Eden 
submitted its application late but within the 90-day post-deadline 
window.  The question is whether its application was late due to 
excusable neglect. 
¶16 The Commission concluded that it was not, and Eden 
challenges that conclusion on two grounds.  It first argues that 
the Commission applied the wrong law by failing to include the 
"interests of justice factors" in its excusable-neglect analysis.  
Eden then argues that the Commission erred in concluding that, as 
a matter of law, the record evidence was insufficient to show 
excusable neglect.  We address each argument in turn. 
A 
¶17 Eden argues that the Commission applied the incorrect 
standard for excusable neglect because the Commission did not 
consider the "interests-of-justice factors."  Eden asserts that 
our holding in Casper makes those factors part of every excusable-
neglect analysis.  But this reads too much into Casper and ignores 
key differences between the text of the statute at issue there 
(§ 801.15(2)(a)) and the one at issue here (§ 108.16(8)(b)4.). 
¶18 In Casper, we considered what a party must show for a 
circuit court to grant a motion to extend certain filing deadlines 
                                                 
13 The legislature added the excusable-neglect provision 
in 2013.  See 2013 Wis. Act 36, § 99.  Prior to that amendment, 
the Department was required to deny all late successorship 
applications, no matter why they were late.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4. (2011–12). 
No.  2020AP520 
11 
 
under § 801.15(2)(a).  336 Wis. 2d 267, ¶¶34–49.  That statute 
provides that a court may grant such an extension "only on motion 
for cause shown and upon just terms."  § 801.15(2)(a) (emphasis 
added).  When a party moves for an extension after the original 
deadline has already passed, the court may grant the extension 
only if it makes the additional finding that the party's "failure 
to act [before the deadline] was the result of excusable neglect."  
Id.  Therefore, § 801.15(2)(a), by its plain terms, permits a court 
to grant a motion for an extension that is made after the original 
filing deadline passes only if it makes two separate findings:  (1) 
granting the extension is "just"; and (2) the party's neglect in 
failing to file earlier is excusable.  See id.; Casper, 336 
Wis. 2d 267, ¶¶37–38.  Nowhere in Casper did we hold that the 
interests of justice are part of the excusable-neglect analysis.  
Rather, we reiterated that they guide part one of the two-part 
analysis required by the explicit language of § 801.15(2)(a).  
Casper, 336 Wis. 2d 267, ¶¶35–38; Miller v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2010 
WI 75, ¶43, 326 Wis. 2d 640, 785 N.W.2d 493 (explaining that a 
court may grant a motion to enlarge time under § 801.15(2)(a) "if 
the circuit court makes a finding of excusable neglect 'and if the 
interests of justice would be served by the enlargement of time'") 
(quoting Estate of Otto v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., Inc., 2008 
WI 78, ¶114, 311 Wis. 2d 84, 751 N.W.2d 805 (emphasis added)). 
¶19 Our analysis of the interests of justice in Casper was 
rooted in the text of § 801.15(2)(a), which explicitly allows a 
court to grant relief on "just terms."  Other statutes similarly 
pair "excusable neglect" with notions of justice or equity.  For 
No.  2020AP520 
12 
 
example, § 806.07(1) allows a court to grant a party relief from 
judgment "upon such terms as are just" and for reasons including 
excusable neglect or a finding that applying the judgment is "no 
longer equitable," as well as "[a]ny other reason[] justifying 
relief."  But § 108.16(8)(b)4. contains no similar language 
directing the Department to consider just terms, equity, or "other 
reasons" for relief.  Rather, "excusable neglect" is the only 
justification for the Department's accepting a late successorship 
application.  See § 108.16(8)(b)4. (limiting even this exception 
to applications submitted fewer than 90 days late). 
¶20 Given these differences in the statutory text, we cannot 
read "excusable neglect" as encompassing other interests-of-
justice considerations.  See Miller, 326 Wis. 2d 640, ¶¶43–44 
(declining to extend to another statute the excusable-neglect 
requirement in § 801.15(2)(a) because the other statute "does not 
by its plain language require" such a finding); Village of Elm 
Grove v. Brefka, 2013 WI 54, ¶¶35–40, 348 Wis. 2d 282, 832 
N.W.2d 121.  The Commission therefore applied the correct legal 
standard for excusable neglect.14 
B 
¶21 Eden's other claim is that the Commission erred in 
concluding that the record does not demonstrate excusable neglect.  
We have defined "excusable neglect" as an error that "a reasonably 
                                                 
14 Because the interests-of-justice factors are not part of 
the excusable-neglect analysis under Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(b)4., 
we deny as moot the Commission's motion to strike. 
No.  2020AP520 
13 
 
prudent 
person" 
would 
have 
committed 
"under 
the 
same 
circumstances."  E.g., Hedtcke v. Sentry Ins. Co., 109 Wis. 2d 461, 
468, 326 N.W.2d 727 (1982).15  The inquiry is context dependent and 
requires a showing of something more than ordinary neglect or 
carelessness.  E.g., id.; Casper, 336 Wis. 2d 267, ¶37.  A party 
seeking relief under an excusable-neglect provision must offer a 
"persuasive explanation" for its mistake by pointing to "specific 
incidents" that occurred at the time of the mistake.  See Hedtcke, 
109 Wis. 2d at 473.  In assessing a party's explanation, courts 
may consider the negligent actor's familiarity with the subject 
matter, as well as the actor's "age, education and experience."  
Hansher v. Kaishian, 79 Wis. 2d 374, 391–92, 255 N.W.2d 564 
(1977).  Ultimately, "the analysis in each case is fact specific," 
with the inquiry turning on a party's reasons or justifications 
for its negligent conduct as reflected in the record.  See Casper, 
336 Wis. 2d 267, ¶39. 
¶22 In cases where we have held that a party's mistake was 
due to excusable neglect, the record contained some concrete, non-
speculative evidence for why the mistake occurred.  For example, 
excusable neglect includes a foreign corporation untimely filing 
its answer to a complaint due to reasonable "confusion created by 
                                                 
15 Black's Law Dictionary contains a definition of "excusable 
neglect" that largely mirrors ours.  See Neglect-excusable 
neglect, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ("A failure——which 
the law will excuse——to take some proper step at the proper 
time . . . not 
because 
of 
the 
party's 
own 
carelessness, 
inattention, or willful disregard . . . but because of some 
unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or accident . . . ."). 
No.  2020AP520 
14 
 
the interplay between the summons and the notice of service," each 
of which seemingly set a different date for when the answer was 
due.  See Shirk v. Bowling, Inc., 2001 WI 36, ¶21, 242 Wis. 2d 153, 
624 N.W.2d 375.  We have also excused a corporation's untimely 
answer when the record demonstrated that the company had developed 
certain procedures for handling lawsuits, had followed those 
procedures, and, "despite its best efforts," its claims specialist 
had never received the complaint.  See Casper, 336 Wis. 2d 267, 
¶¶44–45. 
¶23 But when the record is silent, or contains only 
speculation about the reasons for a party's mistake or its failure 
to take reasonably prudent precautions, there is no basis for the 
Commission or the court to excuse the party's neglect.  For 
instance, we declined to excuse a defendant's untimely filing of 
its answer when it claimed it had misunderstood the terms of a 
"courtesy extension agreement," but the record contained "no 
notes, confirmation letters, or other documentation" reflecting 
the alleged misunderstanding.  See Connor v. Connor, 2001 WI 49, 
¶22, 243 Wis. 2d 279, 627 N.W.2d 182.  We have also held that when 
a party attempts to justify its neglect by pointing to other 
typical work circumstances, such as the "press of other legal 
business" or "summer vacations," those reasons are insufficient, 
absent some additional "extraordinary explanation."  See, e.g., 
Giese v. Giese, 43 Wis. 2d 456, 461–62, 168 N.W.2d 832 (1969); 
Cruis Along Boats, Inc. v. Standard Steel Prods. Mfg. Co., 22 
Wis. 2d 403, 409, 126 N.W.2d 85 (1964).  And when a defendant 
missed a 20-day deadline to file its answer but offered no 
No.  2020AP520 
15 
 
explanation for why it took 19 days to send the complaint from its 
office in Waukesha to its claims manager in California, the court 
of appeals declined to excuse the late filing because, "in the era 
of overnight express mail" and fax machines, a reasonably prudent 
person in the party's shoes would have ensured the complaint made 
it to California sooner.  See Gerth v. Am. Star Ins. Co., 166 
Wis. 2d 1000, 1008, 480 N.W.2d 836 (Ct. App. 1992); see also 
Dugenske v. Dugenske, 80 Wis. 2d 64, 70, 257 N.W.2d 865 (1977) 
(declining to reverse the circuit court's finding of no excusable 
neglect because the record "shed[] little light" on whether a 
reasonably prudent person would have acted as the negligent party 
did). 
¶24 Here, Eden traces its untimely application to an 
employee mistakenly answering "no" to the question on the Employer 
Registration Report asking if Eden had "acquired an activity from 
a 
previous 
employer." 
 
According 
to 
Eden, 
its 
employee 
misunderstood the question——due to his young age, inexperience, 
and lack of legal training——and therefore answered it incorrectly.  
Because of that mistake, the Department did not contact Eden 
regarding the Report of Business Transfer.  And because the 
Department did not alert it to that form, Eden did not return the 
form as its successorship application prior to the application 
deadline.  There are two problems with Eden's argument. 
¶25 First, the record contains only speculation about why 
Eden incorrectly answered the question of whether it acquired an 
activity from a previous employer.  Eden's owner——who was not the 
person who filled out the Employer Registration Report——testified 
No.  2020AP520 
16 
 
that there "might have been [a] misunderstanding or mistake on one 
of the questions" (emphasis added).  The record, however, contains 
no evidence that the employee who completed the form in fact 
misunderstood the question.  That employee did not testify, and 
the record contains no other evidence explaining why he answered 
the question "no."  See Connor, 243 Wis. 2d 279, ¶22.   
¶26 In the absence of the employee's direct testimony, Eden 
points to the employee's relatively young age, inexperience, and 
lack of legal training as sufficiently justifying his mistake.  To 
the extent that the employee's youth and inexperience contributed 
to his supposed confusion, a reasonably prudent person in the same 
situation——having no unemployment-insurance experience and not 
fully understanding the consequences of certain responses on the 
Employer Registration Report——would ask for help before submitting 
the document, or at least do additional research.  See Hansher, 79 
Wis. 2d at 391–92; 
Maier 
Constr., 
Inc. 
v. 
Ryan, 
81 
Wis. 2d 463, 474, 260 N.W.2d 700 (1978), overruled on other 
grounds by J.L. Phillips & Assocs., Inc. v. E & H Plastic Corp., 
217 Wis. 2d 348, 577 N.W.2d 13 (1998).  There is no evidence that 
Eden's employee did so.  Moreover, Eden has offered no explanation 
for why it directed someone so inexperienced and unfamiliar with 
Wisconsin's business-registration procedures to complete the 
Employer Registration Report.  See Carmain v. Affiliated Cap. 
Corp., 2002 WI App 271, ¶27, 258 Wis. 2d 378, 654 N.W.2d 265. 
¶27 Second, no matter how Eden completed the Employer 
Registration Report, it was still obligated to fulfill the 
successorship requirements under Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(b) and 
No.  2020AP520 
17 
 
Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 115.03.  It is true that had Eden answered 
"yes" to the question of whether it acquired a previous employer's 
activity, the Department likely would have contacted Eden and 
notified Eden of its obligation to file the Report of Business 
Transfer.  But the Department has no statutory duty to contact the 
employer.  Eden, on the other hand, has a statutory obligation to 
"notify the [D]epartment in writing" of both its business 
acquisition, Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(b)(k); Wis. Admin. Code 
§ DWD 115.03, and that it was applying to succeed the previous 
employer's 
unemployment-account 
experience, 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4.  Those obligations apply regardless of how an 
employer answers the questions in the Employer Registration Report 
or whether the Department alerts the employer to the Report of 
Business Transfer.16  Not to mention, anyone can find the Report 
of Business Transfer on the Department's public website. 
                                                 
16 For this same reason, the dissent's focus on the mechanism 
by which the Department contacts businesses who may be involved in 
a transfer is misplaced.  The Department could eliminate that 
voluntary process and Eden's statutory obligations would remain.  
Moreover, the dissent's argument that Eden was disadvantaged 
because it didn't know how the Department's process worked is self-
defeating.  If Eden had no idea that certain answers on the 
Employer Registration Report would have generated an alert from 
the Department, then it had no reason to wait for the Department 
to contact it before fulfilling its statutory requirements. 
The dissent also confusingly suggests that because Eden and 
Friendly Village's previous owner failed to comply with their joint 
requirement to notify the Department of the business transfer under 
§ 108.16(8)(k), the court should excuse Eden's failure to comply 
with the separate successorship-application requirements under 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4.  We fail to see why the previous owner's failure 
under para. (8)(k) is relevant or how Eden's two wrongs make a 
right. 
No.  2020AP520 
18 
 
¶28 Eden makes no specific argument for why, independent of 
its mistake on the Employer Registration Report, it failed to 
timely file its successorship application.  Rather, Eden urges 
generally that we should excuse its neglect because it was "not 
familiar with how the [unemployment-insurance] process worked" in 
Wisconsin.  But mere ignorance of the law, particularly in the 
area of one's business expertise, is not excusable neglect.  See 
Putnam v. Time Warner Cable, 2002 WI 108, ¶13 n.4, 255 Wis. 2d 447, 
649 N.W.2d 626 ("[E]very person is presumed to know the law and 
cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defense.").  Eden's owner 
testified that he was aware Wisconsin's laws may differ from 
Minnesota's (where Eden had exclusively conducted its previous 
business), but he "d[id]n't recall" speaking to anyone regarding 
what those differences might be.  A reasonably prudent business in 
these circumstances would have at least attempted to familiarize 
itself with Wisconsin's requirements before submitting official 
documentation to the Department.  See Edwards v. Kotlarek, 
No. 2009AP123, 
unpublished 
op., 
¶¶8–10 
(Wis. 
Ct. 
App. 
Aug. 31, 2010) (holding that a party's unfamiliarity with the law, 
without more, is not excusable neglect).  Eden could have contacted 
the Department directly for guidance or taken advantage of the 
Department's publicly available resources regarding new employers' 
unemployment-insurance responsibilities.  Indeed, Eden reached out 
to the Department after its deadline passed, but offers no reason 
for why it did not do so earlier. 
¶29 In sum, focusing on the Employer Registration Report 
distracts from the real issue——that Eden failed to timely file a 
No.  2020AP520 
19 
 
successorship 
application 
under 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4. 
 
As 
the 
Commission correctly concluded, nowhere does the record contain 
evidence of a reason for that failure that rises to the level of 
excusable neglect. 
IV 
¶30 We conclude that the Commission applied the correct 
legal standard.  The interests-of-justice factors are not part of 
the excusable-neglect analysis under Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(b)4.  
We further conclude that there is no basis in the record on which 
to excuse Eden's neglect in filing its successorship application 
after the statutory deadline.  The Department thus correctly 
rejected Eden's successorship application. 
By the Court.—The court of appeals' decision is affirmed. 
 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
1 
 
¶31 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.   (dissenting).  The Labor 
Industry Review Commission (LIRC) denied Friendly Village Nursing 
and Rehab, LLC (Friendly Village) successor status for the 
Department of Workforce Development (DWD) unemployment account 
experience of the business Friendly Village purchased because LIRC 
concluded that Friendly Village's untimely request to become a 
successor was not excusable.  Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(b)4.  Late 
filings that occur within 90 days of the DWD deadline are accepted 
if the totality of circumstances relative to the late filing meet 
the 
legal 
standard 
of 
excusable 
neglect. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4; Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 115.07(2)(a).   
¶32 In the case before us, the manner in which DWD programmed 
its response to answers to its online questions denied Friendly 
Village effective communication that would have facilitated 
Friendly Village's timely filing as a successor business.1  Stated 
otherwise, DWD's programming was a reasonable factual cause that 
contributed to Friendly Village's late filing.  In addition, 
Friendly Village's seller did not notify DWD of its sale as Wis. 
Stat. § 108.16(8)(k) required.  And finally, Friendly Village 
promptly filed corrected information with DWD.  Therefore, under 
the totality of circumstances, I conclude that Friendly Village 
proved excusable neglect.  Because the majority opinion follows 
LIRC's erroneous lead and does not review the totality of 
circumstances as is required, I respectfully dissent. 
                                                 
1 Program:  "to work out a sequence of operations to be 
performed by (a mechanism, such as a computer)."  Merriam Webster.  
Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/program (last visited Jan. 19, 
2022). 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
2 
 
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶33 On September 1, 2017, Friendly Village purchased a 
business from Rhinelander Healthcare Operator 150, and Northpoint 
Nursing and Rehab, LLC (Northpoint) purchased a business from Simon 
Oshkosh Properties, LLC.  Friendly Village and Northpoint are both 
operated by Eden Senior Care (Eden), whose nursing home 
rehabilitation business is new to Wisconsin.  As employers new to 
Wisconsin, both were required to register with DWD.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(k).  This can be accomplished with DWD's "Internet 
Employer Registration Report," also referred to herein as DWD's 
online report.2   
¶34 On August 9, 2017, in anticipation of closing on 
purchases of Friendly Village and Northpoint, an Eden employee 
completed the DWD online report for each facility.  The report had 
numerous questions.  The first question asked, "Did you acquire 
this activity from a previous employer?"  That question was 
answered "No" for both Friendly Village and Northpoint.  The second 
question on the report was, "Have you paid employees for work 
performed in Wisconsin?"  That question was answered "No," as well, 
for both facilities.  The third question asked, "Do you expect to 
pay wages for work performed in Wisconsin in the future?"  Both 
facilities answered "Yes" to this online report question.  
"Activity" was not defined in the online report, nor was there a 
statutory reference to Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8) that might link 
"activity" to a business purchase.   
                                                 
2 Transcript 
of 
Administrative 
Hearing 
Department 
of 
Workforce Development, Exhibit 5 (Oct. 3, 2018).   
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
3 
 
¶35 The Report of Business Transfer (ROBT) form differs from 
the online report and provides significant communication about 
options that a business new to Wisconsin should know.3  To explain 
further, the ROBT requires that each "Former Owner/Operator" and 
each "New Owner/Operator" sign a joint ROBT for each business 
transfer.  Wisconsin Stat. § 108.16(8)(k) also provides that "both 
the transferor and the transferee shall notify the department in 
writing of the transfer, within 30 days after the date of 
transfer."  In the matter before us, Friendly Village complied 
when it completed the online report, but the transferor to Friendly 
Village did not notify DWD of the transfer within 30 days.4   
¶36 ROBT 
provision 
5, 
contains 
"Options 
for 
New 
Owner/Operator," which instructs, "You may have an option to 
acquire the Unemployment Insurance experience of the former owner.  
An application to acquire this experience must be filed by the 
appropriate date.  See chart at right."  The ROBT permits a new 
owner to choose, "This is my application to acquire the account 
experience of the former owner."  The ROBT communicates that if 
the change of business ownership or operation occurs during the 
period of "July 1 to Sept. 30," the new owner should apply to 
transfer the account experience by January 31.   
                                                 
3 The ROBT form references Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8), which 
provides additional business-transfer information.   
4 It is possible, although the record is not clear, that the 
transferor to Northpoint did notify DWD of the transfer because 
DWD knew Northpoint was a new employer and tried to send Northpoint 
forms relative to becoming a successor to account experience.  
Transcript of Administrative Hearing Department of Workforce 
Development, Exhibit 6 (Oct. 3, 2018).   
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
4 
 
¶37 And finally, ROBT provision 8 is labeled "Continuation 
of Business" and it asks, "Has the new owner/operator continued to 
operate the same business activity without interruption?"  To 
which, the Eden employee answered, "Yes" for Friendly Village.  
Provision 8 also asks, "Has the new owner/operator continued to 
operate the same business activity in the same location?"  Again, 
the query was answered, "Yes."  The questions and answers provide 
the necessary factual foundation for Friendly Village and 
Northpoint to succeed to the prior owners/operators unemployment 
account experiences.   
¶38 DWD rejected Friendly Village's ROBT, but it accepted 
Northpoint's ROBT, which also was filed late but reviewed by a 
different DWD employee.5  Friendly Village asked for an 
administrative review, which DWD provided.   
¶39 Chelsea Church, the DWD employee who reviewed Friendly 
Village's request to conclude that its late filing was due to 
excusable neglect, testified at the administrative hearing.  She 
explained how the DWD online report operated as part of DWD's 
                                                 
5 Initially, DWD rejected Northpoint's request to become a 
successor for its seller's unemployment account experience.  On 
February 27, 2018, Northpoint appealed stating, "I am writing to 
appeal the initial determination made that Northpoint Nursing and 
Rehab LLC . . . is not the successor to the Wisconsin Unemployment 
Reserve account of Simon Oshkosh Properties LLC."  The Eden 
employee said that his requests for information had been sent to 
the former management company on 11/06/2017 and 12/06/2017, rather 
than Eden Senior Care.  Daniel McHugh of DWD responded to 
Northpoint, saying that "I should be able to process this without 
processing the appeal.  It was late, but this seems to be 
'excusable neglect' and I should be able to approve it."  
Transcript of Administrative Hearing Department of Workforce 
Development, Exhibit 6 (Oct. 3, 2018).  
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
5 
 
"system."  She explained that if the first question of the report 
had been answered yes, "then after they submitted this registration 
online, they'll receive a notification from our system that they 
need to complete their Report of Business Transfer form."6  She 
also explained that with a "yes" answer to the first online report 
question, "our department receives notification that we need start 
a transfer investigation, and they would start contacting them for 
that."7  On cross-examination, she also explained that there was 
nothing in the online report that directed the person completing 
it to the ROBT.8  She explained, "It only does that if the employer 
answers yes to that question, the --– did you acquire this activity 
from a previously employer question, otherwise, it does not."9 
¶40 Rostislav Pukshansky, an owner of Friendly Village, also 
testified.  He said that Jesse Pukshansky completed the online 
report for Friendly Village.  He explained that Jesse is 22 years 
old and had no legal education or experience with DWD.  As part of 
his testimony, Mr. Pukshansky also presented a communication that 
concluded that Northpoint's late filing was accepted based on a 
determination that the lateness was due to excusable neglect.    
¶41 Mr. Pukshansky never received any communication from DWD 
or from the seller, Rhinelander Healthcare Operator, regarding 
successor status or an ROBT application.  He was provided with a 
                                                 
6 Transcript 
of 
Administrative 
Hearing, 
Department 
of 
Workforce Development, at 21 (Oct. 3, 2018).   
7 Id.   
8 Id. at 24. 
9 Id. 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
6 
 
ROBT form in early March of 2018 after he reached out to DWD with 
questions about what he had heard about Northpoint's experience.  
He was told he could still apply to become a successor to the 
seller's account experience and to write a letter, as Northpoint 
had, explaining why the ROBT filing was late.  He testified that 
he called the contact for the seller that same day and asked him 
to complete the seller's part of the ROBT.10  The seller did so.11  
It was that joint ROBT that Friendly Village filed with DWD on 
March 13, 2018.     
¶42 Mr Pukshansky also testified about his call with 
Ms. Church.  "I remember she confirmed that there hadn't been any 
forms sent by the unemployment office for the Rhinelander/Friendly 
Village sale.  We both figured out maybe because of the way the 
registration was filled out by Jesse initially, there might have 
been misunderstanding or mistake on one of the questions."12  After 
their discussion, he submitted a letter explaining why the ROBT 
                                                 
10 Id. at 36. 
11 Id. at 38. 
12 Id. at 40.  Later, on redirect, Ms. Church confirmed that 
Northpoint's answer to the first report question had been, "no," 
just as Friendly Village had answered its first report question.  
She also explained that a second report had been submitted for 
Northpoint on March 8, 2018, and in that report, Northpoint 
answered the first question, "yes."  Ms. Church explained that 
March 8th "was about the same time as [her] activity with, uh, 
Mr. [Pukshansky] was going on regarding Friendly Village."  She 
further explained that March 8, 2018 was after DWD's March 6, 2018 
grant 
of 
successorship 
to 
Northpoint. 
 
Transcript 
of 
Administrative Hearing Department of Workforce Development, at 53-
54 (Oct. 3, 2018). 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
7 
 
was late, and he asked her "to grant the excusable neglect 
exception in a similar basis as the North Point facility."13  
¶43 After a full evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law 
Judge determined that Friendly Village's late filing was due to 
excusable neglect; and therefore, its ROBT should be accepted.  
LIRC reversed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, without 
taking any additional testimony and without conferring with the 
Administrative Law Judge.14   
¶44 LIRC concluded that because the Eden employee who 
completed the online report did not appear to testify, "[t]here 
thus is no competent evidence establishing the nature of his error, 
such that a finder of fact could conclude that the error was 
excusable."15  The issue, however, is whether the totality of 
circumstances relative to the late filing fulfilled the legal 
standard 
for 
excusable 
neglect 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4.  This includes the factual background for the 
late filing and subsequent actions taken by Friendly Village in 
regard to becoming the successor of its seller's unemployment 
account experience.  As I explain below, it is the undisputed facts 
applied to the statutory standard that drives the question of law 
that controls this case.  LIRC did not apply the correct standard 
of review because it thought excusable neglect was a finding of 
                                                 
13 Id. at 41.  
14 Rhinelander 
Healthcare 
Operator 
150, 
LLC 
Employer/Transferor Friendly Village Nursing and Rehab, LLC, 
Employer/Transferee, No. S1800077MD, slip op. at 2 (April 24, 
2019).   
15 Id. at 3. 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
8 
 
fact and that it could be shown only by testimony from Jesse 
Pukshansky that relayed what he was thinking when he completed 
DWD's online report.    
¶45 Friendly Village appealed LIRC's determination.  The 
circuit court affirmed LIRC, as did the court of appeals.   
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Standard of Review 
¶46 The Administrative Law Judge concluded that excusable 
neglect had been shown for Friendly Village's late ROBT filing.  
LIRC concluded the opposite.16  Whether excusable neglect has been 
shown requires us to determine whether the uncontested facts 
fulfill 
the 
statutory 
standard 
set 
out 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4.  This determination presents a question of law, 
Brown v. LIRC, 2003 WI 142, ¶11, 267 Wis. 2d 31, 671 N.W.2d 279; 
Johns v. County of Oneida, 201 Wis. 2d 600, 605, 549 N.W.2d 269 
(Ct. App. 1996), which we review independently.  Tetra Tech EC, 
Inc. v. DOR, 2018 WI 75, ¶84, 382 Wis. 2d 496, 914 N.W.2d 21.   
B.  Excusable Neglect 
¶47 Excusable neglect is not an easy legal principle to 
apply.  It appears in a number of different statutes to be used in 
a number of different contexts.  For example, Wis. Stat. 
§ 801.15(2)(a), which employs excusable neglect, often is 
discussed in opinions involving default judgments when a filing 
deadline has been missed.  See e.g., Hedtcke v. Sentry Ins. Co., 
109 Wis. 2d 461, 468, 326 N.W.2d 727 (1982).  
                                                 
16 We review LIRC's decision not that of the circuit court or 
the court of appeals.  Operton v. LIRC, 2017 WI 46, ¶18, 375 
Wis. 2d 1, 894 N.W.2d 426.   
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
9 
 
¶48 In regard to LIRC's decision on a transferee's successor 
status when the transferee's application is received late, 
excusable neglect is driven by Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8), which 
provides in relevant part: 
(b)  If 
the 
business 
of 
any 
employer 
is 
transferred, the transferee is deemed a successor for 
purposes of this chapter if the department determines 
that all of the following conditions have been 
satisfied: 
. . . . 
4.  The 
department 
has 
received 
a 
written 
application from the transferee requesting that it be 
deemed a successor.  Unless the transferee satisfies the 
department that the application was late as a result of 
excusable neglect, the application must be received by 
the department on or before the contribution payment due 
date for the first full quarter following the date of 
the transfer.  The department shall not accept a late 
application under this subdivision more than 90 days 
after its due date.[17] 
§ 108.16(8)(b).  All agree that Friendly Village met all the 
criteria to become a successor to Rhinelander Healthcare Operator 
150's unemployment account experience, except for its tardy filing 
of the ROBT.   
¶49 Whether the undisputed facts fulfill "excusable neglect" 
for the late filing of Friendly Village's ROBT pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 108.16(8)(b)4. is central to this controversy.  The 
majority 
opinion 
does 
not 
cite 
a 
decision 
interpreting 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4., and I could find none.  The majority opinion 
                                                 
17 Wisconsin Admin. Code § DWD 115.07(2)(a) contains a similar 
directive:  "The department shall accept a late application 
received no more than 90 days after its due date if the transferee 
satisfies the department that the application was late as a result 
of excusable neglect." 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
10 
 
simply concludes Friendly Village had an obligation to timely file 
a ROBT and it did not meet it.18   
¶50 I conclude that a plain reading of Wis. Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(b)4. requires that a reasonable factual cause must 
contribute to filing the ROBT late in order to constitute excusable 
neglect.  This conclusion is consistent with employing a reasonable 
factual cause as a contributing factor for excusable neglect in 
other contexts.   
¶51 For example, applying Wis. Stat. § 801.15(2)(a), we 
concluded in Hedtcke that "the first step is to determine if there 
are reasonable grounds for the noncompliance with the statutory 
time period (excusable neglect)."  Id.  We also reasoned that a 
court must "be aware of the effects of an order denying or granting 
relief."  Id. at 469.  That is, what effect would the court's 
decision have on both parties.   
¶52 Wisconsin courts have defined excusable neglect as 
"conduct that 'might have been the act of a reasonably prudent 
person under the same circumstances.'"  Binsfeld v. Conrad, 2004 
WI App 77, ¶23, 272 Wis. 2d 341, 679 N.W.2d 851.  In Binsfeld where 
a motion for default judgment was lodged against Conrad, Conrad 
responded that he should not be subject to a default judgment 
because confusion was caused, in part, by Binsfeld's counsel.  
Conrad relayed that when the insurance company's representative 
asked counsel for Binsfeld for the answer's due date, he said that 
he would get back to him but never did.  Id., ¶27.  In considering 
the totality of circumstances that bear on excusable neglect, the 
                                                 
18 Majority op., ¶¶27, 28. 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
11 
 
court concluded that "ineffective communication" had occurred 
thereby supporting the legal conclusion of excusable neglect.  Id., 
¶30.  
¶53 In the matter before us, I consider the totality of 
circumstances that contributed to Friendly Village's late filing.  
First, when Friendly Village attempted to register as an employer 
with DWD by completing DWD's online report, the first question did 
not ask about the purchase of a business.  Instead it asked, "Did 
you acquire this activity from a previous employer?"  Because 
Friendly Village answered that question, "No," DWD's report was 
programmed not to communicate with Friendly Village about 
successor status, as it would have if the answer to that question 
had been "Yes."19   
¶54 If DWD had contacted Friendly Village as a new employer, 
effective communication would have facilitated Friendly Village's 
timely filing.  Also, Friendly Village's seller did not report the 
sale of its business to DWD within 30 days of the September 1, 
2017 sale as Wis. Stat. § 108.16(8)(k) required.  If it had done 
so, DWD would have known about Friendly Village as a new employer, 
as apparently DWD did with Northpoint.  Therefore, ineffective 
communications from DWD due to DWD's programming of the online 
report and the seller, who did not comply with § 108.16(8)(k) were 
contributing causes of Friendly Village's late filing because both 
resulted in limiting DWD's communication of necessary information 
to Friendly Village.  Id. 
                                                 
19 Transcript of Administrating Hearing, Department of 
Workforce Development, at 21 (Oct. 3, 2018). 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
12 
 
¶55 Second, Friendly Village corrected its late filing as 
soon as it learned what it should do.  Mr. Pukshansky explained 
that he learned about successor status in late February 2018 when 
he heard about Northport's experience.20  He testified that he 
called DWD and learned of the ROBT and that both Friendly Village 
and its seller had to sign it.  He called his contact with the 
seller that same day, asked him to sign the ROBT, and sent him the 
form.21  When the seller returned the signed ROBT, Mr. Pukshansky 
promptly filed it with DWD.22  Prompt corrective action is 
supportive of concluding that excusable neglect has been shown.  
Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. Wiegel, 92 Wis. 2d 498, 512, 
285 N.W.2d 720 (1979) (directing that in "determining whether the 
'reasonably prudent person' standard has been met, the trial court 
should consider whether the person has acted promptly to remedy 
his situation").    
¶56 The majority opinion quotes excerpts from Black's Law 
Dictionary that defines excusable neglect as, "A failure——which 
the law will excuse——to take some proper step at the proper 
time . . . not 
because 
of 
the 
party's 
own 
carelessness, 
inattention, or willful disregard . . . but because of some 
unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or accident."23  Although I do 
                                                 
20 Transcript of Administrative Hearing, Department of 
Workforce Development, at 50 (Oct. 3, 2018). 
21 Id. at 36. 
22 Id. at 38.   
23 Majority op., ¶21 n.15; Black's Law Dictionary, 1133 (9th 
ed).   
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
13 
 
not agree with the majority opinion's ultimate conclusion, I have 
no problem with Black's definition.   
¶57 In the matter before us, the majority opinion does not 
seem to have a clue about why Friendly Village was a victim of 
DWD's computer program that underlies its online report.  This is 
surprising because as explained by Ms. Church in her testimony at 
the 
administrative 
hearing, 
the 
report 
controls 
whether 
communication about filing a ROBT will be sent from DWD's "system" 
to a new Wisconsin employer.  It also controls whether DWD will 
receive notice so that it will begin contacting the new employer.   
¶58 Friendly Village had no knowledge of DWD's programming 
and how it impacted effective communication between DWD and 
Friendly Village, nor is it reasonable to expect that as a new 
employer it should have had such knowledge.  Accordingly, the 
reason for Jesse Pukshansky's answering the first question "No" 
does not matter.  Whatever his reason, communication from DWD to 
Friendly Village would be the same:  no communication because of 
the program's response to a "No" answer.24   
¶59 The Administrative Law Judge who heard Ms. Church's 
testimony concluded that given an employee inexperienced with DWD 
completed the online report, excusable neglect for the late filing 
had been shown.  LIRC reversed.25 
                                                 
24 I hope that DWD reads this dissent and revises its program 
for the online report so that sending ROBT filing information and 
departmental-successor contacts occur for all new employers who 
complete DWD's online report.   
25 LIRC decision at 3.   
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
14 
 
¶60 Although LIRC's opinion shows it likely knew how the 
online report program functioned, its decision ignores how 
critical that knowledge was to effectively completing the online 
report.  Its decision also seems to presume that the employee who 
completed Friendly Village's online report should have known what 
results would be generated by DWD's system if question one were 
answered "Yes."  The record contains nothing to support such a 
presumption.   
¶61 DWD set up the online report through its Bureau of Tax 
and Accounting – Tax Unit.  How the report is programmed and 
functions is beyond the control and knowledge of those who complete 
the report for the first time.  Ms. Church may not have understood 
the underlying programming, but she knew how the online program 
worked, as her testimony showed.   
¶62 There is no way that the Eden employee who was new to 
Wisconsin and completed DWD's online report would know, or should 
know, that a "No" answer to the first online report question would 
deny Friendly Village communications from DWD that would 
facilitate its registration as an employer with successor status.  
Rather, the failures of DWD to send necessary information and to 
begin its business transfer investigation resulted from the way in 
which DWD's online report is programmed.  The resulting 
"ineffective communication" from DWD was a contributing cause of 
Friendly 
Village's 
late 
filing, 
just 
as 
"ineffective 
communication" contributed to the court of appeals' conclusion of 
excusable neglect in Binsfeld. 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
15 
 
¶63 Accordingly, because the programming of DWD's online 
report set up the chain of events that resulted in Friendly 
Village's tardy filing of its ROBT, together with the seller's 
failing to register the business sale and Friendly Village's prompt 
efforts at correcting its tardy filing, I conclude that the 
statutory standard for excusable neglect has been met.  Friendly 
Village was not careless.  Rather, the online report created an 
unexpected hindrance to an employer who did not know that the 
report provided differing assistance to the employer as the result 
of differing answers to the first report question.   
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶64 In the case before us, the manner in which DWD programmed 
its response to answers to its online questions denied Friendly 
Village effective communication that would have facilitated 
Friendly Village's timely filing as a successor business.  Stated 
otherwise, DWD's programming was a reasonable factual cause that 
contributed to Friendly Village's late filing.  In addition, 
Friendly Village's seller did not notify DWD as Wis. Stat. 
§ 108.16(8)(k) required.  And finally, Friendly Village promptly 
filed corrected information with DWD.  Therefore, under the 
totality of circumstances, I conclude that Friendly Village proved 
excusable neglect.  Because the majority opinion follows LIRC's 
erroneous lead and does not review the totality of circumstances 
as is required, I respectfully dissent. 
¶65 I am authorized to state that Chief Justice ANNETTE 
KINGSLAND ZIEGLER and Justice REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY join this 
dissent. 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
2 
 
 
No.  2020AP520.pdr 
 
1