Section 440.20 - Disciplinary proceedings(1) Any person may file a complaint before the department or any examining board, affiliated credentialing board or board in the department and request the department, examining board, affiliated credentialing board or board to commence disciplinary proceedings against any holder of a credential.(3) The burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings before the department or any examining board, affiliated credentialing board or board in the department is a preponderance of the evidence.(4)(a) The department or appropriate examining board, affiliated credentialing board, or board in the department may reprimand the holder of a credential or deny, limit, suspend, or revoke the credential of any person who intentionally violates s. 252.14(2) or intentionally discloses the results of a blood test in violation of s. 252.15(3m) (b) or (f) or (5m) .(b) The grounds for discipline specified under par. (a) are in addition to any grounds for discipline specified in chs. 440 to 480.(5)(a) The department, or the appropriate credentialing board or other board in the department, may reprimand a credential holder, or may deny, limit, suspend, or revoke a credential, if the credential holder fails to respond, to the satisfaction of the department, credentialing board, or other board in the department, within 30 days to a request for information from the department, credentialing board, or other board in the department in connection with an investigation of alleged misconduct of the credential holder.(b) The grounds for discipline specified under par. (a) are in addition to any grounds for discipline specified in chs. 440 to 480.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 331,s 80, eff. 4/18/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 331,s 79, eff. 4/18/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 331,s 78, eff. 4/18/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 331,s 77, eff. 4/18/2018.Amended by Acts 2013 ch, 124,s 25, eff. 1/25/2014.1977 c. 418; 1979 c. 34; 1985 a. 29; 1989 a. 31, 201; 1991 a. 39; 1993 a. 16, 27, 102, 107, 490; 2009 a. 209. The constitutionality of sub. (3) is upheld. Gandhi v. Medical Examining Board, 168 Wis. 2d 299, 483 N.W.2d 295 (Ct. App. 1992). Laches is not available in any proceeding brought by the state in its sovereign capacity to protect a public right. A disciplinary proceeding is brought by the state in its sovereign capacity to protect a right of the public-the right to have licensed psychologists comply with the requirements of their licenses. Stein v. WI Psychology Examining Board, 2003 WI App 147, 265 Wis. 2d 781, 668 N.W.2d 112, 02-2726. A hearing is not required for a complaint filed under this section. 68 Atty. Gen. 30. The "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof under sub. (3) does not violate the due process rights of a licensee. 75 Atty. Gen. 76.